their not all bad then. wonder how he will vote to enable art50 with our 56 thats one closer to binning it.
i knew that one would come up. so i came prepared. 2hrs 40 or 7.40am BBC Radio Scotland - Good Morning Scotland, 04/11/2016
So, out of the twenty smallest UK Parliamentary constituencies of 2015, in terms of voters, one English Seat appears - at No 20 :Jawdrop: Four English Seats in the Top 30 smallest constituencies :Wideyed: Eight in the Top 40 smallest. Getting better but of course, there aren't that many non-English seats left by then No. No reason. What is there that could I possibly deduce from such data?
Thanks for the link, which saved me searching for it. This judgment of the Lord Chief Justice is admirably clear, comprehensive, thorough, and conclusive, and is much as one expected. There is no chance that the Supreme Court would reach holdings significantly different from these. So why is the government appealing to the Supreme Court? Because it is a way of kicking the can down the road for a couple of months and postponing the time when Article 50 is triggered, whilst enabling Mrs May to blame somebody else (the judges) for the delay instead of herself. One has to say that the Attorney General (Jeremy Wright QC) did the best he could to put forward an indefensible case, as instructed by the government. He knew that it was obviously unwinnable (as shown by his absence from court yesterday when the judgment was delivered), just as he must know that an appeal to the Supreme Court is unwinnable (as shown by announcing the appeal immediately, without considering the rationale). Given that Jeremy Wright is a lightweight and has only been a QC since July 2016, he has been lumbered with an impossible burden and will no doubt be blamed and sacked in due course. One cannot help feeling some sympathy with him - but such is political life. It is quite amusing to observe the mental gymnastics of eurosceptics who have spent years arguing in favour of "restoring the sovereignty of Parliament" performing somersaults now to argue against allowing Parliament to vote (sic). Hypothetically one can consider what would have happened if David Cameron had high-handedly taken it upon himself to trigger Article 50 on 24 June, as many of us thought he would. In that case, the challenge to the legality of that exercise of prerogative power would have been retrospective instead of anticipatory. All the legal principles would be the same, but the practicalities would be more difficult.
Prerogative power does not stretch to negating acts of Parliament, nor to depriving British citizens of rights; only Parliament can do that.
how does ignoring the law progress the brexit argument? whats next to be ignored? slippery slope so it is.
no, i am saying a government trying to avoid the law is a slippery slope, you've been around westminster governance for to long. your becoming complacent. in a cant change it so why bother kind of way.
i'm afraid that wont cover yer bus fair north. thats the only way i think yer ever gonna change the way your country's governed :smileys:
