Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Punters give Biden just a 30% chance of being the WH2024 nominee – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 22 in General
imagePunters give Biden just a 30% chance of being the WH2024 nominee – politicalbetting.com

Although it is less than 2 years since the last White House Race the betting markets on who will be the parties’ nominees and who will win in 2024 are very active. The big question is whether the incumbent, Joe Biden who will be 80 shortly after November’s midterms, is going to run again. A problem for him is that once has said that he is standing aside he becomes a lame duck.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,138
    I think 30% is too low. I think Biden runs again.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited May 16
    nico679 said:

    One person is killed and five wounded at mass shooting inside Orange County Presbyterian church:

    Remember according to the NRA guns don’t kill people , people kill people!

    When is the next candlelight vigil , rinse and repeat on a daily basis !

    So thankful to live in Europe where you can go to the supermarket or church and not get your head blown off . The USA is a lost cause .
    I thought it was rappers that did?
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 447
    In the early years of the United States, presidents were often first secretaries of state. That makes sense because the weakness of the early republic required a man who could conduct foreign policy.

    Since then, we have been more likely to choose generals, and governors. That makes sense, too; as we became less and less isolationist, we needed men who could manage our enormous armed forces, and men who had that rare talent for managing large public bureaucracies. Vice presidents too, often get a shot, especially if the president they served was thought to be successful.

    Oddly enough, none the four potential challengers Mike lists have the kind of experience once thought necessary to be a serious candidate in the US. Kamala Harris serving a president who is, fairly or unfairly, not thought to be a great success, nor was she in her time as California Attorney General. Pete Buttigeig was mayor of a medium-sized city. Elizabeth Warren has never held an executive position. Michelle Obama has never held a significant executive position.

    This poor field is not because there are no successful governors in the Democratic Party, though the two most obvious, Cuomo of New York and Newsom of California, have disqualified themselves, in different ways. But that still leaves former governors such as Gina Raimondo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Raimondo and John Hickenlooper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hickenlooper

    But, neither seem attractive to Democratic caucus goers and voters, nor to British bettors.

    (Full disclosure: Were they to ask me -- they won't -- I would advise the Democrats to choose Hickenlooper. He has a science degree, he had a successful business career, and was successful as both mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado.)



  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 447
    By the way, I agree with edmundintokyo and pulpstar that 30 percent is too low -- by quite a bit, even allowing for Biden's possible demise.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    Interesting thread:

    What if - and hear me out - popular newspapers were not master manipulators of public opinion and were instead highly adept at understanding and tracking it?

    https://twitter.com/gabrielmilland/status/1525776457989074944
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523
    Report on NHS reveals ‘astonishing’ explosion in central bureaucracy
    Ahead of a leadership review in the health service, analysis shows the number of officials has more than doubled in two years

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/15/report-nhs-reveals-astonishing-explosion-central-bureaucracy/ (£££)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234
    The value there - sadly for America - is Kamala.

    Joe Biden has not become sharper during his two years as President. He's on the cusp of 80. He would be massacred in the debates. (He would - let us not forget - be 82 at the beginning of his second term. Can anyone seriously suggest that we should have a President that will be nearer 90 than 80 at the end of his term?

    I would sell Biden, and be a modest buyer of Harris. Buttigieg is great, but transport secretary is not a high profile role. I would expect an elected representative or two to have a tilt. How about:

    - Sherrod Brown of Ohio
    - JB Pritzker of Illinois
    - Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan
    - Steve Sisolak of Nevada
    - Bob Casey of Pennsylvania
    - Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
    or
    - Jon Ossoff of Georgia
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234

    30% is way too low. He spent his whole life trying to be president, why would he give it up? Especially when the likely replacement is Kamala who would probably lose and put the guy he beat back in.

    I think you're delusional.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147

    In the early years of the United States, presidents were often first secretaries of state. That makes sense because the weakness of the early republic required a man who could conduct foreign policy.

    Since then, we have been more likely to choose generals, and governors. That makes sense, too; as we became less and less isolationist, we needed men who could manage our enormous armed forces, and men who had that rare talent for managing large public bureaucracies. Vice presidents too, often get a shot, especially if the president they served was thought to be successful.

    Oddly enough, none the four potential challengers Mike lists have the kind of experience once thought necessary to be a serious candidate in the US. Kamala Harris serving a president who is, fairly or unfairly, not thought to be a great success, nor was she in her time as California Attorney General. Pete Buttigeig was mayor of a medium-sized city. Elizabeth Warren has never held an executive position. Michelle Obama has never held a significant executive position.

    This poor field is not because there are no successful governors in the Democratic Party, though the two most obvious, Cuomo of New York and Newsom of California, have disqualified themselves, in different ways. But that still leaves former governors such as Gina Raimondo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Raimondo and John Hickenlooper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hickenlooper

    But, neither seem attractive to Democratic caucus goers and voters, nor to British bettors.

    (Full disclosure: Were they to ask me -- they won't -- I would advise the Democrats to choose Hickenlooper. He has a science degree, he had a successful business career, and was successful as both mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado.)



    There are a lot of governors (and one not-yet-governor, Stacy Abrams) who could plausibly run, but they kind of make up a long tail of individually improbable winners, because you don't know if they're going for it. The names on the graph are all people who ran last time, because they had nothing better to do, which at least shows you that they're people who would run for president.

    The listed names only add up to 68%, so there's plenty of room for other candidates. See the full list:
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/30186572/multi-market?marketIds=1.178163685
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234

    In the early years of the United States, presidents were often first secretaries of state. That makes sense because the weakness of the early republic required a man who could conduct foreign policy.

    Since then, we have been more likely to choose generals, and governors. That makes sense, too; as we became less and less isolationist, we needed men who could manage our enormous armed forces, and men who had that rare talent for managing large public bureaucracies. Vice presidents too, often get a shot, especially if the president they served was thought to be successful.

    Oddly enough, none the four potential challengers Mike lists have the kind of experience once thought necessary to be a serious candidate in the US. Kamala Harris serving a president who is, fairly or unfairly, not thought to be a great success, nor was she in her time as California Attorney General. Pete Buttigeig was mayor of a medium-sized city. Elizabeth Warren has never held an executive position. Michelle Obama has never held a significant executive position.

    This poor field is not because there are no successful governors in the Democratic Party, though the two most obvious, Cuomo of New York and Newsom of California, have disqualified themselves, in different ways. But that still leaves former governors such as Gina Raimondo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Raimondo and John Hickenlooper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hickenlooper

    But, neither seem attractive to Democratic caucus goers and voters, nor to British bettors.

    (Full disclosure: Were they to ask me -- they won't -- I would advise the Democrats to choose Hickenlooper. He has a science degree, he had a successful business career, and was successful as both mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado.)



    Hickenlooper crashed and burned last time around. Great CV. No charisma.

    I doubt he'll even think of running again.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    rcs1000 said:


    Joe Biden has not become sharper during his two years as President. He's on the cusp of 80. He would be massacred in the debates. (He would - let us not forget - be 82 at the beginning of his second term. Can anyone seriously suggest that we should have a President that will be nearer 90 than 80 at the end of his term?

    What (America) *should* have isn't relevant. They should have gun control, reasonably-priced medical care and Tokyo-style planning regulations but they don't. All the old folks should retire, but they keep running and Americans keep electing them, even if they clearly have serious dementia like Dianne Feinstein.

    The question here isn't what we thing should happen, it's what (health permitting) Joe Biden thinks should happen. OK, he could be challenged either from the left or from the competent centre, but primary voters generally get behind their president.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234

    rcs1000 said:


    Joe Biden has not become sharper during his two years as President. He's on the cusp of 80. He would be massacred in the debates. (He would - let us not forget - be 82 at the beginning of his second term. Can anyone seriously suggest that we should have a President that will be nearer 90 than 80 at the end of his term?

    What (America) *should* have isn't relevant. They should have gun control, reasonably-priced medical care and Tokyo-style planning regulations but they don't. All the old folks should retire, but they keep running and Americans keep electing them, even if they clearly have serious dementia like Dianne Feinstein.

    The question here isn't what we thing should happen, it's what (health permitting) Joe Biden thinks should happen. OK, he could be challenged either from the left or from the competent centre, but primary voters generally get behind their president.
    Yeah, but no.

