This deal is no good either

[Thomas]

She probably will. Her majority fell from a hell of a lot to only 900 in 2017 and that was in Doris' election. So I imagine that Ms Cherry will be doing whatever she can to get back into a bit of legal business.

You think?



Yet all the polls not only have joanna cherry holding her edinburgh seat , but the snp taking every single tory seat in scotland and wiping labour out in the process bar maybe one.



You cant keep harking back to one election in 2017 because the snp vote share went down borkie. I know you are desperately hoping the snp disappear out of exsitence , and scotland goes back to being a good little british kingdom , but the fact remains the snp have 45% of scotland to choose from  , and rising , and they arent going anywhere fast.



Your problem is there are three unionist parties fighting over 55% or less of the vote , and each dividing up the union vote , while we have the 45 % more or less to ourselves. Thats what gave the incredible result of 2015 when we took 56/59 scot mps.



From memory there are about 30 scottish seats poised on a knife edge , the tories winning any seats depends on who scottish unionists see as the best bet in keeping us in the union.



Add brexit into the mix , and unionism is on a severe shoogly peg.7/10 scots support the eu on latest polls and remaining.

[Thomas]

Thomas, do you think Joanne Cherry will go to the courts to prevent Scotland leaving? It might be a runner, considering the 62% remain vote.

Not sure barry to be honest.

[T00ts]

She probably will. Her majority fell from a hell of a lot to only 900 in 2017 and that was in Doris' election. So I imagine that Ms Cherry will be doing whatever she can to get back into a bit of legal business.

Gosh I never thought of that - just honing skills. So there could be a posse of them on both sides looking into the mire of ordinary life. No wonder they keep running to the courts.

[Borchester]

Thomas, do you think Joanne Cherry will go to the courts to prevent Scotland leaving? It might be a runner, considering the 62% remain vote.

She probably will. Her majority fell from a hell of a lot to only 900 in 2017 and that was in Doris' election. So I imagine that Ms Cherry will be doing whatever she can to get back into a bit of legal business.

[Barry]

Thomas, do you think Joanne Cherry will go to the courts to prevent Scotland leaving? It might be a runner, considering the 62% remain vote.

[Thomas]

If England is out, so are you in Scotland. But you might get back in, soon.  :hattip

You hope barry is what you mean.



Hope is a word that has eluded both of us  , and it looks again here we are on the cusp of yet another brexit deadline and hope is about to fade for you again.



Your problem is getting england out in the first place , then dragging scotland with you , and if you get that far , keeping us shackled in your union. a tall order.



I have no doubt brexit and scottish indy will both happen , eventually , but its going to be a long winding road to get there.



Meanwhile ,i hate to say it but i think its not looking too good for brexiters in 11 days time.

[T00ts]

When/if the new WA legislation comes before the Commons next week it will be amendable. So the threats so far are a 2nd Ref, but then a customs union change and even a single market. If the remainers are determined to make our exit more like remain and there is a majority - how can that be right?

[Barry]

Still all good fun , i wonder if england will still be in the eu when i have my pint down the pub the night after halloween.?

If England is out, so are you in Scotland. But you might get back in, soon.  :hattip

[Cassie]

I hope he doesn't get a deal with a referendum attached to it, if they don't vote for the deal as it is, I think we deserve a General Election.

[Thomas]

As far as I can see, Mrs May's deal meant that there were grey  areas where EU law over rode UK law.



BoJo's deal means that the conflict between the two systems is restricted to Ulster. Otherwise and else where UK law reigns supreme.



Ulster has a population less than 3% that of the UK as a whole, so to my way of thinking we have gotten more than 97% of what we want, which suggests that Boris has gotten a good deal.

Not really borkie , because as you know , sorry to be pedantic but its an important point , there is no such thing as uk law outwith the minds of journalists and their british propaganda.



Secondly , the 97% dont want the same thing , so they havent got what they want.



Not only are there internal divisions in your country  but the way i see it , northern ireland has got what it wants , england and wales have got what they want , and scotland yet again hasnt.



I do agree from your perspective  , it is probably the best deal you are going to get , and johnson has worked wonders in getting it.



Still all good fun , i wonder if england will still be in the eu when i have my pint down the pub the night after halloween.?



Not looking too good for you borkie i have to say. It looks the best you can hope for is johnsons deal getting voted through with a referendum attached to it.

[T00ts]

As far as I can see, Mrs May's deal meant that there were grey  areas where EU law over rode UK law.



