Forum menu
Does anyone else think its time she started naming to the “source in number 10” …
I think the time has come to name no10 sources, or refuse to let them set the agenda. All this throwing of shade and misinformation, followed by plausible deniability from the PM and other no10 sources, shouldn’t be enabled by the BBC, no.
its pretty clear that one is cummings.
That's fairly obvious. There is absolutely nothing coming out of number 10 that hasn't been approved by him. If it's making it into the public domain then its because he wants it out there.
They know the full impact of yesterdays decision, they know there's not much they can do about it, so they're fuelling their 'enemies of the people' narrative
It is a very, very dangerous game to be playing, but unfortunately fairly typical to their casual disregard for all previous conventions and their flippant attitude to the potential consequences
I wonder if kuenssberg's source is de pfedfel himself and it's all pillow talk.
(Yes, yes, we all know it's really Cummings, but think of the drama....)
He'll back in country soon and she can stroke his knee in a sympathetic fashion.
I realise it's a convention to say "source", but "Number 10" is the government. They've just been handed their arse by the judiciary and told that effectively they tried to take power which was not theirs to take from parliament (a "constitutional coup" as some might put it).
Popping up anonymously via the BBC and accusing the court of bias and political interference should have consequences.
EDIT for clarity, As binners said, this is a dangerous game, and they shouldn't be allowed to play it anonymously with the aid of the press while we're paying for it.
PS, probably not the best place to ask, but can JRM (or boris) get the heave-ho from the privy council?
It obviously wouldn't bring an end to all of this but it would blunt the haunted pencil in a very satisfying way.
I see even the man-toad believes the 31st is now unworkable and a GE will be forthcoming during the extension period.
Ms Joanne Cherry isn't saying anything:
"Generally speaking we're not supposed to say specifically in advance what we've lodged an urgent question on," the SNP's justice spokeswoman, Joanna Cherry QC told Sky News.
"But I would be very surprised if there aren't urgent questions about the nature of the legal advice that was given to Boris Johnson about the proroguing of parliament.
"And in addition to questions about Brexit there will also probably be questions about the collapse of Thomas Cook and questions about Liz Truss's unlawful activity in flouting the law against arms sales to Saudi Arabia."
Addendum:
I see that "vox pop" reporting (A.K.A. "triple A reporting" or "Ask Any Asshole") is also getting a kicking this morning on twitter.
Maybe its time to call time on that pish as well.
Exception for the French reporter who got David Allen Green (constitutional law expert) yesterday by accident 🙂
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1176533793194303490
Maybe its time to call time on that pish as well.
Yeah, we must have surely got to the point where every leave voter in Stoke (the constituency with the highest leave vote in the country, which we apparently need re-telling 19 times a day) has been on telly being asked their opinion on Brexit for at least the 900th time
I blame Michael Gove
It gets betterer (just saw this):
Joanna Cherry QC MP and her team have not finished with Johnson yet.
They have a further Court Case coming up - namely if Johnson chooses to ignore the law and refuses to ask for Extension to Article 50 if he comes home on 18 October with No Deal - that the Scottish Courts can sign it on his behalf and present it to the EU as the legal stance of the UK Government!
Bear in mind Scots law applies.
The SNP are trying very hard to encourage Boris to boot Scotland out of the Union IMO.
The illegal has landed....
He looks a bit lonely on those stairs...
So on the back of the high court ruling that the prorogation was illegal and hence null and void, does this cancel the Queens speech?
Yes it does.
Attorney General Geoffrey Cox is on his feet in a parliament defending his legal advice and Johnsons Prorogation.
I've never heard pompous, blustering bullshit like it.
Ta, strange because I’m sure I saw on the BBC a calendar with it still there.
Geoffrey Cox is a symbol of all that is wrong with this country. To quote Little Britain " what he needs is a big b***k cock up his @rse"
I’ve never heard pompous, blustering bullshit like it.
Yes he appeared quite reasonable to start with but then went full on bluster calling the opposition cowards for failing to submit a VONC or agree to a GE, clearly referencing the political game playing of no GE until an Extension is agreed. Seemingly ignoring the government's political gameplay of proroguing parliament to ensure a no-deal exit could occur without further scrutiny. "Sauce for the goose" springs to mind.
Oh he did state definitely that he Benn bill will be complied with. So what's the next Tory move?
Corbyn is now in favour of FOM .
Does that give us access to the single market?
Ta, strange because I’m sure I saw on the BBC a calendar with it still there
Cancelled with immediate effect.
Tory conference is coming up though so maybe that's what you read?
Corbyn is now in favour of FOM.
Where did you hear that? There were attempts to get it agreed to as policy at conference, but it kept going missing.
Does that give us access to the single market?
It’s required yes, and has lots of other (positive) knock on effects as regards replacement EEA type arrangements after we are no longer EU members.
Labour conference was in favour of almost every other SNP policy that they've previously opposed so it wouldn't surprise me if they've adopted that too.
If we have to leave ,as long as we are in the single market and have freedom of movement I can live with that.
Tory conference is coming up though so maybe that’s what you read?
I think I read parliament will have to vote on a recess for the Tory conference. Could get amusing.
.
If we have to leave ,as long as we are in the single market and have freedom of movement I can live with that.