    Biden wouldn't get a free run. He'd be primaried. And he'd be the guy with the Big Red X on his back. Can you imagine the impact of him being massacred by his own party on TV?

    Biden would only run again if guaranteed a free run.

    There will be no free run.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Joe Biden has not become sharper during his two years as President. He's on the cusp of 80. He would be massacred in the debates. (He would - let us not forget - be 82 at the beginning of his second term. Can anyone seriously suggest that we should have a President that will be nearer 90 than 80 at the end of his term?

    What (America) *should* have isn't relevant. They should have gun control, reasonably-priced medical care and Tokyo-style planning regulations but they don't. All the old folks should retire, but they keep running and Americans keep electing them, even if they clearly have serious dementia like Dianne Feinstein.

    The question here isn't what we thing should happen, it's what (health permitting) Joe Biden thinks should happen. OK, he could be challenged either from the left or from the competent centre, but primary voters generally get behind their president.
    Yeah, but no.

    Biden wouldn't get a free run. He'd be primaried. And he'd be the guy with the Big Red X on his back. Can you imagine the impact of him being massacred by his own party on TV?

    Biden would only run again if guaranteed a free run.

    There will be no free run.
    If the Dems look like winning, they'll cheer on Biden (assuming he wants a second term). If the Dems look like losing, they'll cheer on Biden and plan their runs for 2028 because there is no upside for them in splitting the party in order to crash and burn.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523
    OT EDF wants me to switch to a more expensive fixed tariff, which they say might be cheaper in the long run.

    How is the average consumer expected to judge? Perhaps we were better off in the old days when you bought gas from the gas board and electricity from the electricity board. The market is skewed in favour of clued-up professionals who are underpinned by the state stepping in to organise bail-outs when over-aggressive trading goes pear-shaped.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,149
    edited May 16
    I've used last price matched on Betfair to calculate punters' view of probability of nomination and probability of winning. Probability of winning IF nominated is the latter divided by the former.
    Here is the result of my analysis.


    Conclusions

    De Santis has the best chance of winning IF nominated (66%).
    Harris has the worst (36%).

    Of the Democrats, Biden has the best chance IF nominated (50%).
    Of the Republicans, it's De Santis (66%).

    For the Democrats there's a 45% chance that none of the top three runners will be nominated.
    For the Republicans it's a 27%.

    There's a 32% chance that the next President will not be any of the top three runners of either party.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202

    nico679 said:

    One person is killed and five wounded at mass shooting inside Orange County Presbyterian church:

    Remember according to the NRA guns don’t kill people , people kill people!

    When is the next candlelight vigil , rinse and repeat on a daily basis !

    So thankful to live in Europe where you can go to the supermarket or church and not get your head blown off . The USA is a lost cause .
    I thought it was rappers that did?
    Tends to be white supremacists these days.

    A non-violent protest of less than 100 people led to immediate Congressional legislation and more opinion articles and certain future references in American political debates than will a mass murder of 10 people.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/1525905348363681792
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    Barnesian said:

    I've used last price matched on Betfair to calculate punters' view of probability of nomination and probability of winning. Probability of winning IF nominated is the latter divided by the former.
    Here is the result of my analysis.


    Conclusions

    De Santis has the best chance of winning IF nominated (66%).
    Harris has the worst (36%).

    Of the Democrats, Biden has the best chance IF nominated (50%).
    Of the Republicans, it's De Santis (66%).

    For the Democrats there's a 45% chance that none of the top three runners will be nominated.
    For the Republicans it's a 27%.

    There's a 32% chance that the next President will not be any of the top three runners of either party.

    Interesting, but those odds are all WAGs at this stage.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371

    OT EDF wants me to switch to a more expensive fixed tariff, which they say might be cheaper in the long run.

    How is the average consumer expected to judge? Perhaps we were better off in the old days when you bought gas from the gas board and electricity from the electricity board. The market is skewed in favour of clued-up professionals who are underpinned by the state stepping in to organise bail-outs when over-aggressive trading goes pear-shaped.

    Interesting!

    I ignored Scottish Power's attempt to coerce me into something similar and I'm paying half what they wanted.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,138
    Nigelb said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've used last price matched on Betfair to calculate punters' view of probability of nomination and probability of winning. Probability of winning IF nominated is the latter divided by the former.
    Here is the result of my analysis.


    Conclusions

    De Santis has the best chance of winning IF nominated (66%).
    Harris has the worst (36%).

    Of the Democrats, Biden has the best chance IF nominated (50%).
    Of the Republicans, it's De Santis (66%).

    For the Democrats there's a 45% chance that none of the top three runners will be nominated.
    For the Republicans it's a 27%.

    There's a 32% chance that the next President will not be any of the top three runners of either party.

    Interesting, but those odds are all WAGs at this stage.
    Is Colleen Rooney running ?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    So much for Macron’s phone calls…..

    #BREAKING Russian assets of France's Renault now state property: ministry

    https://twitter.com/afp/status/1526078004950351872
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,525

    OT EDF wants me to switch to a more expensive fixed tariff, which they say might be cheaper in the long run.

    How is the average consumer expected to judge? Perhaps we were better off in the old days when you bought gas from the gas board and electricity from the electricity board. The market is skewed in favour of clued-up professionals who are underpinned by the state stepping in to organise bail-outs when over-aggressive trading goes pear-shaped.

    This is the sort of thing for which Martin Lewis would be a general first port of call.

    Last I saw, after the April cap increase, he was suggesting a fix 25% above the current cap would be worth considering for those who wanted price certainty against future cap changes, but noting everything in this market is a gamble. Obviously, the futures markets have run for several weeks since then, so that advice could have changed substantially, so DYOR.

    Tbh, not many of the fixes on offer we're meeting his value criteria back last month.

    Also, and I don't want to push too hard, but be aware that often the best price fixes are only available for very short time spans, sometimes just a few days, in the current market, so DYOR as soon you are offered.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 3,335

    OT. Not just as a West Ham fan but as a football fan, players like this are sadly few and far between now.

    Mark Nobel retires after spending his whole career playing for the Hammers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmxPeiOsE84

    @paddypower
    'Dad, what are you doing with my felt tip pens?'

    'You'll see, son. You'll see'.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've used last price matched on Betfair to calculate punters' view of probability of nomination and probability of winning. Probability of winning IF nominated is the latter divided by the former.
    Here is the result of my analysis.


    Conclusions

    De Santis has the best chance of winning IF nominated (66%).
    Harris has the worst (36%).

    Of the Democrats, Biden has the best chance IF nominated (50%).
    Of the Republicans, it's De Santis (66%).

    For the Democrats there's a 45% chance that none of the top three runners will be nominated.
    For the Republicans it's a 27%.

    There's a 32% chance that the next President will not be any of the top three runners of either party.

    Interesting, but those odds are all WAGs at this stage.
    Is Colleen Rooney running ?
    It's a US thread - wild ass guess.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178

    In the early years of the United States, presidents were often first secretaries of state. That makes sense because the weakness of the early republic required a man who could conduct foreign policy.

    Since then, we have been more likely to choose generals, and governors. That makes sense, too; as we became less and less isolationist, we needed men who could manage our enormous armed forces, and men who had that rare talent for managing large public bureaucracies. Vice presidents too, often get a shot, especially if the president they served was thought to be successful.

    Oddly enough, none the four potential challengers Mike lists have the kind of experience once thought necessary to be a serious candidate in the US. Kamala Harris serving a president who is, fairly or unfairly, not thought to be a great success, nor was she in her time as California Attorney General. Pete Buttigeig was mayor of a medium-sized city. Elizabeth Warren has never held an executive position. Michelle Obama has never held a significant executive position.

    This poor field is not because there are no successful governors in the Democratic Party, though the two most obvious, Cuomo of New York and Newsom of California, have disqualified themselves, in different ways. But that still leaves former governors such as Gina Raimondo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Raimondo and John Hickenlooper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hickenlooper

    But, neither seem attractive to Democratic caucus goers and voters, nor to British bettors.

    (Full disclosure: Were they to ask me -- they won't -- I would advise the Democrats to choose Hickenlooper. He has a science degree, he had a successful business career, and was successful as both mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado.)

