JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

UK High Court decided that the people can’t vote for a clear outcome, they have to vote for other people to vote for them.

The UK High court decides Parliament knows the will of the people more than the people do.

A British court just prevented the prime minister from Brexiting. — Vox

“The most fundamental rule of the UK constitution is that Parliament is sovereign,” the court writes in a summary document explaining the ruling.

Naive me. I thought the people were sovereign?

Isn’t the Parliament meant to serve the people…

Those who serve themselves can serve up mindless platitudes:

Investment manager Gina Miller, who brought the case, said outside the High Court:… “The result today is about all of us. It’s not about me or my team. It’s about our United Kingdom and all our futures.”

I suspect the British people thought they were voting on “their future”.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (70 votes cast)
UK High Court decided that the people can't vote for a clear outcome, they have to vote for other people to vote for them., 9.6 out of 10 based on 70 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/z6hv52c

138 comments to UK High Court decided that the people can’t vote for a clear outcome, they have to vote for other people to vote for them.

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The whole idea of any socialist politics is to condition the people into believing they are all equals while applying dictatorship rule at the top, anyone in a democratic style country that continuously voted in left style politics needs a good slappin.

    392

  • #
    fretslider

    As a ‘pom’ I can tell you that due to a recent change in legislation, the referendum vote is ‘advisory’. That is to say it has no legal weight. However, it is a moral result, the people have spoken and rejecting a vote – even an advisory one – is risky.

    There is a clear division between the people and parliament. The former wish to leave, while the latter wants the opposite. Mrs May does a good job of appearing to be leading the charge, but she was a remainer and I’m far from convinced her heart is in anything more than promoting her prospects.

    May put three men who famously do not get along in charge of the project , in the same building – Davies, Fox and Johnson.

    There are myriad ways of thwarting a moral vote.

    321

    • #
      Leigh

      A plebiscite here carries about as much weight. But it would be a very foolish politician that ignored or acted against its result.

      151

    • #
      ianl8888

      There is a clear division between the people and parliament

      There is also a clear division between the London population and the rest of the country. Even another election won’t alter that.

      141

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Its intersting – there is a global showdown emerging – the people vs the globalists.

      The suggestion to the globalists being bandied about is basically this :

      You will either have to nuke / kill all humanity to rule the few people and the glowing rocks that are left – or be smart and pull your head in. Clearly the people of this planet have rejected your attempt to rule them.

      GO home.

      151

    • #
      tom0mason

      It has been widely reported “Senior judges heard a challenge from campaigners who argue Prime Minister Theresa May does not have the power to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without MPs’ approval.” The judges can only give advice and judgment on the case, they can not prevent action. Like when they advised Tony Blair and his ‘mandate’ to go to war (against the will of the people).
      Mrs May has the right and power to call Article 50 (the starting gun to exit the EU) — period. It was given to her with the result of the referendum. It is up to her government to decide when to use it, not the judges.
      There is nothing, but nothing, to stop Mrs May’s government calling Article 50 any time she wishes to. Her government has the referendum’s result and therefore the right to do it. It may go against the judge’s wishes but they can not prevent it! The judges may dispute this fact but they are powerless to stop the process.
      Parliament would then have to reconcile the pieces of the puzzle as to exactly what gets changed and how.

      112

      • #
        Gail Combs

        If I recall from my reading, Parliament DID vote and that vote was to allow a public referendum. Since the vote did not go as planned they now want to renig on the deal

        123

      • #
      • #

        “There is nothing, but nothing, to stop Mrs May’s government calling Article 50 any time she wishes to. Her government has the referendum’s result and therefore the right to do it. It may go against the judge’s wishes but they can not prevent it! The judges may dispute this fact but they are powerless to stop the process.”

        Interesting! Perhaps the Limey powers that think they be; feel neglected with the bruhaha in the US. A smart Aussie or Kiwi kicks way back, sell tickets, beer, pretzels, and for your FN Pauline ‘n Malcolm, more fish and chips! I wonder how the shop is doing without her needed presence?

        10

    • #
      Manfred

      Indeed, the Brexit referendum was non-binding. It is quite appropriate that it should be followed by a Parliamentary vote, which should have happened immediately except Camerone was too busy running for cover. And if this (what should be a confirmatory vote by MP’s representing the will of their electorates) turned out to be against the result of the referendum then a further vote of no confidence in the Government would ensue and a General Election follow. … well, that or the UK will have a second messy civil war, piano wire will be in short supply and lamp posts will become a favoured resting place for the eco-globalist elite. The Brexiteers will undoubtedly win. … again. And let’s not forget that it is conceivable that President Trump may want to lend them a hand.

      61

      • #

        “Indeed, the Brexit referendum was non-binding. It is quite appropriate that it should be followed by a Parliamentary vote, which should have happened immediately except Camerone was too busy running for cover.”

        This is non-binding on just whom! I am under the impression that England is/was a ‘Constitutional’ Monarchy! Your “Parliament” already decided on Theresa May as ‘Prime Minister’! What more need ‘parliament’ do to permit this Exit as determined by ‘parliament’ itself? Did not Ms. May consult with your Monarch on this issue?
        You Limeys (British) are so fortunate to have such ‘benevolence’ that can correct this vast political CRUD in a millisecond!

        31

    • #

      Pitchfork futures sky-rocket.

      30

      • #

        No need!
        We’s gots more pitchforks, torches, than they’s gots bullets!
        Most modern armed forces have the smarts to stand aside, except to readily blow away any foreign intervention!

        30

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      There are many who are pointing out that the Maastricht and the Lisbon Treaties also were not put to parliamentary vote, therefore are, by these judges’ (unbiased? – hahahahaha!) declaration, must also be unlawfully enacted. Repeal them, and others similar – NOW!

      20

    • #
      delcon2

      Did you hear that one of the “Judges”has links to the EU?

      10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      “A recent change in legislation”, signals that this tactic was conceived quite recently, and was implemented by stealth, by which I mean that, there was not a universal publication of what was intended, followed by a national debate on the pros and cons of the change.

      Was there a referendum, in which the general population of the UK abrogated their right to vote in matters of national import?

      I think not. Therefore, the parliamentarians have stolen the mandate from the voting population of the United Kingdom, with the connivance of the High Court.

      The High Court Justices who have perpetrated this theft of sovereignty should be called to account, and required to declare any and all potential conflicts of interest.

      10

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    The start to reverse Brexit. Push it back to Parliament where the majority think they know best and delay and eventually reject it. The problem for the Remanians is that the EU could collapse anyway, and the speed of that would surprise all.

    301

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I hope the EU collapses – its evil.

      I find it instructive that at least one of the EU buildings is an alleged copy of the Tower of Babel from Biblical times. Europa is shown as a woman riding a beast ( also an aping of The Harlot of the Bible )

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_of_the_European_Parliament_in_Strasbourg

      Babel was constructed because humanity rebelled against God.

      You can see the true spirit behind the EU, if you understand the lens to use.

      112

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That is a good point.

      There is a lot of dissatisfaction with the EU, within the EU, because although the bureaucrats think that it is all just fine and dandy, the general European population are getting a little tired of the cost of taxation, without any perceptable representation. It is now apparent that it is a big club, and also apparent that the vast majority of people in Europe ain’t in it, but are paying for it anyway, and possibly multiple times.

      Its days are numbered, and the UK would best get off the ship, while there are still a few lifeboats available.

      00

  • #
    Lord Jim

    Isn’t the treaty negotiated and ratified by the executive (PM and cabinet)?
    Then it is put into domestic law through legislation.
    That being so you would think that the executive can also withdraw from (un-ratify) what a previous executive has agreed to.

    101

    • #
      Lord Jim

      And isn’t the domestic legislation still in effect until it is repealed by parliament?
      i.e. withdrawing from the treaty would not change UK law until the laws enacted by parliament to put the treaty into effect were repealed by parliament.

      61

      • #
        fretslider

        The European Communities Act 1972 has to be repealed.

        131

        • #
          Lord Jim

          However the facts upon which laws are predicated often change (e.g. parliament legislated for “carriages” on highways and this then had to be interpreted as to whether this applies to a “bicycle”).
          And I think this case may raise some ‘chicken and egg’ issues about sovereignty (UK Parliament I think is not presently possessed of unlimited sovereignty because it is part of EU) and what Salmond called the ‘ultimate political fact’ that forms the basis of the legal system.

          41

          • #
            Lord Jim

            “If the supremacy within the European
            Community of Community law over the national law of member
            states was not always inherent in the E.E.C. Treaty (Cmnd. 5179-
            II) it was certainly well established in the jurisprudence of the
            European Court of Justice long before the United Kingdom joined
            the Community. Thus, whatever limitation of its sovereignty
            Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities
            Act 1972 was entirely voluntary. Under the terms of the Act of
            1972 it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United
            Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any
            rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly
            enforceable rule of Community law. Similarly, when decisions of
            the European Court of Justice have exposed areas of United
            Kingdom statute law which failed to implement Council directives,
            Parliament has always loyally accepted the obligation to make
            appropriate and prompt amendments. Thus there is nothing in any
            way novel in according supremacy to rules of Community law in
            those areas to which they apply and to insist that, in the
            protection of rights under Community law, national courts must
            not be inhibited by rules of national law from granting interim
            relief in appropriate cases is no more than a logical recognition of
            that supremacy.”

            Regina v. Secretary of State for Transport (Respondent) ex
            parte Factortame Limited and others (Appellants) (Lord Bridge)

            So, the UK having ceded sovereignty to the EU, what right does it have to repeal the European Communities Act 1972?

            Wouldn’t you need to pull the trigger on leaving the EU before you can enact legislation repealing the European Communities Act 1972?

            81

      • #
        Lord Jim

        “Triggering Article 50 does not in itself “change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”, and therefore does not breach the principle — famously laid down in the Case of Proclamations — that the prerogative cannot be used to do such things. Nor is the principle in Re De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508 flouted. As Paul Craig has explained the argument advanced by Barber et al goes far beyond the De Keyser principle. Rather, says Craig, it implies a “new principle” to the effect that “the executive could not exercise the prerogative power to begin the process of amending or withdrawing from a treaty, because this very initiation would impact on, or cut across, the legislation through which that treaty had earlier been incorporated into UK law”. Craig concludes: “There is to my knowledge no case that comes close to establishing this proposition.”

        -Elliot, The Government’s case in the Article 50 litigation: A critique
        https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/09/30/the-governments-case-in-the-article-50-litigation-a-critique/

        31

  • #
    Lewis P Buckingham

    Parliament is supreme, subject to the courts.
    Its better that way.

    74

  • #
    Gavin

    This will likely lead to a general election next year and, I suspect, the biggest Tory majority since the mid-80s

    131

    • #
      Ross

      Why would it be a big Tory majority ? Why couldn’t UKIP ( if they can get their leadership act together) make major inroads?

      121

  • #
    Lord Jim

    Off topic (but maybe not completely):

    “WikiLeaks ‏@wikileaks 18m minutes ago

    Stay tune for our FBI-DoJ #PodestaEmail special circa 4pm EST.”

    Apparently this is the motherlode with some very bad stuff.

    141

  • #
    Uncle Gus

    Funny use of the word “sovereign”.

    The Queen, of course, is Sovereign. So long as she doesn’t actually *do* anything. Parliament “advises” her, and (this being a constitutional monarchy) she always takes their advice.

    Where do the people come in? Well, once every four or five years, we get to decide (in the words of Douglas Adams) which lizard is going to govern us.

    I think you’re confusing us with America…

    111

    • #
      gnome

      There’s never been any concept of sovereignty of the people in the UK.

      They gave up their queen and handed it to the gnomes of Brussels. Now they’re thinking about it. This could be the genuine constitutional crisis they need.

      91

  • #
    PeterS

    What more proof does one need to show democracy is a hoax, just like man induced global warming?

    232

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      Yep, let the peasants think they’re in charge!

      How can the elite(trash) fleece us if we call the shots?

      A high 90% of all Politicians are criminals that would best serve behind bars,and mental institutions for the greens where their fruit loop ideas cannot hurt anybody unlike now.

      All these so called and self proclaimed ‘born to rule’s, should be rounded up!

      Collectively,they protect Big banks,militant unions,poverty inducing CAGW ratbag policies, and take us to, and keep us at war,and curtail our freedoms under the deception and illusion of keeping us safe.

      Major revolt is coming worldwide and if it doesn’t then we, the over governed little people will just slip further into slavery, most of us without even realizing it, all while being indoctrined, how free and lucky we are!

      The election of ‘the Donald’ as US Pres, will be the first break in the world’s totalitarian chain.

      If he loses, then expect more dictation and indoctrination via tablets from the mount,from the ruling ratbags and international criminals.