If Labour can move to EEA style Brexit vs Membership as referendum questions… well, that would be lovely.
scotroutes
Member
Labour conference was in favour of almost every other SNP policy that they’ve previously opposed so it wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve adopted that too.
This is hilarious. For so long anything the SNP wanted to do in holyrood was immediately opposed by scottish labour ( the Bain principle) It did give rise to ludicrous situations where SNP and english labour had identical policies but scottish labour opposed them in holyrood.
Now it looks like a bunch more of policies the SNP promote or indeed have enacted become english labour policy. I wonder in scottish labour will still oppose.
The realjoke / irritation in all this is actually as modern social democratic parties there is very little between the SNP and labour on policy matters and philosophy but labour have never forgiven the SNP for taking power and have been obstructionist and hypocritical in holyrood - and the electorate have seen this and punished them for it
Oh yeah, that’s why, literally nobody was talking about east Asia. Nice try but no dice.
Interesting to see that only one being Asian is now two being east Asian. Its almost like you’re just saying any old bollocks that comes into your head
How many countries in the Middle East are considered to be part of the Spanish/Portuguese or French Empires? The answer is none for the first two and only one for the latter. So yes, when we are talking about the influence of Catholic empire on Asia - we are very much talking about east Asia.
Stop playing the man - I’m open to hearing any counter argument of yours.
If Labour can move to EEA style Brexit vs Membership as referendum questions… well, that would be lovely.
Thats been the position for ages. renegotiate without mays red lines then put the outcome to a referendum
Its still stupid mind you IMO but its one position that just might bring the country back together - BINO. Keep the leavers happyish and also the remainers.
Rayban - yo were clearly wrong on both the asian geography and the english exceptionalism - and the discussion has moved on. Learn from my mistakes and drop it
Thats been the position for ages. renegotiate without mays red lines then put the outcome to a referendum
While that may be sort-of true in a typically vague Cobynite fudgy fashion, they always still maintained that ending freedom of movement was one of their red lines that was the same as Mays. It clearly, unambiguously stated it as official policy on their website
Ending freedom of movement was the one aspect of labour Brexit policy (such as it is) that I found the most mystifying. And let's face it, the whole thing has always been a confusing mess, but this one aspect never made any sense
If we have to leave ,as long as we are in the single market and have freedom of movement I can live with that.
I'd agree with that too. I suspect getting that through parliament may be a challenge though.
Thats been the position for ages.
No, it hasn’t. Three line whips against it, and stated policy has been to end freedom of movement. I’m really excited to see how todays vote gets reflected in Labour Brexit policy (and immigration policy more generally). If the Brexit option for a referendum includes FoM and Single Market, not just Customs alignment, then it really could get mainstream support at the upcoming election.
Rayban – yo were clearly wrong on both the asian geography and the english exceptionalism – and the discussion has moved on. Learn from my mistakes and drop it
So you are denying that the Spanish/Catholic system imposed on certain countries produced a different outcome for those subjected to it - in comparison to those that weren’t?
Thats been the position for ages.
That being the case, why the move at conference?
It is still listed on their website as official policy Uncle Jezza
Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union. Britain’s immigration system will change, but Labour will not scapegoat migrants nor blame them for economic failures.
Fairy unambiguous, that
and stated policy has been to end freedom of movement.
NOt by my understanding - the only thing I have seen is " once we leave the EU freedom of movement will end" which is a statement of fact not a negotiating aim.
So can you quote where labour policy has been to ensure freedom of movement ends? all I have seen is renegotiate without mays red lines which is what gets called red unicorns by Binners et al
Scotroutes - clarity?
This has all been done TJ. Go back in the thread and have a look. IIRC it was all in replies to you then.
Anyway, welcome news today from the Labour conference. Good to finish on such a positive note. And not just for Brexit reasons.
which is what gets called red unicorns by Binners et al
We've been over this countless times. The rules and freedoms of EU membership are indivisible. You can't cherrypick. It's that simple
So you can't end freedom of movement - which is stated Labour policy - but retain access to the single market and the customs union
Hence - Red Unicorns
Let's not do this again please, eh?
Let's just agree that if labour policy has changed re: freedom of movement, then Jeremy's policy is looking less unicorn-based and may be starting to address reality, which is certainly progress
which is stated Labour policy
Not for long!
😻
Geoffrey Cox showboating in parliament is funny
but hes looking like a fool
gave bad advice to Johnson
AND voted for the fixed term parliament act, he now hates
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2011-01-18-175-commons/mp/11541
I still want to see where it is started labour policy to end freedom of movement rather than an acceptance of fact if we leave the EU - because nowhere at no time have I seen " laboutr policy is to end freedom of movement" The nearest I have seen is ( to paraphrase) we need to control unfettered freedom of movement - which of course is possible while remaining in the SM and CU
But yes - its old ground.
Let's not do it again. The fact that it's open to different interpretations says it all about labours 'constructive ambiguity' policy
Let's hope this is an end to that
TJ - mr evidence man...
Pages 11 and 15 to 16. Protestant countries are less corrupt than catholic countries, Asian ethnorelgions are less corrupt than both (to make this clear - the authors are talking about East Asian religions - not Middle Eastern ones).
ftp://ftp.econ.au.dk/afn/wp/99/wp99_21.pdf
Tribal religions associated with less corruption than Catholicism.