    Am I right in thinking the last incumbent cabinet minister* to run for and win the presidency was Herbert Hoover in 1928?

    * other than a Veep, which may or may not be considered a cabinet post in theory)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    ydoethur said:

    In the early years of the United States, presidents were often first secretaries of state. That makes sense because the weakness of the early republic required a man who could conduct foreign policy.

    Since then, we have been more likely to choose generals, and governors. That makes sense, too; as we became less and less isolationist, we needed men who could manage our enormous armed forces, and men who had that rare talent for managing large public bureaucracies. Vice presidents too, often get a shot, especially if the president they served was thought to be successful.

    Oddly enough, none the four potential challengers Mike lists have the kind of experience once thought necessary to be a serious candidate in the US. Kamala Harris serving a president who is, fairly or unfairly, not thought to be a great success, nor was she in her time as California Attorney General. Pete Buttigeig was mayor of a medium-sized city. Elizabeth Warren has never held an executive position. Michelle Obama has never held a significant executive position.

    This poor field is not because there are no successful governors in the Democratic Party, though the two most obvious, Cuomo of New York and Newsom of California, have disqualified themselves, in different ways. But that still leaves former governors such as Gina Raimondo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Raimondo and John Hickenlooper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hickenlooper

    But, neither seem attractive to Democratic caucus goers and voters, nor to British bettors.

    (Full disclosure: Were they to ask me -- they won't -- I would advise the Democrats to choose Hickenlooper. He has a science degree, he had a successful business career, and was successful as both mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado.)

    Am I right in thinking the last incumbent cabinet minister* to run for and win the presidency was Herbert Hoover in 1928?

    * other than a Veep, which may or may not be considered a cabinet post in theory)
    Is not the department of transportation a large bureaucracy ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234

    So much for Macron’s phone calls…..

    #BREAKING Russian assets of France's Renault now state property: ministry

    https://twitter.com/afp/status/1526078004950351872

    I would expect similar things to happen to BP and Shell's assets in Russia.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    It does look like the punters are a very unoriginal bunch, backing the 2020 losers again. There may some new faces this time. Buttigeig looks the best of those mentioned.

    I think Biden will step out of the race after the mid terms. He always looked like a single term President.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,923
    edited May 16
    Certainly if Biden does run again he would be well over 80 before he finishes his second term. However if he does run for re election it already looks much closer than 2020, Trump leading Biden 43% to 41% in the latest RedfieldWilton poll.

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/joe-biden-administration-approval-ratings-and-hypothetical-voting-intention-18-april-2022/

    If Biden does not run again though I would suggest Buttigieg is the Democrats best hope of holding the White House as OGH suggests
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    In the early years of the United States, presidents were often first secretaries of state. That makes sense because the weakness of the early republic required a man who could conduct foreign policy.

    Since then, we have been more likely to choose generals, and governors. That makes sense, too; as we became less and less isolationist, we needed men who could manage our enormous armed forces, and men who had that rare talent for managing large public bureaucracies. Vice presidents too, often get a shot, especially if the president they served was thought to be successful.

    Oddly enough, none the four potential challengers Mike lists have the kind of experience once thought necessary to be a serious candidate in the US. Kamala Harris serving a president who is, fairly or unfairly, not thought to be a great success, nor was she in her time as California Attorney General. Pete Buttigeig was mayor of a medium-sized city. Elizabeth Warren has never held an executive position. Michelle Obama has never held a significant executive position.

    This poor field is not because there are no successful governors in the Democratic Party, though the two most obvious, Cuomo of New York and Newsom of California, have disqualified themselves, in different ways. But that still leaves former governors such as Gina Raimondo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Raimondo and John Hickenlooper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hickenlooper

    But, neither seem attractive to Democratic caucus goers and voters, nor to British bettors.

    (Full disclosure: Were they to ask me -- they won't -- I would advise the Democrats to choose Hickenlooper. He has a science degree, he had a successful business career, and was successful as both mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado.)

    Am I right in thinking the last incumbent cabinet minister* to run for and win the presidency was Herbert Hoover in 1928?

    * other than a Veep, which may or may not be considered a cabinet post in theory)
    Is not the department of transportation a large bureaucracy ?
    I dunno, it's gone off the rails recently.

    Hopefully Amtrak Joe will restore things.

    Have a good morning.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    Foxy said:

    It does look like the punters are a very unoriginal bunch, backing the 2020 losers again. There may some new faces this time. Buttigeig looks the best of those mentioned.

    I think Biden will step out of the race after the mid terms. He always looked like a single term President.

    Unknowable at this point.
    The economy looks as though it will be brutal for the midterms, but an end to the war in Ukraine, should it come soon enough, could see it improve rapidly, as the pandemic disruption in China will also be over (very probably).

    Then it's down to how many of his marbles he still has...

    30% looks a decent guess, I suppose.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523
    rcs1000 said:

    So much for Macron’s phone calls…..

    #BREAKING Russian assets of France's Renault now state property: ministry

    https://twitter.com/afp/status/1526078004950351872

    I would expect similar things to happen to BP and Shell's assets in Russia.
    Yes, we said this at the time. This is going to be very expensive. One reason why sanctions should be targeted. Still, it might be worth it, if it works. As Churchill said, "whatever the cost may be".
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,127
    rcs1000 said:

    So much for Macron’s phone calls…..

    #BREAKING Russian assets of France's Renault now state property: ministry

    https://twitter.com/afp/status/1526078004950351872

    I would expect similar things to happen to BP and Shell's assets in Russia.
    I love their phrasing “agreements have been signed”… how much agreeing did you think Renault actually did?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    It does look like the punters are a very unoriginal bunch, backing the 2020 losers again. There may some new faces this time. Buttigeig looks the best of those mentioned.

    I think Biden will step out of the race after the mid terms. He always looked like a single term President.

    Unknowable at this point.
    The economy looks as though it will be brutal for the midterms, but an end to the war in Ukraine, should it come soon enough, could see it improve rapidly, as the pandemic disruption in China will also be over (very probably).

    Then it's down to how many of his marbles he still has...

    30% looks a decent guess, I suppose.
    America has also just reached a million Covid deaths.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,127
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    In the early years of the United States, presidents were often first secretaries of state. That makes sense because the weakness of the early republic required a man who could conduct foreign policy.

    Since then, we have been more likely to choose generals, and governors. That makes sense, too; as we became less and less isolationist, we needed men who could manage our enormous armed forces, and men who had that rare talent for managing large public bureaucracies. Vice presidents too, often get a shot, especially if the president they served was thought to be successful.

    Oddly enough, none the four potential challengers Mike lists have the kind of experience once thought necessary to be a serious candidate in the US. Kamala Harris serving a president who is, fairly or unfairly, not thought to be a great success, nor was she in her time as California Attorney General. Pete Buttigeig was mayor of a medium-sized city. Elizabeth Warren has never held an executive position. Michelle Obama has never held a significant executive position.

    This poor field is not because there are no successful governors in the Democratic Party, though the two most obvious, Cuomo of New York and Newsom of California, have disqualified themselves, in different ways. But that still leaves former governors such as Gina Raimondo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Raimondo and John Hickenlooper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hickenlooper

    But, neither seem attractive to Democratic caucus goers and voters, nor to British bettors.

    (Full disclosure: Were they to ask me -- they won't -- I would advise the Democrats to choose Hickenlooper. He has a science degree, he had a successful business career, and was successful as both mayor of Denver and governor of Colorado.)

    Am I right in thinking the last incumbent cabinet minister* to run for and win the presidency was Herbert Hoover in 1928?

    * other than a Veep, which may or may not be considered a cabinet post in theory)
    Is not the department of transportation a large bureaucracy ?
    I dunno, it's gone off the rails recently.

    Hopefully Amtrak Joe will restore things.

    Have a good morning.
    Buttigeig had the chance to put himself front and centre with the transportation renewal package and massed it up
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,615
    rcs1000 said:

    30% is way too low. He spent his whole life trying to be president, why would he give it up? Especially when the likely replacement is Kamala who would probably lose and put the guy he beat back in.