      This latest Brexit backlash ruling by the ‘elitist scum’ is just a sample of what is to come.

      Your vote only counts if its what they want!

      142

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I think its easy to put the presure on the eilites – just tell the man in the street/the pub that mass immigration will continue and the flood of cheap labour from europe will continue to erode his way of life for the next 4 generations at least, if the Brexit vote is derailed by the elite-run courts.

        I think Cromwells time will look tame once most Brits blood is up….

        51

        • #
          Annie

          The British are very hard to take to the point of revolt but woe betide you once they are pushed to it.

          51

          • #
            Radical Rodent

            Oh, I hope so… many in times past have risen the ire of the English (in it historical sense) and regretted it.

            Now, though, I do have doubts. The British may have been totally pacified, thanks to that magic box in the corner of almost every living room.

            30

        • #
          sophocles

          Cromwell’s “time” was pretty interesting!

          It took a company of musketeers under Lt-Col Worsley to focus the minds of the MPs of the Rump Parliament. On the mornng of 20 April 1653, Cromwell addressed the House, apparently calmly at first but with growing anger. He told them their sitting was at a permanent end and they must leave.

          Worsley marched the company in and they drove out the MPs.

          Once the House was empty, the doors were sealed. Some wit pinned up a notice reading: “This House is to be let: now unfurnished.”

          There is precedence for Parliament to be over-ruled.

          40

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    If it’s about “all of us,” it’s about none of us. It’s about the faceless, unelected bureaucracy.

    211

  • #
    bobl

    Jo / Mods

    I have some US Election comments to make – Up until say Friday Week can you post us a weekday unhinged thread along which topical so we can discuss stuff?

    61

  • #
    bobl

    How did it come out like that – What I meant was when you post an item can you also post an Election Madness thread so we can continue the Election Coverage.

    81

  • #
    Leigh

    Why am I not suprised when the left refuse to accept the will of the people?
    Before that question is challenged, I suggest those that will, dig a little deeper into who’s paying this “hairdresser” come finance guru’s legals.
    17.5 million people are now being told by the courts you lost because you won the vote that asked the question of you!
    Do you want the right to govern your own country!?

    231

    • #
      ianl8888

      … who’s paying this “hairdresser” come finance guru’s legals ?

      My advice (impeccable source) is that she is financed by crowd funding from the London financial communities. That is, a whole heap of fund management groups, financial investors etc dumped a large pile of dosh into a metaphorical hat to run this court case. She will not run out of money to finance legal bills.

      121

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        The court will count for nothing once the brits relaise they have been conned.

        Guy Fawkes Take 2?

        51

        • #
          Bushkid

          Haha, and tomorrow is indeed the 5th of November…….

          40

          • #
            Annie

            ‘Please to remember the 5th of November,
            Gunpowder, treason and plot.
            I see no reason why gunpowder treason,
            Should e’er be forgot’.

            I’ve known that ‘forever’ and have no idea of the source of it.

            00

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Annie,

              It was published in “The Broadsheet”, a very early and unsophicated news publication from a printer with an office overlooking the River Fleet.

              00

  • #
    Ross

    What is really amazing about this is no one, from either side, bought this up in the campaign. If it is such a basic aspect of UK law why wasn’t it raised ? ( or was it and it got buried in the mud slinging)

    101

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    The tyranny of the courts. The will of the people be damned. Sadly it is not isolated to one nation.

    171

  • #
    marcjf

    Well probably a predictable decision given the UK constitution or lack of it. My guess is that once the boundary changes are sorted out, May goes for an early election with a manifesto pledge to support the Brexit vote. Labour are in disarray and badly split over Brexit – their voters want it but the activists like the EUSSR. Same with many Lib/dem voters. The Scots Nats and NI can’t get anymore MPs. So May could well get a landslide victory and then 3 line whip MPs for a Brexit vote in parliament.

    This scenario has its risks, but a very public spat with the clowns in the EU like Tusk and Junker can only help. My bet would be the numbers have been calculated already and this is actually a godsend to Brexiteers – if May plays it this way. And what are the alternatives?

    71

    • #
      Raven

      . . My guess is that once the boundary changes are sorted out, May goes for an early election with a manifesto pledge to support the Brexit vote.

      That’s exactly what the Remainers are attempting to engineer.
      A second bite at the cherry.
      This should be seen for the subversion it is and resisted at all costs.
      Tell ‘em to stick it up their jumper.

      91

  • #
    Bitter&twisted

    If Parliament doesn’t implement the will of the majority of the people, on Brexit, it will find that it will have a very short life.

    111

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      In the last 20-30 years it has become very much the belief of politicians that they know better than the general public and are thus the ones to make decisions. The public are easily manipulated in the voting choices they claim, ignoring the fact that the public rarely get any sensible choice. Brexit was one of the first setbacks and the Commons is trying to reverse that. Malcolm was complacent ( they have nowhere to go ) and was lucky to survive, and only did so because Dopey Dan helped him. In Germany Merkel’s party went from first to third (or more correctly second last) in recent State elections. Trump is another example of the Establishment getting it wrong and having trouble comprehending that they are the problem.
      And speaking of Dopey Dan and Jay the Dill there is another example. Neither of them has a clue about electricity generation, nor industrial needs, nor about climatology yet both felt they should make decisions of vital importance to, not just their State, but the Nation. They probably thought that in the absence of national leadership someone had to make one. It is a pity that they made the wrong one and one that has and will cause lots of damage, yet even now they are going ahead without hesitation, and trying to ‘spin’ the public.
      The longer they try to keep the lid down the more pressure for change will build, as it will in other countries. I can only hope that their arrogance doesn’t lead to another World War.

      121

      • #
        Analitik

        Dan Dopiness > Jay Dilliness

        Jay inherited a policy and just blindly continued it.
        Dan has been able to witness the SA de-industrialization and still directed policy to follow.

        Jay inherited an energy minister who drove taxis, ran a small business and was a union officer (and is a road hoon)
        Dan appointed an energy minister with a social services background

        Vics win!!! :) :( :mad:

        We desperately need Trump to begin the reversal of the Marxist shift in western governance.

        121

  • #
    el gordo

    “I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50. They have no idea (of the) level of public anger they will provoke.”

    Nigel Farage

    Reuters/ABC

    111

  • #
    PeterS

    By coincidence I recently watched the movie “V for Vendeta” depicting a future London as a police state occupied by a fascist government, and a vigilante uses terrorist tactics to fight the evil oppressors. It’s a frightening premonition of where the UK appears to be heading.

    101

    • #
      David Maddison

      Great movie.

      He is one of the final scenes “Ideas are bulletproof”. SPOILER AND VIOLENCE WARNING.

      https://youtu.be/8WZ0XSf23rs

      31

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Yes, hence my comment about whether the UK is on track for Guy Fawkes v2 ( excuse the pun )

        Having lived and worked inthe UK myself for 4 years I got a reasonable sense of how the Brits work and what they like and dont like.

        Anything whereby Johnny Foreigner tells a brit what to do just isnt on – no wonder Farrange is popular. That and being diddled by beaurocrats……so not cricket….

        40

        • #
          Annie

          As a Briton, of the English variety, I am really not fond of the term ‘Brit’. It grates on me, much as I suppose the term P@ki grates on those of Pakistani origin. I know most people don’t realise this but I am much happier with the term ‘Pom’!!!

          31

  • #
    BJ

    There is no real surprise here; the European Communities Act 1972 is the legislative vehicle under which Britain entered to then Common Market and for Brexit it must be repealed. Even if Article 50 could be have triggered without a vote of Parliament, the repeal of that Act must still be done by Parliamentary vote; and qua ere what would happen if hypothetically Article 50 was triggered and the Parliament did not repeal the Act. May knows all of this, must have planned on the basis that a vote was ultimately necessary.

    That said any Remainer who cheers this result is kidding themselves; Farage is correct when he warns that betraying the voters will be the catalyst for a crisis much harder to deal with than Brexit. The electoral retribution will be savage, and worse the longer people have to wait to deliver it. The Queen will face a crisis caught between the clear result of the vote as the will of the people, and a Parliament that is openly defying it. That scenario will be a hammer blow to political stability and to the economy, which is heavily dependent of confidence. History has repeatedly shown us what happens to governments that refuse to listen to the voters, and worse, defy them.

    91

    • #
      BJ

      An appeal to the Supreme Court is now lodged, apparently listed for hearing on 7 December 2016. I gather a principal argument is that executive prerogative has been used to entered the myriad of treaties that govern European Union relationships, and it would be inconsistent and obviously absurd if the position is that Treaties can be legally entered by prerogative but cannot be renounced by the same process. If the current ruling were upheld it opens the door to an attack on the validity of the all of the current treaties as well.

      51

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I think the reality is that the NWO mob are well prepared for violence – this is why police forces the world over have been set up to be paramailitary units now. The NWO have engineered this conflict – they literally love blood in the street, its alike a sweet odour for them because they are demented and evil, and worst of all – have no right to rule.

        Any protest needs to be peaceful. The elite wont cope with that very well – they will send agitators in to stir up the crowds – again the mob will need to be very disciplined, detain the agitators and basically turn off the propganda feed ( the mainstream media ) and focus on other alternative communication means.

        Ghandi had a lot of things right.

        12

        • #
          Annie

          We tried the polite, well-behaved peaceful demonstration thing when we met in Parliament Square to protest against the fox-hunting ban a few years back. I walked all round the square; everyone was very well-behaved and cheerful. The only sour note was supplied by a few anti-hunt people around the edges trying to wind up the pro-hunt ones. But guess what? The Met Police were on at the pro-hunters and ignoring the antis. I remember a very po-faced young policewoman ordering me where to go (where I was heading, as it happened).
          Likewise, the EU Referendum meeting at Parliament; again some years back. We all queued in an orderly and cheerful fashion to be let in a few at a time to lobby our local MPs. Not a word of this on the BBC ‘news’ but lots of mention of a couple of distracting idiots who climbed up the tower. Who let them in and how did they climb up there…deliberately aided and abetted to distract from the real business of the day? I must add that the Met Police were very much friendlier on the second occasion; they needed to be…the first time left a very sour taste in my mouth, having been a distinctly law-abiding type of person all my life.

          20

  • #

    The parliament – with a majority of 6 to one – decided to hold a referendum. Parliament essentially left the choice to the people. In view of this, it is ridiculous in the extreme for the court to pretend that parliament was not consulted.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015

    101

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Ah, but they thought that the public would vote as they were told.

      91

      • #

        Too true. Which goes to show that “representative democracy” is a sham. All referendums get systematically ignored by the EU.

        The only solution is direct democracy – with politicians having term limits so that they cannot make a career out of ripping the guts out of their countries.

        With the internet, it should be pretty simple to organize on national scale. Obviously, local decisions – which don’t affect other regions – should have their own referenda.

        41

  • #
    Ruairi

    The Referendum it seems, was a joke,
    When the Brexit majority spoke,
    Which the Left hates to lose,
    Making Parliament choose,
    To Remain and serve under the yoke.

    161

  • #
    John Watt

    So what,s the point of a gay marriage plebiscite?

    41

    • #
      Raven

      That sentence is unnecessarily long and begs the question:
      What’s the point of gay marriage.

      41

      • #
        AndyG55

        “So what’s the point of a gay marriage plebiscite?”

        To show just how FEW Aussie actually think ssm is a good thing.

        43

    • #

      John,

      I have a theory on that, and it also relates to Brexit as well, and also could relate to this current U.S. Presidential Campaign.

      It has a lot to do with the voting system here in Australia. We in Australia are pretty much unique when it comes to voting, as we are one of very very few Countries which have compulsory voting.

      Ireland is used as an example of the Gay Marriage thing, where that proposal actually got up at a popular vote.

      So then, that being the case, when it passed in Ireland with a public vote, why then are our (left leaning, from all sides of the political spectrum) politicians so darned scared of putting it to a popular vote of the people here in Australia, and are demanding that ONLY the politicians themselves should vote on it in the Parliament.

      What is not often mentioned when it came to the vote in Ireland is that barely (just less than) 60% of the people actually voted, and it got up by a 55% (around that) margin. So, in fact, more than a two thirds of Ireland’s people either did not want it or did not even vote in the first place. The only ones who did get out and vote were those who wanted it, and it got up.

      Similar for Brexit. Complacency about voting saw Brexit get up, and now they want the Parliament to decide, and the people who voted in favour of Brexit can go jump.

      Similarly for that Gay marriage vote here in Oz. What they are scared of is the fact that the WHOLE population has to vote, not just those who favour it. In the privacy of the ballot box no one will ever know how you voted. It happened with Pauline Hanson every time she got a good vote. No one will ever say aloud that they voted for her, as it’s not PC, but hey, no one will ever know, and politicians (and the media) scratch their heads and wonder why she got such a large percentage of the vote.

      Same with Gay Marriage, Politicians are very scared that in the privacy of the ballot bow, when no one knows how you voted, and with the whole population voting on the matter, then the proposal might fail, hence politicians want to bypass the public altogether,

      It all comes back to compulsory voting. 100% of the public have to vote, and to get up it needs 50% (plus one vote) and in Ireland, it was 52% of 58% or around 30% in favour.

      Same with Brexit, which actually did get up, and now some campaigners want that reversed, and for the politicians in Parliament to decide.

      By the oddest quirks of happenstance, in the days long long gone, Australia introduced compulsory voting, incidentally voted into effect not by the people, but by Parliamentarians themselves in 1924 at the Federal level, and it only took them an hour of debate to pass it into effect, and neither the Reps or the Senate needed a Division to get a vote. The first to introduce compulsory voting was Queensland in 1915.

      Since then, it has become difficult to get rid of, and you can bet politicians wish they could get rid of compulsory voting.

      That’s why they are so scared to put this gay marriage thing to a full public vote. Nothing to do with the proposal itself, and everything to do with compulsory voting.

      Tony.

      111

  • #
    John Smith

    Darn it.
    We American deplorables were deplorable first.
    Wait …
    Maybe the US and UK deplorables can all get kicked out and shipped to AUS.
    You guys will welcome us, right?
    (some of us Yanks may be packin’)
    Do you guys just ask the big crocs nicely to go away?
    :)

    91

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      No, the crocs are allowed a democratic vote, like the everybody else. Usually they vote to stay but then some local government bloke decides to move them along. That’s the way of the world today!

      21

  • #
    Ross

    Hold the horses !!

    It appears they may have a messy situation on its hand according to this MEP

    “Every treaty that the UK has entered into since joining the EU has been done using Royal Prerogative which means Parliament was not consulted. Nobody has complained for the last 40 years until now with the government wanting to rescind the treaty.

    Gerard Batten UKIP MEP clearly explains this to a BBC presstitute, proving that the decision to allow approval by Parliament to invoke Article 50 is political.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q_2Ml4af74…

    h/t post on Breitbart

    So May could say –we accept the decision but it now means we are no longer in the EU because all other treaties/laws signed are invalid. /sarc (or semi serious)

    131

  • #
    michael rupcich

    The courts made the proper decision.
    The referendum was advisory.

    I’m not quibbling about whether it “should be”… or “should be viewed as”…
    It WAS
    this is not a point of view, this is a point of fact.

    If one takes issue with the government viewing the will of the people as nothing more than advisory, I am on your side.
    However, it is what it is.
    It is not for the courts to determine what should have happened, only what actually did happen.
    The referendum was advisory, therefore carries no legal weight, it must be put forward to parliament.

    The alternative, a decision based on revisionist history, even if it produces a desired outcome, would still be a bad decision

    27

  • #
    David Maddison

    As soon to be President Trump says, “time to drain the swamp”.

    71

  • #
    Dave N

    The headline should have read: “Brexit vote: Pointless exercise”

    41

  • #
    David Maddison

    http://dailym.ai/2flYKmP

    QUOTE “Lawyers and politicians are in the top ten most hated professions for good reason.”

    122

  • #
    TdeF

    The referendum is not law or binding. It would always have to be followed by endoresment by parliament, whether a simple motion or an act of parliament or even the repeal of the 1972 act.

    What the referendum decided was the clear will of the people and parliament is generally meant to be a cheaper, faster way of making many such decisions, not fairer. For parliament now to go against the will of the people and refuse to endorse Brexit would be a clear denial of the wishes of the people and democracy and proof that politicians are about self interest and political parties. It is unlikely but possible. However given the state of the Labour party, an early election might see overwhelming support both for BREXIT and the conservatives, so that is a probable action.

    You also have to factor in that the world has not melted, the jobs have not vanished, the stock market has not collapsed and lots of new opportunities have arisen and the invasion camp at Calais is being dismantled. The Germans and French are threatening vengeance, but when hasn’t that been true?

    121

    • #
      TdeF

      The Common Market remains a great even essential idea. It was similar to the 1400-1800′s Hanseatic league ultimately of over 300 cities which created a free trade zone and the cities themselves before countries like Italy, Spain, Germany, Greece, Poland, Switzerland even existed. The Common Market worked equally well.

      However the European Union is a political version, a bureaucratic nightmare, an unwelcome takeover by stealth of the political process in every country making tens of thousands of Brussels bureaucrats the unelected, undemocratic rulers of every country. It is not about free travel or common currency. It is about killing democracy.

      A common currency is a quite separate issue and one which can really disadvantage struggling economies and now in the world of internet banking and credit cards, hardly necessary. Freedom of movement too is a separate issue. After all, we all know the real job of the borders was to collect taxes and still is.

      In Australia, we had taxing towns along the borders. For example Birdsville was a tax collection centre for moving cattle between Queensland and South Australia. Federation removed that nonsense.

      Many countries want Free Trade but do not want the European Union. It has been forced on them or achieved by stealth. It is possible the European Union would be rejected by a large proportion of people in most countries, if they were asked. So this is not a choice between free trade or not. It is a choice between democracy and rule by European bureaucrats dominated by Germany. I thought that was settled 70 years ago.

      151

    • #
      ianl8888

      … an early election might see overwhelming support both for BREXIT and the conservatives …

      And then again, it might not. So, back to square 1 … best out of three ? (The score is 1 each at this stage).

      But the idea that a plebiscite result should be then put to a general election for validation belongs to a Monty Python skit.

      It is true that the plebiscite result had no legal standing. But the UK has no written Constitution – tradition and previous practice are no defence against determined activism.

      51

    • #
      tom0mason

      With all the legalese put to one side, the referendum result has given this parliament the mandate and therefore the right to trigger Article 50 any time they wish to. Judges be damned they do not run the country the government does.
      It was judges that handed Tony Blair the legal right to go into an unpopular war for which he had no mandate.
      The judges were wrong then then and are wrong now.

      51

      • #
        michael rupcich

        I would go a little further than saying the referendum gave parliament the mandate or right to trigger article 50, I would say it created the obligation to do so. The will of the people has been clearly expressed on the most important issue it will deal with. To ignore or subvert this obligation would leave parliament with no legitimate claim to a mandate or confidence of the people.

        The judges ruling wasn’t that parliament can’t trigger article 50, the ruling was that the government couldn’t trigger article 50 without going through parliament. The referendum is not a substitute for the required act of parliament.

