Jump to content


Established Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


snowychap last won the day on September 5

snowychap had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8,328 Excellent

About snowychap

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

3,730 profile views
  1. & From the thread starting with this tweet: I think this may feed back in to something I suggested the other day about the Tory election campaign that might run on the back of this (Parliament agreed to it but then later didn't go through with the required legislation) if the implementation legislation fails to go through. Could they not point to this as saying that the House of Commons resolved the matter (as amended) and that was the decision of the Speaker in a ruling?
  2. The post you quoted was not an exhaustive list of my gripes with him (or rather what he says, what he promotes and the methods he uses to do so), they were just examples of why any claim of his to be either apolitical or to have 'removed himself from political bias' is something with which I take issue. I do think he's dangerous though not as an individual but as part those 'intellectuals', academics and others who appear to give succour to (if not outright or directly support) a distinctly unpleasant politics. Anyway, this is all going quite massively off topic.
  3. I see what you're getting at and perhaps you're right but I think there are a couple of things to consider: It's not a deal yet as the necessary legislation is not a mere formality but a potential stumbling block before what has been agreed by the Gov and the EU becomes a deal by way of legislation and ratification - thus the good faith bit for a 'short extension just to pass legislation' doesn't really hold; As you've quoted from the Institute for Gov paper, the Act had a deadline of today for approving a deal or approving a no deal in order for the requirement of the Prime Minister seeking an extension to 31st Jan to not have to kick in. Yes, it also talks about the EU not agreeing to it and proposing alternative dates but I think the journey to that place would be important for the sake of any court case and any view of whether the PM had not properly complied. Given that the A50 process has the bit about 'in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements', I think the EU would be quite wary of being complicit in something that may be deemed to fall foul of that.
  4. Yes. NZ obvious favourites but yes.
  5. Isn't that covered by the Padfield/frustration stuff that legal twitter has been discussing in relation to the Gov's shenanigans, i.e. it would be working against the Act and the intention of the Act.
  6. Absolute shysters. Mogg's moved a point of order to say that the business for Monday is going to be a vote on S 13. 1(b), again. Not going down well for a number of reasons such as Mogg not giving an urgent business statement but moving business via a Point of Order, trying to re-run today's debate and vote again (so just trying to ignore today's amended motion), delaying the Queen's Spech debate (apparently the Gov said the new program of government was very important stuff), not giving proper notice and then Mogg just **** off as people were raising further points of order like the contemptuous and contemptible cock that he is.
  7. It looks like he's going to try and torpedo the extension request by calling the letter 'Parliament's letter' &c. Quite possible he may be in court soon, then.
  • Create New...