    I think you're delusional.
    Delusional? Seems unlikely but who knows.
    Deluded on Biden's chances? Not at all, he is correct.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    I hope Biden doesn’t run. The Republicans are too far gone for salvation, so I hope a decent Democrat candidate emerges. It could be, though, that with federal elections now rigged so heavily in the GOP’s favour, along with the Supreme Court, the best Democrats focus on state elections. Running California, Illinois or New York may be the pinnacle from here on in.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529
    edited May 16
    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    Barnesian said:

    I've used last price matched on Betfair to calculate punters' view of probability of nomination and probability of winning. Probability of winning IF nominated is the latter divided by the former.
    Here is the result of my analysis.


    Conclusions

    De Santis has the best chance of winning IF nominated (66%).
    Harris has the worst (36%).

    Of the Democrats, Biden has the best chance IF nominated (50%).
    Of the Republicans, it's De Santis (66%).

    For the Democrats there's a 45% chance that none of the top three runners will be nominated.
    For the Republicans it's a 27%.

    There's a 32% chance that the next President will not be any of the top three runners of either party.

    Biden and Harris are the two where the two numbers are very much not independent of each other: Biden is more likely to run if he's doing well, and Kamala is more likely to get the job if everything is going to hell, the Dems are totally doomed and Joe says, "You know what, I just noticed I'm getting quite old, good luck with the election kid".
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,376

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,722

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    They'd be correct if so.
    Though Catholicism wouldn't have much to do with it.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,722
    edited May 16
    If Biden chooses to run, he ought to be odds on.
    The question is therefore, will he?
    I don't see anyone obvious who'd have a better chance in the General Election tbf.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529
    edited May 16

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,722

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Yes but. Sinn Fein is in favour of the Protocol. So how would such a compromise look?
    It's become an Article 16 of Faith. Those don't often end well there.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    As noted over the weekend, Hilary Benn set out more sense and practical ideas in a single Twitter thread than this government has during its entire term.
    https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1525145388243615744
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    Pro_Rata said:

    OT EDF wants me to switch to a more expensive fixed tariff, which they say might be cheaper in the long run.

    How is the average consumer expected to judge? Perhaps we were better off in the old days when you bought gas from the gas board and electricity from the electricity board. The market is skewed in favour of clued-up professionals who are underpinned by the state stepping in to organise bail-outs when over-aggressive trading goes pear-shaped.

    This is the sort of thing for which Martin Lewis would be a general first port of call.

    Last I saw, after the April cap increase, he was suggesting a fix 25% above the current cap would be worth considering for those who wanted price certainty against future cap changes, but noting everything in this market is a gamble. Obviously, the futures markets have run for several weeks since then, so that advice could have changed substantially, so DYOR.

    Tbh, not many of the fixes on offer we're meeting his value criteria back last month.

    Also, and I don't want to push too hard, but be aware that often the best price fixes are only available for very short time spans, sometimes just a few days, in the current market, so DYOR as soon you are offered.
    Good morning

    My energy supplier ceased trading last June and was taken over by EDF who continued the green deal tariff until it ran out and on the 1st September they offered me a two year fix but at a substantial increased cost

    I decided at the time energy prices were going to rise substantially and agreed the 2 year fix

    It is the best decision I have made for a long time and to be fair EDF have been excellent
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,449

    Barnesian said:

    I've used last price matched on Betfair to calculate punters' view of probability of nomination and probability of winning. Probability of winning IF nominated is the latter divided by the former.
    Here is the result of my analysis.


    Conclusions

    De Santis has the best chance of winning IF nominated (66%).
    Harris has the worst (36%).

    Of the Democrats, Biden has the best chance IF nominated (50%).
    Of the Republicans, it's De Santis (66%).

    For the Democrats there's a 45% chance that none of the top three runners will be nominated.
    For the Republicans it's a 27%.

    There's a 32% chance that the next President will not be any of the top three runners of either party.

    Biden and Harris are the two where the two numbers are very much not independent of each other: Biden is more likely to run if he's doing well, and Kamala is more likely to get the job if everything is going to hell, the Dems are totally doomed and Joe says, "You know what, I just noticed I'm getting quite old, good luck with the election kid".
    Talking about numbers being independent, I don't think the approach in the spreadsheet is right at all. The odds of winning are probably not a multiplication of their probability of being nominated * their probability of winning if nominated. That kind of approach works when calculating independent probabilities. So, for example, rolling a 6 and getting tails on a coin toss is 17% * 50% = 8%.

    But let's say you wanted to strike a bet on Arsenal winning the quadruple next season. If you just multiple the odds of the three cups and the league, you're going to get a spurious result. That's because in order to be in contention to win the league, they will have improved a significant amount. So their destinies in each competition are linked, there is a confounding variable at play that isn't being accounted for when multiplying the odds.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    I have no interest in the DUP supporting a conservative government, but in the real world the DUP have the power to hold Stormont to ransom and without concessions on all sides this stalemate will remain unsolvable
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    Since we seem to be heading for a repeat of the 1970s, a clip to cheer us up.
    https://twitter.com/Diana_Kuegler/status/1489998453971243013
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    Agree about key being Dublin. I also note @Nigelb upthread about Hilary Benn's suggestions.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,147
    dixiedean said:

    If Biden chooses to run, he ought to be odds on.
    The question is therefore, will he?
    I don't see anyone obvious who'd have a better chance in the General Election tbf.

    It depends whether we reckon presidential incumbency effects are real but I think there are quite a few candidates who would be stronger than Biden in his current state, which may yet deteriorate: Gretchen Whitmer, Pete Buttiegeig, Amy KLOBUCHAR, Jared Polis...

    The problem is that Joe Biden has to make the decision without knowing who the party would pick. I guess I'd rate it something like:

    He retires before the primary and Harris becomes POTUS:
    Kamala Harris: 85%
    Left-wing challenger: 10%
    Electable person: 5%

    He stays on but announces he won't run again
    Kamala Harris: 60%
    Left-wing challenger: 20%
    Electable person: 20%

    Kamala Harris isn't a *terrible* candidate, and she might do better if she had Biden's team rather than her sister or whoever was running her primary campaign. But I think if you're Joe and you feel basically healthy, you feel duty-bound to stay on.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,353

    nico679 said:

    One person is killed and five wounded at mass shooting inside Orange County Presbyterian church:

    Remember according to the NRA guns don’t kill people , people kill people!

    When is the next candlelight vigil , rinse and repeat on a daily basis !

    So thankful to live in Europe where you can go to the supermarket or church and not get your head blown off . The USA is a lost cause .
    I thought it was rappers that did?
    Wonder how many got that reference.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,884
    Foxy said:

    It does look like the punters are a very unoriginal bunch, backing the 2020 losers again. There may some new faces this time. Buttigeig looks the best of those mentioned.

    I think Biden will step out of the race after the mid terms. He always looked like a single term President.

    True no doubt. But an opportunity if true. There are two and two only ways of being in positive territory with betting. One is to be better at prediction than the bookies and the other is to be better at prediction than the other (less original?) punters. (Full disclosure: I am neither).

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,127
    edited May 16
    Nigelb said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    As noted over the weekend, Hilary Benn set out more sense and practical ideas in a single Twitter thread than this government has during its entire term.
    https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1525145388243615744
    It’s worth noting that he is 100% aligned with the view of the government (with one exception below)

    - the GFA should be protected
    - The protocol is the best way forward
    - It needs to operate as intended
    - The EU is imposing its rules without a risk based approach or looking for solutions
    - their proposals actually make things worse
    - Equivalence is the core of any solution

    Where he disagrees (I have some sympathy with his belief, but I don’t believe the EU will respond to “patient diplomacy”) is around the tactics of threatening use of article 16
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

  • pm215pm215 Posts: 330
    rcs1000 said:


    Oddly enough, none the four potential challengers Mike lists have the kind of experience once thought necessary to be a serious candidate in the US.

    Hickenlooper crashed and burned last time around. Great CV. No charisma.
    ...which I think sums up why the US is no longer selecting its Presidential candidates from a slate of experienced governors, secretaries of states and former military top brass -- in the modern mass media era, and when party candidates are chosen by primaries open to all voters of that party, votes go to those with charm, charisma and the ability to persuade, not to those who have a solid shot at being good in the top job. (AIUI back in the 70s and before, US parties had a lot more control over who got the nomination via the conventions. Neil Postman's _Amusing Ourselves to Death_ has a chapter on politics in the TV era, though it's been a while since I read it.)