        30

  • #
  • #
    Lord Jim

    The Government’s case in the Article 50 litigation: A critique by Mark Elliot.

    Thanks to a court order, the Government’s case — its “detailed grounds of resistance” — in the Article 50 litigation currently pending before the High Court has been published. I have written before on this matter, arguing that the better view is that legislation is not needed for the purpose of triggering Article 50, but that there are strong policy arguments in favour of involving Parliament — including in relation to the initial decision concerning the initiation of the withdrawal process. The newly published Government case is — putting the point as diplomatically as possible — something of a mixed bag. There are some sound points in it, but also some astonishing and fundamental misapprehensions.

    https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/09/30/the-governments-case-in-the-article-50-litigation-a-critique/

    41

  • #

    The problem goes back a long way. Thought folk could be interested in this report dated 1948:

    PARLIAMENT
    House of Commons: September 21, 1948.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford): … It is thus the case that when all the constitutional arguments are examined, and they must and ought to be examined in a matter of this import- ance, the issue between the parties is fundamentally a simple one. The right hon. Gentleman and certain of his colleagues has suggested again and again during the course of these Debates that this House of Commons is always, at all times and in all circumstances, the only body which is ever fit to interpret the will of the people. That is the claim under- lying this Bill, and that is the only principle upon which it can be justified. It is a principle from which I must say we profoundly differ.
    Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite pay lip service to the principle of popular sovereignty. “The people‘s will,“ they say, “must be law, but we are always the only people to tell the world what the people‘s will is.“ There is ample precedent for such an attitude. It was the view of Hitler: “Das ist Recht was dem Fuhrer gefallt.“ [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman below the gangway evidently believes that two wrongs make a right. I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will try to answer my argument. I will not yield to the right hon. Gentleman in my respect for and devotion to this House or the principles of the British Constitution……

    Are we to accept that view about this House which has been traditional, which has been upheld through the centuries, under which it has never been allowed to become an assembly of elected dictators, with untrammelled powers, and under which our affairs have gradually developed until it has be- come the established doctrine that it is the people and not Parliament which is sovereign in this country-not sovereign only at stated intervals, but sovereign really, and all the time? Or are we to reject that view and to choose in its stead the view now put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, the view of Hitler, the view against which Burke in his time fulminated to such effect, that the elected Chamber is nothing but a body of elected dictators, that the power of the people is limited to occasional interventions at stated intervals, when
    after a discussion for a few weeks it is permitted to elect a new House, the Members of which will become not the representatives of the people, but, to use the phrase of the Attorney-General of England, the new masters of the people who will then be free to do, without control from any other organ of the Constitution, whatever they will to decide what is right, to decide what the people want, and above all to decide what they think is good for the people?…

    http://www.alor.org/The%20Social%20Crediter/Volume%2021/The%20Social%20Crediter%20Vol%2021%20No%206%20%20Oct%209%201948.pdf

    81

  • #
    Mark D.

    I sense panic and pivot.

    If it were so simple for the BREXIT vote to be null, why did it have such a profound effect on markets, and attitudes.

    This smells of something from the barn floor.

    61

  • #
    pat

    watched some of this one on RightSideBroadcasting on YouTube, so they must have got their account back up. Huuuge crowd.

    Tweet: Emily Stephenson/Reuters: Trump said the crowd in Selma, NC, was 15,000. Campaign now says, citing local sheriff, that it was 17,500. #ModestTrump
    https://twitter.com/ewstephe/status/794351825403133955
    previous tweet: Fireworks for the second night in a row to close out Trump’s rally in Selma, NC

    PIC of crowd Selma (third rally of the day)
    http://i.imgur.com/kOMrLHx.jpg

    51

    • #
      TdeF

      Donald Trump now represents the hopes and dreams all those people fed up with the 16 years of Obama/Clinton governments and do not want another Clinton. Like as not, it includes all those people to whom Obama and Clinton disappointed, frustrated, offended and betrayed. As you can see from the numbers, that’s a huge number of people. The question is whether control of the electoral college votes is enough to get Clinton home as she expects, regardless of the wishes of so many of the people and possibly a majority of the people.

      31

      • #
        delcon2

        If the “Electoral College”goes against the peoples wishes,there are “3 hundred million guns at the ready and the people will use them.

        00

  • #
    pat

    meant to post the Trump stuff on jo’s previous thread. sorry.

    21

  • #
    pat

    not “Brexit remorse” which was fake, but CAGW remorse, which is REAL! read all:

    3 Nov: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Africa’s “buyer’s remorse” over Paris climate deal
    Some African governments are regretting the ambition of emissions targets submitted towards the Paris Agreement, say advisers
    When Chad announced in September 2015 it aimed to slash its greenhouse gas emissions 71% by 2030, the country was hailed as a climate leader…
    Ten months on, the country’s climate envoy tells Climate Home that Chad was pressured into this ambitious contribution and it will not be able to deliver…
    “We have been rushed by other countries, and we have elaborated a quick INDC, we did not gather all the data to reflect our national and achievable contribution, which normally [should] take into account sustainable development.”…
    Some of those who have not formally joined the UN pact may seek permission to amend or revise their climate plans, says Seth Osafo, who advises the Africa Group on legal matters at the UN.
    “I think that is likely to be the case for those who are not happy with the target,” he tells Climate Home.
    As Climate Home revealed earlier this year, Western governments and multilateral funds directed at least US$26 million to help developing countries prepare their “intended nationally determined contributions”.
    In some cases, the support was gratefully received. In others, there was resentment at the way consultants from the developed world steered a supposedly nationally-owned process…
    Nigeria, Tanzania and Ethiopia are among countries with ambitious carbon reduction goals that may have significant challenges meeting their pre-Paris pledges, says Chukwumerije Okereke (professor in environment and development at Reading University)…
    He cites Nigeria’s target of 45% GHG cuts with external support and 25% without as one of the more unrealistic government aspirations ahead of Paris.
    The country’s electricity grid has a capacity of less than 5,000 megawatts, but its 173 million citizens need generation sources ten times that.
    “Where is that cut going to come from? This is a country that needs to grow and is fossil fuel based. Nobody has given me any analysis,” says Okereke…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/11/03/africas-buyers-remorse-over-paris-climate-deal/

    3 Nov: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Climate finance in 2016: 4 reports you need to read
    Funds for clean energy and climate resilience are flowing, but fuzzy reporting on what counts as green finance makes tracking support tricky
    On Monday I wrote about 12 reports you should read before the UN climate talks kick-off in Marrakech, Morocco next week.
    Today I’ve got a shorter list: 4 studies on the state of climate finance…
    But it’s also complex. There’s still no agreed definition on what climate funding is, and much is mixed up with development and wider infrastructure finance flows…
    1. Oxfam’s Climate Finance Shadow Report 2016…
    2. UK & Australia’s $100 billion roadmap…
    3. Adaptation Watch: Transparency Gap Report…
    4. Climate Policy Initiative: Update of 2013 & 2014 flows
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/11/03/climate-finance-in-2016-4-reports-you-need-to-read/

    31

  • #
    pat

    losing interest?

