But, I profoundly struggle with the Brexit concept. I can kind of understand (not agree with) right wing and ideological concepts- lower taxation, benefit cuts, privatisation etc..; the EU debate, I just don't get it.
The world is fundamentally changing exponentially. As far as I am aware we need to work collectively, and in the first instance collaborate with those nations they we share some basic stuff with. I cannot for the life of me understand how everyone just doesn't get this fundamental fact.
Seriously, to campaign for Brexit, given the current variables ine world, and I'll try to be as eloquent as I can be, you have to be such fucking, deranged, ideological, half wit, mentally ill morons that should be prohibited from voting following a psychiatric assessment.
Brexiters- you may as well as start a campaign for slavery you stupid, backward looking, imbeciles.
And I have tried to be nice, and discuss the arguments with nuance and elegance.
Oops. Tyson needs his happy pills again.
Collaboration is good. To collaborate does not mean we have to be in a political and economic union.
You are assuming that collaboration means union of some kind and means, as far as Europe is concerned, a union of a very specific type conceived in the aftermath of a world war and influenced by the cultures (social/political/historical) of very different times.
It is precisely because the world is changing that we need to be flexible and prepared to adjust our thinking and our approach.
At least Westminster is modern, immune from anachronisms and fast too adapt.
We can vote the buggers out. And its ours. It reflects our history. I can't vote out any of the politicians in 18 Eurozone countries who can make laws affecting me in my country without any of my elected representatives having a say.
Our old, anachronistic and often slow to adapt Parliament has been pretty effective at overseeing a small island in the North Sea ming a pretty important world power and trading nation and the retreat from Empire over hundreds of years, while still developing into a free liberal democracy and without falling prey to either fascism, Nazism or communism.
That's a pretty good record. Shall we do a comparison with some of the equivalent legislative chambers on the Continent?
I can't vote the buggers out, I am in a safe seat. That's not even considering the Lords where I have no say at all .
Westminster has overseen a century of decline, reform is long overdue. You argument that the EU is slow to change but Westminster is fine is ridiculous.
It's a Commission proposal. The interior ministers can kick it out and probably will. If the last six months is anything to go by, the Commission's powers to regulate borders are, for practical purposes, non-existent.
Still, it's the Telegraph so pretty much what you'd expect.
Yes - that may be the end result. But we have a serious terrorist threat now. We can't wait for faffing around from some Commission people. I want and I expect some in France also want our governments to be taking steps right now, immediately after November 13th, to make these checks. And yet we can't because..... well, because what..... because we have to collaborate with other countries and the Commission has to have its say and this, that and the other.
And then Cameron tells us that the EU keeps us safe. And without it we'll be at risk.
And if the Commission can't regulate the EU's borders how, exactly, is it keeping anyone safe?
Enough with these meretricious arguments. Really enough.
France can implement whatever border checks it wants if there is a genuine terrorist threat, as can any other country. Schengen makes provision for exceptional circumstances.
Where I will agree with you is that the EU's border policy is betwixt and between. If you are going to have a single border area then you need a single border force to police it, also funded centrally. And you need a single immigration policy. This whole crisis has come about because the leader of one member state unilaterally amended her country's immigration policy so substantially that the border forces of the front-line states (especially the small one most in the front line) were overwhelmed and couldn't call on support from elsewhere.
There would be a reduction in the numbers who could exercise their rights under free movement if Leave were to win.
Europeans would then return to being subject to the same visa requirements as non-EU citizens, and the application of 'no recourse to public funds' restrictions would become more prevalent for EU workers here on visas.
Presumably Britons would need a visa to travel to the Continent too then?
Permission to live in Spain? Use of Spanish health services? And that’s just Spain.
I've never found the concept of Spain imposing immigration controls on British citizens to be intolerable.
You don't want to sell things to Spain? But this is becoming tiresome. Of course you want to sell to Spain and various other countries as well which is why the UK will remain a part of the EU Single Market and the free movement of labour and the brexit argument is a load of baloney. Nothing much is going to change.
Precisely. A lot of Leavers are going to be very cross when they find out they've essentially voted for more of the same.
We won't remain in EEA. If we vote leave, migration will be major reason why and politicians will take their orders on limiting migration.
Says who? Brexit will be negotiated by the Conservative party beginning the day after there is a Leave vote. There is a two year timetable. The next general election is in 2020. That's two years after a new deal has been agreed.
I can't vote the buggers out, I am in a safe seat. That's not even considering the Lords where I have no say at all .
Westminster has overseen a century of decline, reform is long overdue. You argument that the EU is slow to change but Westminster is fine is ridiculous.
There's no such thing as a safe seat. Just ask Portillo, Alexander, Balls, Cable and so on and so forth.
I think the Betfair market for the GOP nomination is being manipulated. Massively - there is someone with deep pockets holding Rubio up and taking an almighty red position on Ted Cruz that barely makes sense.
I wonder if it is anything to do with the RNC.
You must be right I think. Trump is 90% certain to be the candidate, Rubio 10%.
It's probably a second order effect from Predictit actually - thats the "prediction" (Not betting !) market the US uses, someone will most likely be arbing it off against Betfair.
Exactly my thoughts.
Although Predictit seems to have trump @ 2/1 for POTUS & 4/6 for the GOP. If you were going to arb Cruz, you'd probably arb Trump too.
Just remembered Predictit has a contract limit per user for each market. Basically, from what I can tell, arbing by buying on Predictit & selling on Betfair becomes less profitable as the odds of a candidate winning increases.