    In theory our system is a little insulated from this because prospective PMs are not chosen by their parties purely by the mass membership; but in practice MPs pick vote-winners anyway, it seems.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,596
    rcs1000 said:

    The value there - sadly for America - is Kamala.

    Joe Biden has not become sharper during his two years as President. He's on the cusp of 80.

    He's not just 80 though, he's an old 80 who could pass for 90 right now.

    He's not Paul McCartney playing Glastonbury 80.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,010
    R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'

    Ffs.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202

    R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'

    Ffs.

    Just the salient points, please...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202

    Nigelb said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    As noted over the weekend, Hilary Benn set out more sense and practical ideas in a single Twitter thread than this government has during its entire term.
    https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1525145388243615744
    It’s worth noting that he is 100% aligned with the view of the government (with one exception below)

    - the GFA should be protected
    - The protocol is the best way forward
    - It needs to operate as intended
    - The EU is imposing its rules without a risk based approach or looking for solutions
    - their proposals actually make things worse
    - Equivalence is the core of any solution

    Where he disagrees (I have some sympathy with his belief, but I don’t believe the EU will respond to “patient diplomacy”) is around the tactics of threatening use of article 16
    The government are widely seen as weaponising the issue for domestic political reasons. That's not likely to help reach accommodation with the EU.
    Benn also has the small advantage he didn't lie repeatedly to the NI electorate about a deal he signed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202

    R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'

    Ffs.

    Why FFS? It's a term that has slightly different meanings in both military and 'normal' usage. I wouldn't blame any listeners without much of an interest in military matters to wonder quite what is meant. (e.g. "the salient points in his argument...")

    The same with 'cauldron', which I've heard used (it seems mostly in the US).
    Well it's more polite than saying, "you'll have to explain to our listeners, with the exception of PB regulars..."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,923
    edited May 16

    dixiedean said:

    If Biden chooses to run, he ought to be odds on.
    The question is therefore, will he?
    I don't see anyone obvious who'd have a better chance in the General Election tbf.

    It depends whether we reckon presidential incumbency effects are real but I think there are quite a few candidates who would be stronger than Biden in his current state, which may yet deteriorate: Gretchen Whitmer, Pete Buttiegeig, Amy KLOBUCHAR, Jared Polis...

    The problem is that Joe Biden has to make the decision without knowing who the party would pick. I guess I'd rate it something like:

    He retires before the primary and Harris becomes POTUS:
    Kamala Harris: 85%
    Left-wing challenger: 10%
    Electable person: 5%

    He stays on but announces he won't run again
    Kamala Harris: 60%
    Left-wing challenger: 20%
    Electable person: 20%

    Kamala Harris isn't a *terrible* candidate, and she might do better if she had Biden's team rather than her sister or whoever was running her primary campaign. But I think if you're Joe and you feel basically healthy, you feel duty-bound to stay on.
    Trump almost certainly beats Harris to return to the Oval Office in 2024. Buttigieg the Democrats only realistic hope of holding the White House if Biden steps down
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,114

    R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'

    Ffs.

    Why FFS? It's a term that has slightly different meanings in both military and 'normal' usage. I wouldn't blame any listeners without much of an interest in military matters to wonder quite what is meant. (e.g. "the salient points in his argument...")

    The same with 'cauldron', which I've heard used (it seems mostly in the US).
    Cauldron battle is I think from High Military Germanic Kesselschlacht. A battle of envelopment to trap large forces in a pocket or Kessel. One way to do it is to make deep attacks either side of a projecting salient in the enemy line as indeed was attempted in the Battle of Kursk, Kursk Salient.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    edited May 16

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government.

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the his and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stop the blame game, it simply is not helping
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,010

    R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'

    Ffs.

    Why FFS? It's a term that has slightly different meanings in both military and 'normal' usage. I wouldn't blame any listeners without much of an interest in military matters to wonder quite what is meant. (e.g. "the salient points in his argument...")

    The same with 'cauldron', which I've heard used (it seems mostly in the US).
    Cauldron seems to be largely a translation of the German kessel, a term very 'salient' in that part of the world 78 years ago.

    I've lowered my expectations of R4 a lot over the years but I'd expect the listenership to have a clue about salient (adj) and salients (n).
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government.

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the his and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    Boris appointed leading Brexiteers like Michael Gove and ERG big-cheese Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Cabinet, along with many other Leavers, in order to give himself cover from backbench fire should he compromise, so the Prime Minister might have more room to manoeuvre than many think.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    Carnyx said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government anyway

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the Boris's and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stoop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/boris-johnson-poised-to-agree-controversial-bill-to-suspend-parts-of-ni-protocol

    Fighting in Whitehall between No 10 and the FO, apparently, plus local businesses are saying HMG is lying. But **** business of course.

    'A source confirmed that the letter from the Northern Ireland business Brexit working group, an umbrella organisation of 14 business bodies, told the prime minister there was the prospect of a deal with the EU.

    “It was being suggested that action was needed because business groups asked for it and trade was suffering because of the protocol. We asked them specifically not to launch unilateral action. We do not need the nuclear option when we believe there is still a prospect of a deal,” said the source.

    They said that it was astonishing that Johnson was flying to Northern Ireland threatening unilateral action and not meeting the group, despite their pleas, adding that the government had shown scant interest in business – with one 15-minute Zoom call with Liz Truss in January and no engagement since.

    The business working group – which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the NI Food and Drink Association, the Ulster Farmers Union, Manufacturing NI, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors NI, Logistics UK and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium – is reportedly perplexed by statements from government listing issues that have already been resolved or which are close to being resolved.'

    Ultimately the DUP can hold everyone to ransom and it is clear the GFA seems to have created an impasse position

    I hope that common sense prevails but because of the flawed GFA, a pathway through seems to require consensus from the DUP
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government.

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the his and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    Boris appointed leading Brexiteers like Michael Gove and ERG big-cheese Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Cabinet, along with many other Leavers, in order to give himself cover from backbench fire should he compromise, so the Prime Minister might have more room to manoeuvre than many think.
    The ERG has a full veto on UK government policy. The ERG wants the Protocol torn up.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,884
    edited May 16

    R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'

    Ffs.

    For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government anyway

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the Boris's and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stoop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/boris-johnson-poised-to-agree-controversial-bill-to-suspend-parts-of-ni-protocol

    Fighting in Whitehall between No 10 and the FO, apparently, plus local businesses are saying HMG is lying. But **** business of course.

    'A source confirmed that the letter from the Northern Ireland business Brexit working group, an umbrella organisation of 14 business bodies, told the prime minister there was the prospect of a deal with the EU.

    “It was being suggested that action was needed because business groups asked for it and trade was suffering because of the protocol. We asked them specifically not to launch unilateral action. We do not need the nuclear option when we believe there is still a prospect of a deal,” said the source.

    They said that it was astonishing that Johnson was flying to Northern Ireland threatening unilateral action and not meeting the group, despite their pleas, adding that the government had shown scant interest in business – with one 15-minute Zoom call with Liz Truss in January and no engagement since.

    The business working group – which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the NI Food and Drink Association, the Ulster Farmers Union, Manufacturing NI, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors NI, Logistics UK and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium – is reportedly perplexed by statements from government listing issues that have already been resolved or which are close to being resolved.'

    Ultimately the DUP can hold everyone to ransom and it is clear the GFA seems to have created an impasse position

    I hope that common sense prevails but because of the flawed GFA, a pathway through seems to require consensus from the DUP
    Nope - the government agreed to majoritarian support for the Protocol. That exists.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,375
    Foxy said:

    It does look like the punters are a very unoriginal bunch, backing the 2020 losers again. There may some new faces this time. Buttigeig looks the best of those mentioned.

    I think Biden will step out of the race after the mid terms. He always looked like a single term President.

    At the moment it feels as though name recognition/incumbency is dominant. People are still thinking in Biden vs Trump terms and that potential re-run remains hard to call. Both are pretty unpopular, though IMO the viscerally anti-Trump group is larger than the fanatically anti-Biden group. Negative partisan voting (furiously voting to stop X) is a major factor in Western politics today. I don't think the Democrats will reject Biden unless it seeeems obvious that he'd lose to Trump and someone else will win.