    3 Nov: EurActiv: Merkel rebuffs German minister’s call to step into climate dispute
    Chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday (2 November) rejected a call from her environment minister to intervene in a dispute over how to curb CO2 emissions that has prompted her cabinet to delay approving a climate action plan…
    Barbara Hendricks, a member of the Social Democrats, Merkel’s junior coalition partner, had wanted her proposals for Germany’s Climate Action Plan for 2050 to be ready for the next round of global climate talks in mid-November in Morocco.
    But Merkel said Hendricks needed to try to work out an agreement with other ministers before she would get involved…
    Resistance from ministries – in particular transport and agriculture – run by Merkel’s conservatives has led to a delay and means Hendricks will go to the Morocco talks empty-handed…
    Merkel, once dubbed the “climate chancellor”, has remained noticeably absent in recent months from the debate over what is intended to Germany’s plan to meet its ambitious climate goals…
    Following months of debate, the environment ministry has already watered down its proposals by abandoning a timetable to exit coal-fired power generation and scrapping C02 emissions reduction goals for individual sectors…
    Hendricks urged other ministries to take Germany’s climate commitments seriously. “Some people still seem to believe that climate protection is solely the pleasure of the environment minister,” she said.
    “If we cannot reach a consensus on the way to exit coal, legal regulations will inevitably become unavoidable. I want to avoid this.”
    https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/merkel-rebuffs-german-ministers-call-to-step-into-climate-dispute/

    41

  • #
    pat

    2 Nov: Bloomberg: Reed Landberg: Climate Promises Can’t Kill Asia’s Coal Addiction
    China will still be building 1 coal power plant a week in 2020
    Asia’s demand for coal is likely to increase for years to come…
    That’s the conclusion an analysis of Bloomberg New Energy Finance delivered at its conference in Shanghai on Wednesday…
    With envoys from 190 nations gathering next week in Morocco to advance the emissions-curbs agreed to at a landmark United Nations conference in Paris last year, the BNEF findings show that the world remains far from its goal of reining in the threat of global warming. At the same time, clean-energy investment is set to drop (LINK).
    “Clean energy investment will be down 15 to 20 percent this year,” Liebreich said in an interview in Shanghai. “As things stand, it will not bounce back to a new record in the next five years” because of sluggish economic growth, moves by policymakers to reduce costs and the falling price of wind and solar equipment…
    ***A common refrain is that China builds two new coal plants a week. That’s still true despite efforts by policymakers to rely less on coal for power generation and as growth in demand for power slides. The above chart shows that BNEF’s outlook sees China’s rate of building coal-fired power stations falling from two to one in the next five years…
    Japan is pushing ahead with new coal-fired plants based on an assumption that power growth will continue for the next 15 years. The chart shows an increase in coal generation capacity after 2020 — and BNEF’s forecast that electricity demand will ease in the next decade…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-02/asia-s-coal-addiction-seen-growing-despite-promises-on-climate

    41

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Asian countries couldn’t care less about emissions because their government wants their citizens to be better off in the future, while the opposite applies in western countries.
      And China long ago worked out that CO2 has nothing to do with the small rise in temperature in the northern hemisphere.

      51

  • #
    Anne Carter

    On the topic of media bias there is an outstanding BBC interview on Rita Panahi’s blog with Milo who works for Breitbart USA

    20

  • #
    Anne Carter

    has anyone watched the BBC interview of Milo (US Breitbart) on Rita Panahi’s site?

    20

  • #
    TdeF

    I wonder what the result would be if the BREXIT referendum was held today? After the end of world scares did not come true.

    Similarly with Obama’s threat that a vote for Trump is a vote for Armageddon. He also wants his legacy to continue. What, Obamacare and the ‘Arab Spring’? Surely the US has had enough of both as well as endless Russia baiting.
    Kerry could retire and look after his hair. Those long international flights are so stressful for hair.

    50

  • #

    From EU Referendum

    One thing I find puzzling about this interim judgement though is why their Lordships seems to have misinformed themselves about the nature of Article 50(2), having regard to the first paragraph of the Article.

    The first paragraph, as readers will recall, is a statement of fact – reliant on customary law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It says: “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.

    And clearly, this Member State, represented by the Government led by Mrs May, has decided to withdraw from the Union. The decision has already been made. Mrs May has reminded us of that many times since her very first pronouncement on becoming Prime Minister, when she declared “Brexit means Brexit”. There would be no rowing back.

    Whether or not there was a formal Cabinet decision to that effect, we do not know, but there can be no possible doubt that this Government means the United Kingdom to leave the EU.

    (emphasis added)

    30

  • #
    woobble

    I understand the Brexiteers anger over this, but in reality they should be pleased as punch. They spent the whole campaign arguing that Parliament was the sovereign body and that Parliamentary authority was exactly what “taking back our country” meant. So after a campaign of barefaced lies about returning GBP350 million a week to fund the NHS and scraping a 2% margin in the referendum I can understand their angst at now being made to be transparent about what “Brexit means Brexit” means. Because nobody has the first clue what it means, that’s why.

    13

    • #
      Annie

      Yes, the sovereign body that is meant to represent the people, not themselves.

      10

    • #
      michael rupcich

      I agree with the ruling.
      One can be both pro Brexit and pro rule of law.

      The concern people have is that a large plurality if not an outright majority of MPs will choose not to represent the expressed will of the people, and will instead use every parliamentary procedure possible to defeat, subvert, delay and water down Brexit. I think that concern is well founded. Quite a few Remainers have made it quite clear that their respect for democratic choices made by the people ends the minute the people choose “wrong”. Votes that go my way are sacred, votes that go the other way I will rationalize away as somehow flawed and therefore not meaningful.

