Overwhelmingly on the Leave side.
Has he changed his mind again? Three days ago he was saying that leaving without a deal was "the only acceptable way".
Yet the video footage in the 2019 article seems to show him saying something different to the 2016 footage. Strange.
Yet the video footage in the 2019 article seems to show him saying something different to the 2016 footage. Strange.
It could also be argued that he still holds the opinion he expressed in 2016, and that what he said this week is a con. Or maybe he believed that negotiations could lead directly to a Norway-style solution, without having to negotiate a separate withdrawal first. Either way, I couldn't presume to know what his inner thoughts are. The best I could do is guess.
I'm glad you think so highly of him.
So a report is required before Parliament on or before the 4th of September, there must be a debate in Parliament within 5 days, then a further report on or before the 9th of October (and debate), then every 14 days. If Parliament is prorogued, Parliament will be required to meet for the report of debate anyway.
I think this allows for the second report to be produced on 9 October and the debate to be held within 5 days on the 14th, which is the date of the Queen's Speech so after the end of prorogation. It's probably the reason the 14th was chosen. The debates on the first three reports also eat into the time available for other business before 31 October.
Possibly, but a copy of the report must "be laid before each House of Parliament by the end of the day on which it is published". So if that's the Government's intention, they'd have to order Parliament to sit on the 9th as well.
I'd have thought if that was the correct interpretation, at least one of the legal brains involved would have picked it up by now.
True, though some of the "inner" legal brains will be keeping quiet so as not to let their opposition know what they're planning (like the Government had kept quiet about the prorogation until Wednesday).
I guess it depends on the meaning of "laid before". Presumably something can be laid before Parliament even if it's not there at the time.
Parliament is the people, not the building.
I'm not sure how serious you are with these posts - taken at face value you are entirely happy to see thousands thrown out of work to prove a point. You may be trying to be ironic but it's difficult to do in writing at the best of times. On a topic as inflamed as this one people are apt to get the wrong end of the stick and use it to poke someone in the eye.