    O/T, another interesting Meeks piece, this time on cannabis:

    https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/high-street-93c017a4d6a1

    The conclusions aren't especially original, but the style is as readable as always..
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,114
    algarkirk said:

    R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'

    Ffs.

    For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.

    Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:

    Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government.

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the his and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    Boris appointed leading Brexiteers like Michael Gove and ERG big-cheese Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Cabinet, along with many other Leavers, in order to give himself cover from backbench fire should he compromise, so the Prime Minister might have more room to manoeuvre than many think.
    The ERG has a full veto on UK government policy. The ERG wants the Protocol torn up.

    As I understand it nobody, not even Boris is suggesting tearing up the NI protocol, but seeking amendments that are actually permissible by serving A16 which is in the treaty and therefore complying with it
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,010
    Good point, well made. If you're going to go for tedious realism, at least make it look like the subject.


  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,884

    R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'

    Ffs.

    Why FFS? It's a term that has slightly different meanings in both military and 'normal' usage. I wouldn't blame any listeners without much of an interest in military matters to wonder quite what is meant. (e.g. "the salient points in his argument...")

    The same with 'cauldron', which I've heard used (it seems mostly in the US).
    Cauldron seems to be largely a translation of the German kessel, a term very 'salient' in that part of the world 78 years ago.

    I've lowered my expectations of R4 a lot over the years but I'd expect the listenership to have a clue about salient (adj) and salients (n).
    I might as well say that I keep meeting military men who can't tell the difference between perichoresis and Apollinarianism.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    edited May 16

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government anyway

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the Boris's and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stoop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/boris-johnson-poised-to-agree-controversial-bill-to-suspend-parts-of-ni-protocol

    Fighting in Whitehall between No 10 and the FO, apparently, plus local businesses are saying HMG is lying. But **** business of course.

    'A source confirmed that the letter from the Northern Ireland business Brexit working group, an umbrella organisation of 14 business bodies, told the prime minister there was the prospect of a deal with the EU.

    “It was being suggested that action was needed because business groups asked for it and trade was suffering because of the protocol. We asked them specifically not to launch unilateral action. We do not need the nuclear option when we believe there is still a prospect of a deal,” said the source.

    They said that it was astonishing that Johnson was flying to Northern Ireland threatening unilateral action and not meeting the group, despite their pleas, adding that the government had shown scant interest in business – with one 15-minute Zoom call with Liz Truss in January and no engagement since.

    The business working group – which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the NI Food and Drink Association, the Ulster Farmers Union, Manufacturing NI, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors NI, Logistics UK and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium – is reportedly perplexed by statements from government listing issues that have already been resolved or which are close to being resolved.'

    Ultimately the DUP can hold everyone to ransom and it is clear the GFA seems to have created an impasse position

    I hope that common sense prevails but because of the flawed GFA, a pathway through seems to require consensus from the DUP
    Nope - the government agreed to majoritarian support for the Protocol. That exists.

    If the DUP have the power to prevent Stormont functioning then that has to be addressed one way or another

    I should comment that while I have been to Ireland several times, I have not been to Northern Ireland and do not hold strong views on its reunification or not
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,375
    Interesting Democrat-critical piece about the risks of demonising yesterday's opponent, by a non-Republican:

    https://john2468.medium.com/you-dont-understand-republicans-f1c1e26ec457
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620

    The ERG has a full veto on UK government policy. The ERG wants the Protocol torn up.

    If the DUP goes back to power-sharing, perhaps on second reading of this “gun on the table” legislation, then it will be the ERG that’s the problem, and @BorisJohnson ability to stand up to them with @trussliz breathing down his neck/5

    Whether that space can be used by @BorisJohnson — given that the ERG made Johnson, and still think they can break him — is the story of the next phase of all this/7


    https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1526093086933323779
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,114

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government anyway

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the Boris's and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stoop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/boris-johnson-poised-to-agree-controversial-bill-to-suspend-parts-of-ni-protocol

    Fighting in Whitehall between No 10 and the FO, apparently, plus local businesses are saying HMG is lying. But **** business of course.

    'A source confirmed that the letter from the Northern Ireland business Brexit working group, an umbrella organisation of 14 business bodies, told the prime minister there was the prospect of a deal with the EU.

    “It was being suggested that action was needed because business groups asked for it and trade was suffering because of the protocol. We asked them specifically not to launch unilateral action. We do not need the nuclear option when we believe there is still a prospect of a deal,” said the source.

    They said that it was astonishing that Johnson was flying to Northern Ireland threatening unilateral action and not meeting the group, despite their pleas, adding that the government had shown scant interest in business – with one 15-minute Zoom call with Liz Truss in January and no engagement since.

    The business working group – which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the NI Food and Drink Association, the Ulster Farmers Union, Manufacturing NI, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors NI, Logistics UK and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium – is reportedly perplexed by statements from government listing issues that have already been resolved or which are close to being resolved.'

    Ultimately the DUP can hold everyone to ransom and it is clear the GFA seems to have created an impasse position

    I hope that common sense prevails but because of the flawed GFA, a pathway through seems to require consensus from the DUP
    Nope - the government agreed to majoritarian support for the Protocol. That exists.

    If the DUP have the power to prevent Stormont functioning then that has to be addressed one way or another
    Happened before, for long periods. Direct rule will ultimately be needed if they don't get back in their pram, whatever else is going on.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522

    dixiedean said:

    If Biden chooses to run, he ought to be odds on.
    The question is therefore, will he?
    I don't see anyone obvious who'd have a better chance in the General Election tbf.

    It depends whether we reckon presidential incumbency effects are real but I think there are quite a few candidates who would be stronger than Biden in his current state, which may yet deteriorate: Gretchen Whitmer, Pete Buttiegeig, Amy KLOBUCHAR, Jared Polis...

    The problem is that Joe Biden has to make the decision without knowing who the party would pick. I guess I'd rate it something like:

    He retires before the primary and Harris becomes POTUS:
    Kamala Harris: 85%
    Left-wing challenger: 10%
    Electable person: 5%

    He stays on but announces he won't run again
    Kamala Harris: 60%
    Left-wing challenger: 20%
    Electable person: 20%

    Kamala Harris isn't a *terrible* candidate, and she might do better if she had Biden's team rather than her sister or whoever was running her primary campaign. But I think if you're Joe and you feel basically healthy, you feel duty-bound to stay on.
    Worth thinking about this in relation to what else is happening.

    There is a good chance the Ds get a shellacking in November - almost certainly they will lose the House, despite what has been an extraordinary successful gerrymandering campaign in D states (although the judicial ruling in NY State was a big blow). Good chance they will lose the Senate as well.

    If that is the case, I cannot imagine Biden will want to go on for another term, especially given he is not in a great state of health. The D establishment knows Harris would get absolutely shafted in an election but the problem they have is that - ex-some sort of Agnew-style scandal - she is not the type to step aside. They also know that pushing out a Black / Asian woman - and one who is quite happy to tack hard left if that is what is needed to win the nomination - is not going to go down too well with the caucus.

    So my guess is that they will write 2024 off, especially if they do poorly in November. It's worth noting that all the D other candidates mentioned above (with the possible exception of Polis) are tarred by the fact that they followed along with the left-wing antics and abandoned previously-held centrist positions, especially when it came to cultural issues. That is going to give the Rs plenty of material to work with, especially given the strong signs that swing voters aren't particularly enamoured re being told they're racist (if white) and / or the fact the Ds are losing Hispanic voters in drove. Buttegeig and Whitmer also both have negative factors against them (Pete B that he took 6 weeks parental leave in the midst of a supply chain crisis and Whitmer because of her handling of the CV crisis in Michigan plus the recent collapse of the trial of those accused of planning to kidnap her).

    What does that mean for the candidate? I think Biden is too proud to lose, especially against Trump, so he won't win re-election. The D establishment will think it's better to let Harris be the candidate and lose 2024 so that she is out of the system. The real interesting question would be the VP pick for the Ds in 2024 because that will give an insight into who they think could win in 2028 post-Trump's 2nd term.