      As far as the lies goes…you have a point, but it is a red herring. There was plenty of rubbish put forward by both sides. The utterance of factually challenged statements doesn’t void the vote results (what election could clear that hurdle?). You imply that if you voted leave it was because you were bamboozled and had no idea what you were voting for, but if you voted remain you clearly understood everything. Nonsense. Nobody has a crystal ball, so nobody can precisely predict how it will unfold, however you will be hard pressed to find anybody who did not understand that a vote to leave the EU—was a vote to leave the EU!

      30

      • #
        woobble

        You make good points Michael. There are going to have been people on both sides of the argument who were bamboozled by the lies though – whether it was the magic bus or project fear. It’s really interesting to consider how individual MP’s should vote: should they slavishly follow the vote of their constituents (so that my MP from Harrogate must vote to try to remain), or should they slavishly follow the national will (all vote for brexit), or should they vote their conscience, or the party whip (can’t see socts nats voting brexit)? Intruguing future.

        00

        • #
          michael rupcich

          I don’t envy the job of the MP’s right now. I can accept a decision based on the national vote or the constituency, however given that this is the defining issue of this parliament, a vote of conscience or a whipped vote is a decision to represent themselves or their party instead of the people they are duty bound to represent, although I am sure that some will see it differently (I don’t see the scots nats MPs as facing much of a dilemma as the whipped vote and the constituency vote are pretty much the same thing).
          MPs will be under intense pressure from all sides,their constituents, their party, and every imaginable interest group and roughly half the people will be foaming at the mouth mad at them screaming that they are sell outs or traitors, no matter what they do.
          Contrary to popular belief, most MPs are honest and sincere people who truly do want to do what is best, but that does not get you a lot of prominence (they don’t write a lot of stories about the airplanes that land safely and on time either).

          Being unreasonable, bellicose, and saying outrageous things does get you noticed in the public square. In any passionate debate, not just Brexit, the most unreasonable voices tend to be prominent. I’ve never been certain if it is because silly statements are easy to package into four word headlines and ten second sound bites, whereas thoughtful nuanced arguments aren’t easily distilled, or if it is about creating controversy to sell papers, or if it’s about rallying cries and deriding your opponents to push an agenda. Likewise, it is hard to tell if the person saying these things is as unreasonable as they sound, or if they are generally reasonable, but the silliest things they say are what gets noticed, or perhaps they are saying outrageous things in order to be heard above the din and get their message out, or is it just that this is their way to gain the spotlight. I suspect that there are elements of all of the above. Sadly, you are a lot more likely to be on television if you wear your underwear on your head than if you do not. It’s easy to blame the media, but at the end of the day, the reason that they print drivel is because that is what we, the public, want to buy.

          Realistically, there may have been a few, but not very many, people who would have voted remain but changed their vote because Boris said they could have their cake and eat it too. Likewise there weren’t that many people who switched from leave because cabinet ministers claimed that Brexit would turn the UK into a third world nation and the Prime Minister said that Brexit could trigger WWIII. Silly statements may get a lot of headlines, but they aren’t all that persuasive.
          There were pros and cons for remain and leave. The vote was close nationally, but also for many, individually, it was a hard decision. It would be easier if we had a crystal ball and knew how it would turn out, but we don’t. You weigh it up the best you can, make a decision, and go from there. The uncertainty resulting from the vote may be a little unnerving for the UK, but truly, Brexit or no Brexit, the future never is certain.

          00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Maybe sooner Jeremy Corbyn becomes UK PM the better. Also considering who his brother is.

    10

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Hers something for the millenium babies to look forward to ..

    “The quasi-centennial epoch of the new Little Ice Age has started at the end 2015 after the maximum phase of solar cycle 24. The start of a solar grand minimum is anticipated in solar cycle 27 ± 1 in 2043 ± 11 and the beginning of phase of deep cooling in the new Little Ice Age in 2060 ± 11. ”

    https://www.sott.net/article/332663-Russian-scientist-The-new-Little-Ice-Age-has-started

    Fits in with the 60 year cycle discovery of Landsheidt et al. Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter–Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296–311.

    01

  • #

    O/T but:

    > we’ve been informed that both of David’s papers will be published in October

    (http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/new-science-26-the-solar-fall-and-lag-means-david-evans-model-predicts-cooling-is-just-around-the-corner/).

    How’s that coming along?

    23

    • #
      clipe

      Not O/T but:

      Stopping Brexit

      How’s that coming along?

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      The WC need flushing again. !

      Come back when you have corrected all your ERRORS and MISINFORMATION on Wikipedia.

      22

    • #
      AndyG55

      Have you seen the temperatures in upper Europe, WC?

      The only warmth left is in the Arctic and a bit in the Antarctic, both are conduits for getting rid of the unbalanced energy now the sun is a bit less active.

      David’s prediction is looking pretty much SPOT ON. !

      http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/October/OCTOBER%202016.png

      I hope you particularly have a very unpleasantly cold winter over there in the UK. !!

      And I hope you are one of the many that will be affected as the unstable electricity system starts to crash.

      12

      • #
        AndyG55

        http://notrickszone.com/2016/11/04/cold-october-n-hemisphere-snow-cover-reaches-near-record-high-record-snow-in-siberia/#sthash.ofvHPFbt.dpbs

        Very cold October in Europe.. more deep cold to come.

        And its gradually moving west.

        Make sure your electric and gas fired heaters are in top working order, WC. :-)

        I wonder how many people won’t be able to afford the rising costs. !

        00

        • #
          RAH

          It’s coming here in Indiana also. When I got back at 05:00 this morning to the terminal I had to scrape the windshield of my old pickup truck. It wasn’t frost; It was hard ice. It’s looking more and more like come the middle of November temps here will be those we usually don’t get until mid Jan into Feb. Time to bring some of my firewood up to it’s ready position the back deck. Though my home is heated with a forced draft natural gas fueled furnace, there just isn’t anything like the heat one gets from a nice fire in the fireplace. Our pooch thinks so too. When I make a fire she’ll be stretched out right in front of it on the hearth rug. Sometimes I wonder why she doesn’t burst into flames.

          10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Hello William,

      The information I have, is that David Evans papers were planned for October, since it is useful to have a target that is both a challenge, but also reasonable.

      Those of us in the corporate world understand such things. Invariably, something occurs that disrupts the schedule, such as having to deal with an ailing relative, or that sort of thing.

      Since David is not apparently paid by the hour, the variable completion date is not an issue, except for people like yourself, who would like to make political capital of it.

      01