BoJo's deal means that the conflict between the two systems is restricted to Ulster. Otherwise and else where UK law reigns supreme.



Ulster has a population less than 3% that of the UK as a whole, so to my way of thinking we have gotten more than 97% of what we want, which suggests that Boris has gotten a good deal.

So when the pundits etc tell us it's worse than May's - they're lying? Or is it just perspective?

[Borchester]

As far as I can see, Mrs May's deal meant that there were grey  areas where EU law over rode UK law.



BoJo's deal means that the conflict between the two systems is restricted to Ulster. Otherwise and else where UK law reigns supreme.



Ulster has a population less than 3% that of the UK as a whole, so to my way of thinking we have gotten more than 97% of what we want, which suggests that Boris has gotten a good deal.

[cromwell]

If there was a referendum, I'm pretty sure everyone would want to hold it as quickly as possible.  As I understand it, there is already legislation in place in the UK for how referendums need to be held, and it includes various things like a minimum amount of time for deciding and consulting on what the actual question is, then an actual bill has to be passed in parliament for the referendum itself to be held, and then there would be a minimum amount of time for campaigning.



That mean that under current legislation I think the minimum amount of time required to hold a referendum is about 5 months - this is not because of someone trying to delay and prevaricate but more because of the various minimum consultation periods involved.



If there is delay and prevarication that means it would be even longer than 5 months but that is the minimum under current UK constitution.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was longer because the key question about another referendum is what the question would be, and if for example it wasn't a binary referendum but one involving 3 or more choices, how the final decision would be made.  e.g. if it's remain against a deal, which deal - May's deal or Boris deal?  If it's remain against no deal, how can that work if parliament has already made no deal illegal?  If we want to choose between more than 2 choices, how would that be done without it looking like the winning choice only got 35% support?  How can the question be sufficiently neutral to not be leaving people?  There is always even an argument about which option is first on the paper as there is some evidence that people might assume the first option is the preferred one.  All these thing need to be analysed in detail.

What's the point when we've been repeatedly told it's only advisory?



Btw as an aside you said if we leave you'll be leaving the UK, your choice of course but you off to the eu? feel free to say sod off and mind your own business  :hattip

[Javert]

You saw it too! I was reluctantly impressed with him. I have often wondered about him and it's as you say a forensic mind. He certainly gave me food for thought, but again trust is missing, so I would be careful about believing every word he says.



If they pass an amendment adding a 2nd ref they will delay it for months. Then project fear will go into overdrive. I just wonder if many outside London would vote.

If there was a referendum, I'm pretty sure everyone would want to hold it as quickly as possible.  As I understand it, there is already legislation in place in the UK for how referendums need to be held, and it includes various things like a minimum amount of time for deciding and consulting on what the actual question is, then an actual bill has to be passed in parliament for the referendum itself to be held, and then there would be a minimum amount of time for campaigning.



That mean that under current legislation I think the minimum amount of time required to hold a referendum is about 5 months - this is not because of someone trying to delay and prevaricate but more because of the various minimum consultation periods involved.



If there is delay and prevarication that means it would be even longer than 5 months but that is the minimum under current UK constitution.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was longer because the key question about another referendum is what the question would be, and if for example it wasn't a binary referendum but one involving 3 or more choices, how the final decision would be made.  e.g. if it's remain against a deal, which deal - May's deal or Boris deal?  If it's remain against no deal, how can that work if parliament has already made no deal illegal?  If we want to choose between more than 2 choices, how would that be done without it looking like the winning choice only got 35% support?  How can the question be sufficiently neutral to not be leaving people?  There is always even an argument about which option is first on the paper as there is some evidence that people might assume the first option is the preferred one.  All these thing need to be analysed in detail.

[T00ts]

Kier Starmer, as an ex DPP has a forensic lawyer's mind and I found his speech in the Commons quite revealing. He also had quite a moment when Barclay had said what appeared to be false about a meeting where they had both been present. It's people like KS who would be a real threat to the Tories when Wurzel is out of the way after the election in November.

I've got more respect for KS than many Tories, but he would need a sensible team, instead of the current momentum led extremists, to do well for his party and country.

I think the deal might pass tomorrow, although there is bound to be some amendment or other. (2nd reffo anyone?).

You saw it too! I was reluctantly impressed with him. I have often wondered about him and it's as you say a forensic mind. He certainly gave me food for thought, but again trust is missing, so I would be careful about believing every word he says.



If they pass an amendment adding a 2nd ref they will delay it for months. Then project fear will go into overdrive. I just wonder if many outside London would vote.