    Yes, I think Trump will run again. I don't think he should but, given what is happening with inflation, the cost of living crisis etc, I think the temptation will be too great for him. Other R candidates will take the view they can wait until 2028 so best not to oppose him and instead try and get the VP pick (I think Trump would go with DeSantis, and I suspect DeSantis will already have a view on whom he would have as running mate in 2028).

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,151
    algarkirk said:

    R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'

    Ffs.

    For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.

    Instead of breaking the world down into smaller and smaller particles, that eventually become points in space (with no dimensions) we should instead break it down into lines (with one dimension).

    And if you're wondering how a collection of zero or one dimensional particles could give rise to at least three spatial dimensions, well, that's the whole point.

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,376
    Nigelb said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    As noted over the weekend, Hilary Benn set out more sense and practical ideas in a single Twitter thread than this government has during its entire term.
    https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1525145388243615744
    Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.

    The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.

    The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.

    Article 16 will do that.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,523

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government.

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the his and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    Boris appointed leading Brexiteers like Michael Gove and ERG big-cheese Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Cabinet, along with many other Leavers, in order to give himself cover from backbench fire should he compromise, so the Prime Minister might have more room to manoeuvre than many think.
    The ERG has a full veto on UK government policy. The ERG wants the Protocol torn up.

    Yes but if JRM (and others) say that Boris has got it right about any particular compromise, then that should buy them off. The problem imo is not the ERG but that there are no easy answers from here (Theresa May's Brexit might have been better but that ship sailed in 2017) and also, as suggested earlier, that Dublin's view might be crucial.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government.

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the his and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    Boris appointed leading Brexiteers like Michael Gove and ERG big-cheese Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Cabinet, along with many other Leavers, in order to give himself cover from backbench fire should he compromise, so the Prime Minister might have more room to manoeuvre than many think.
    The ERG has a full veto on UK government policy. The ERG wants the Protocol torn up.

    As I understand it nobody, not even Boris is suggesting tearing up the NI protocol, but seeking amendments that are actually permissible by serving A16 which is in the treaty and therefore complying with it
    The government is proposing legislation to give it the power to override the Protocol. That is very different to invoking A16, which does not require legislation.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,722
    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    R4 - 'You'll have to explain to us what a salient is'

    Ffs.

    For myself, I am pleased he was asked. BTW I wish scientists would explain what sort of string they are talking about in the term 'string theory'. More, simple, boring explanation please.

    Easy: to quote Wiki for convenience:

    Cosmic strings are hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defects which may have formed during a symmetry-breaking phase transition in the early universe when the topology of the vacuum manifold associated to this symmetry breaking was not simply connected.
    I see.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,785

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government.

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the his and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    Boris appointed leading Brexiteers like Michael Gove and ERG big-cheese Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Cabinet, along with many other Leavers, in order to give himself cover from backbench fire should he compromise, so the Prime Minister might have more room to manoeuvre than many think.
    The ERG has a full veto on UK government policy. The ERG wants the Protocol torn up.

    As I understand it nobody, not even Boris is suggesting tearing up the NI protocol, but seeking amendments that are actually permissible by serving A16 which is in the treaty and therefore complying with it
    If you can't see that Johnson is merely virtue signalling for the benefit of the DUP, I am disappointed in you BigG.

    The NI Protocol is a disaster, but it looked like a disaster way back in 2019 to us stop Brexit traitors.

    I am not sure whether Johnson understood or cared about the Pandora's Box he was opening then. I am not sure whether Johnson understands or cares about the Pandora's Box he is opening now.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    Nigelb said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    As noted over the weekend, Hilary Benn set out more sense and practical ideas in a single Twitter thread than this government has during its entire term.
    https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1525145388243615744
    Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.

    The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.

    The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.

    Article 16 will do that.
    But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,376
    edited May 16

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government anyway

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the Boris's and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stoop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/boris-johnson-poised-to-agree-controversial-bill-to-suspend-parts-of-ni-protocol

    Fighting in Whitehall between No 10 and the FO, apparently, plus local businesses are saying HMG is lying. But **** business of course.

    'A source confirmed that the letter from the Northern Ireland business Brexit working group, an umbrella organisation of 14 business bodies, told the prime minister there was the prospect of a deal with the EU.

    “It was being suggested that action was needed because business groups asked for it and trade was suffering because of the protocol. We asked them specifically not to launch unilateral action. We do not need the nuclear option when we believe there is still a prospect of a deal,” said the source.

    They said that it was astonishing that Johnson was flying to Northern Ireland threatening unilateral action and not meeting the group, despite their pleas, adding that the government had shown scant interest in business – with one 15-minute Zoom call with Liz Truss in January and no engagement since.

    The business working group – which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the NI Food and Drink Association, the Ulster Farmers Union, Manufacturing NI, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors NI, Logistics UK and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium – is reportedly perplexed by statements from government listing issues that have already been resolved or which are close to being resolved.'

    Ultimately the DUP can hold everyone to ransom and it is clear the GFA seems to have created an impasse position

    I hope that common sense prevails but because of the flawed GFA, a pathway through seems to require consensus from the DUP
    Nope - the government agreed to majoritarian support for the Protocol. That exists.

    Nope - you keep repeating this misunderstanding.

    Are you familiar with the concept of a "necessary but not sufficient" condition? Majoritarian support for the Protocol is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the Protocol to continue.

    In order for the Protocol to be implemented and continued in full then there are three necessary conditions that have to be met. Every single one of them is a necessary but not sufficient condition, only if all are met is it sufficient.

    1: Majoritarian support for the Protocol existing.
    2: The Protocol is not causing "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist"
    3: The Protocol is not causing "diversion of trade"

    Since the Protocol is causing serious societal difficulties (Stormont is suspended due to it) the Safeguarding must be implemented.

    Majority support for the Protocol does not prevent the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures being implemented if the Protocol is causing serious societal issues or diversion of trade.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,884

    Nigelb said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    As noted over the weekend, Hilary Benn set out more sense and practical ideas in a single Twitter thread than this government has during its entire term.
    https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1525145388243615744
    Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.

    The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.

    The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.

    Article 16 will do that.
    Yes. The excellent Benn is taking a common sense position, including pointing out that the world will not come to an end if there is a bit of fudge over EU single market fundamentalism. That actually there isn't a plan to poison the EU wells or food supply.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,015
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government anyway

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the Boris's and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stoop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/boris-johnson-poised-to-agree-controversial-bill-to-suspend-parts-of-ni-protocol

    Fighting in Whitehall between No 10 and the FO, apparently, plus local businesses are saying HMG is lying. But **** business of course.

    'A source confirmed that the letter from the Northern Ireland business Brexit working group, an umbrella organisation of 14 business bodies, told the prime minister there was the prospect of a deal with the EU.

    “It was being suggested that action was needed because business groups asked for it and trade was suffering because of the protocol. We asked them specifically not to launch unilateral action. We do not need the nuclear option when we believe there is still a prospect of a deal,” said the source.

    They said that it was astonishing that Johnson was flying to Northern Ireland threatening unilateral action and not meeting the group, despite their pleas, adding that the government had shown scant interest in business – with one 15-minute Zoom call with Liz Truss in January and no engagement since.

    The business working group – which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the NI Food and Drink Association, the Ulster Farmers Union, Manufacturing NI, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors NI, Logistics UK and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium – is reportedly perplexed by statements from government listing issues that have already been resolved or which are close to being resolved.'

    Ultimately the DUP can hold everyone to ransom and it is clear the GFA seems to have created an impasse position

    I hope that common sense prevails but because of the flawed GFA, a pathway through seems to require consensus from the DUP
    Nope - the government agreed to majoritarian support for the Protocol. That exists.

    If the DUP have the power to prevent Stormont functioning then that has to be addressed one way or another
    Happened before, for long periods. Direct rule will ultimately be needed if they don't get back in their pram, whatever else is going on.
    I don't get why people are so upset about the executive being suspended - it has happened before (as you say) for long periods.

    The executive is a wee pretendy parliament where some very unpleasant people are supposed to get training in how to fake playing nice together. Learn to leave the baseball bats and iron bars used for smashing kneecaps in the umbrella stand in the hall....

    The methodology that London took was to simply carry on the existing trajectory of various policies. When it gets down to the schools, hospitals and roads stuff in NI, the actual policies of, say, the TUV and SF are not very dissimilar. Except of course, the moment you can make it into a sectarian thing.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,149

    Foxy said:

    It does look like the punters are a very unoriginal bunch, backing the 2020 losers again. There may some new faces this time. Buttigeig looks the best of those mentioned.

    I think Biden will step out of the race after the mid terms. He always looked like a single term President.

    At the moment it feels as though name recognition/incumbency is dominant. People are still thinking in Biden vs Trump terms and that potential re-run remains hard to call. Both are pretty unpopular, though IMO the viscerally anti-Trump group is larger than the fanatically anti-Biden group. Negative partisan voting (furiously voting to stop X) is a major factor in Western politics today. I don't think the Democrats will reject Biden unless it seeeems obvious that he'd lose to Trump and someone else will win.

    O/T, another interesting Meeks piece, this time on cannabis:

    https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/high-street-93c017a4d6a1

    The conclusions aren't especially original, but the style is as readable as always..
    I think that if Trump runs then Biden will run (if he's well enough) and will beat Trump.

    If De Santis or Haley or Pence runs, then I think Biden will step down to make room for someone else.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,620
    edited May 16

    I am not sure whether Johnson understood or cared about the Pandora's Box he was opening then. I am not sure whether Johnson understands or cares about the Pandora's Box he is opening now.

    He understood that opening it then would get him the job of PM.

    He understands that not opening it now might lose him the job of PM.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,376

    Nigelb said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    As noted over the weekend, Hilary Benn set out more sense and practical ideas in a single Twitter thread than this government has during its entire term.
    https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1525145388243615744
    Actually Benn is right on almost all of that but it isn't much different to what the Government and Brexiteers such as myself have been saying. Yes the key is compromise and equivalence, I have been saying that for years but when Benn says that you agree with it.

    The question though is how do we get from here to a position where the EU is willing to compromise and recognise equivalence is the solution? Simply saying "diplomacy" or "trust" or "compromise" isn't a practical idea.

    The EU don't want to compromise and there quite rightly is no trust because the EU is not an institution to be trusted, it is a rules-based operation which is why they're sticking to their rules. When we've made "good faith" gestures in the past, there's been no reciprocation, so we need to give them no alternative but to compromise and then make the compromise the new rules, that is the only solution.

    Article 16 will do that.
    But the government is not threatening to invoke A16, which is time-limited and subject to binding arbitration, it is proposing to legislate to give ministers the power to override the Protocol. Invoking A16 does not require legislation.

    That's diplomacy and politics. As far as I'm concerned A16 is the solution.

    Invoking A16 may require legislation due to Miller perhaps. IANAL so can't comment on that, I simply think the A16 is the solution.

    But if you're objecting to the Government not invoking A16 then are you saying they should invoke A16? Can we at last be on the same page?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 17,419

    Good point, well made. If you're going to go for tedious realism, at least make it look like the subject.


    Looks a bit more careworn than the real thing. Unless it's meant to be old Thatch, in which case it's too flattering.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,722
    edited May 16
    Is this situation unique?
    Party insists on a particular arrangement, having vetoed all other possibilities.
    This arrangement proves to have the support of the majority of the population, and of business as well.
    Party decides this outcome is intolerable and must be scrapped forthwith.
    Finding it hard to think of an equivalent example.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning fellow Pb-ers.

    Inclined to agree that it's too early to judge on who the Presidential candidates will be. How near, for example, is Trump to arrest?.

    At 'home,' is today that Northern Ireland looks over the edge towards a restart of the Troubles? Will the DUP refuse to accept the word of a Catholic PM?

    The best way to avert a new Troubles is to follow the principles and agreement of the GFA and reach a compromise that both communities can live with. Since the election that means Sinn Fein and the DUP.

    Sadly too many people want to ride roughshod over one community and seem to wish to ignore and tell the DUP to go away, but under the GFA they can explicitly stop Stormont from sitting or a government from forming indefinitely.

    The British government seems like it's willing to find a compromise to make the DUP happy, without riding roughshod over Sinn Fein, sadly they're the only ones who are. If the EU can't or won't compromise then the pre-agreed safeguarding article of the Protocol has to be invoked until a compromise is reached that all relevent stakeholders can agree to.
    Part at least of the problem seems to be that some of the Tory party (not all) believes that, as before, they can rely on the support of the DUP in a hung parliament and consequently are unwilling to offend them.
    And the DUP seem very easy to offend!
    How will offending the DUP help? The DUP is already offended. Since the GFA, Stormont has spent much of its life not sitting, owing to withdrawal by Sinn Fein or the UUP (not DUP).

    The key might be Dublin, and that when Washington and Brussels ask Dublin how the GFA is holding up, if Dublin is relaxed about life then there is no pressure on the EU to make concessions. And from Dublin's point of view, it is good that Brexit has increased North/South trade because Boris went back on his word and did impose ("over his dead body") a border down the Irish Sea.
    This is all about internal Tory politics. If the government cared about Northern Ireland it would not have lied about and agreed to the Protocol in the first place. Looking at the Tory politics, there is no compromise with the EU acceptable to the ERG because the ERG wants to defeat the EU. The problem is that the EU cannot be defeated. But Johnson cannot take on the ERG because he will lose and his future is all that matters to him. Thus, no deal can be done for as long as we have this government.

    I really do not agree with that this stalemate will continue until there is a change in the government, not least as this is 2 years away, there is no certainty who will be in government then, and in any respect the DUP are not going to be any different with a labour government anyway

    It does seem Boris's comment piece has had a beneficial effect when even Sky were saying this morning that it does demonstrate the nuance of the Boris's and HMG present position

    Furthermore, Politico is reporting that speaking last night ahead of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels, to Politico’s Suzanne Lynch, he said that the EU is prepared to move on the key demand of the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

    Talk of defeating either side only brings more discourse and division, and we need to demand all parties get together and sort this out and stoop the blame game, it simply is not helping
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/15/boris-johnson-poised-to-agree-controversial-bill-to-suspend-parts-of-ni-protocol

    Fighting in Whitehall between No 10 and the FO, apparently, plus local businesses are saying HMG is lying. But **** business of course.

    'A source confirmed that the letter from the Northern Ireland business Brexit working group, an umbrella organisation of 14 business bodies, told the prime minister there was the prospect of a deal with the EU.

    “It was being suggested that action was needed because business groups asked for it and trade was suffering because of the protocol. We asked them specifically not to launch unilateral action. We do not need the nuclear option when we believe there is still a prospect of a deal,” said the source.

    They said that it was astonishing that Johnson was flying to Northern Ireland threatening unilateral action and not meeting the group, despite their pleas, adding that the government had shown scant interest in business – with one 15-minute Zoom call with Liz Truss in January and no engagement since.

    The business working group – which includes the Confederation of British Industry, the NI Food and Drink Association, the Ulster Farmers Union, Manufacturing NI, Hospitality Ulster, the Institute of Directors NI, Logistics UK and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium – is reportedly perplexed by statements from government listing issues that have already been resolved or which are close to being resolved.'

    Ultimately the DUP can hold everyone to ransom and it is clear the GFA seems to have created an impasse position

    I hope that common sense prevails but because of the flawed GFA, a pathway through seems to require consensus from the DUP
    Nope - the government agreed to majoritarian support for the Protocol. That exists.

    Nope - you keep repeating this misunderstanding.

    Are you familiar with the concept of a "necessary but not sufficient" condition? Majoritarian support for the Protocol is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the Protocol to continue.

    In order for the Protocol to be implemented and continued in full then there are three necessary conditions that have to be met. Every single one of them is a necessary but not sufficient condition, only if all are met is it sufficient.

    1: Majoritarian support for the Protocol existing.
    2: The Protocol is not causing "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist"
    3: The Protocol is not causing "diversion of trade"

    Since the Protocol is causing serious societal difficulties (Stormont is suspended due to it) the Safeguarding must be implemented.

    Majority support for the Protocol does not prevent the Protocol's own safeguarding procedures being implemented if the Protocol is causing serious societal issues or diversion of trade.
    So why is the government proposing to legislate to override the Protocol rather than invoking Article 16?

This discussion has been closed.