If, theoretically, you can buy cruz.gop for as much as possible ($850 I think?) @ 1c (or 1%) - your betfair lay would be ~£$2500 @ 33/1 or whatever
That's quite a big amount when it shows up in Cruz's lay box.
Selling trump.potus @30c for $850 would only leave you with ~$1200 to back on betfair
Which isn't going to have much of an impact on trump's liquidity at all.
I'm not sure precisely how predictit works - and I may have got the calculation slightly wrong here. Does anyone (lurkers included) have any experience with predicit?
Might just be mugs then.
No, I think you're right.
I was arguing with myself. Cruz is (or was) viably arbable for large stakes, Trump much less so.
Fortunately nobody will read this, or PB should just shut down...
The political class has learnt the square root of nothing from its misjudgment of the general election. It should have been a traumatic lesson in basic truths — that Mr Cameron might be better at politics than a guy with a blog, for example — and also a turning point in the way we distil politics for a lay audience. Breathless hyper-scrutiny of fiddly events could have given way to a discriminating regard for fundamentals. Opinion polls could have returned to their proper place as contextual information, not the story itself. Instead, we still react to transient events like over-caffeinated children.
If I read this Times article right, Boris and the cabinet outers wont be focussing on immigration, but on the ability of the UK to pass its own laws.
Apparently whilst banging on about immigration energises a lot of voters, it puts off even more voters.
Who could have predicted that?
You did. And you were right.
Leave have got all the voters they're going to get on immigration alone, IMHO.
Agreed. Gove, Boris etc going on about other things is tempting me and I doubt I'm the only one. If the campaign goes on about immigration alone will make my decision easier.
Fortunately nobody will read this, or PB should just shut down...
The political class has learnt the square root of nothing from its misjudgment of the general election. It should have been a traumatic lesson in basic truths — that Mr Cameron might be better at politics than a guy with a blog, for example — and also a turning point in the way we distil politics for a lay audience. Breathless hyper-scrutiny of fiddly events could have given way to a discriminating regard for fundamentals. Opinion polls could have returned to their proper place as contextual information, not the story itself. Instead, we still react to transient events like over-caffeinated children.
Personally? I think there's something else going on here.
I think the thinking was that the election of Corbyn was a licence for the Tory party to move to the Left, win the "centre ground" and crown Osborne.
I think there's a large chunk of the backbenches who really don't like that.
Maybe. But I think there is a simpler explanation here. Cameron came back with a poor deal - potentially very poor, if it does indeed expose our service sector to greater scrutiny and burdens from Brussels. Things that were sold as wins are now discovered still to be resolved. The MEPs still have to rubber stamp it. Simply put, the Prime minister way oversold the deal.
He probably recognised he had no choice, such was his paucity of achievement. But in doing so, he has really pissed off a cohort of his MPs - and even more of the party membership. He has put the Referendum outcome in some doubt. And he has foregone rapturous applause as he disappears into the sunset. Instead, he risks being bundled out the back door into a Transit van, hidden under a blanket.
From the Torygraph too. There is an assumption the elderly (who turn out more) are going to turn out heavily for Out, but I'm less convinced. Those who are naturally conservative and skeptical about change may be Euroskeptic as a result but may also be put off actually Leaving for the exact same reason.
Wait until Dave deploys the Brexit = Danger to your pensions line.
Already warmed my old folks up to that canard.
They weren't impressed.
Osborne = danger to your pensions is perhaps more potent.
This is where I have my doubts about Johnson,he isn't up for the fight,Flashman made him look not PM material today.
So after today in the commons,if I was him,my pay back would to put my heart and soul into the campaign,get your self out there with well informed information on leaving the EU.
Take it to the country man and put the shitters on the establishment
I love the way Eton and Oxbridge educated Tory MP and Mayor of London Boris Johnson is somehow not part of the establishment. But not as much as I love the notion that he might break the habit of a lifetime and fight heart and soul for his deeply held beliefs.
It's a Commission proposal. The interior ministers can kick it out and probably will. If the last six months is anything to go by, the Commission's powers to regulate borders are, for practical purposes, non-existent.
Still, it's the Telegraph so pretty much what you'd expect.
Yes - that may be the end result. But we have a serious terrorist threat now. We can't wait for faffing around from some Commission people. I want and I expect some in France also want our governments to be taking steps right now, immediately after November 13th, to make these checks. And yet we can't because..... well, because what..... because we have to collaborate with other countries and the Commission has to have its say and this, that and the other.
And then Cameron tells us that the EU keeps us safe. And without it we'll be at risk.
And if the Commission can't regulate the EU's borders how, exactly, is it keeping anyone safe?
Enough with these meretricious arguments. Really enough.
France can implement whatever border checks it wants if there is a genuine terrorist threat, as can any other country. Schengen makes provision for exceptional circumstances.
Where I will agree with you is that the EU's border policy is betwixt and between. If you are going to have a single border area then you need a single border force to police it, also funded centrally. And you need a single immigration policy. This whole crisis has come about because the leader of one member state unilaterally amended her country's immigration policy so substantially that the border forces of the front-line states (especially the small one most in the front line) were overwhelmed and couldn't call on support from elsewhere.
A bunch of backbench MPs who still have not forgiven him for winning a majority and were never going to accept any deal on Europe are venting their spleens.
@JournoStephen: The SNP, which almost dragged Scotland out of the EU in Sept 2014, is now complaining that other people might drag Scotland out of the EU.
As far as I am concerned animal welfare and rearing and butchering mammals for food are slightly incompatible.
But Italian meat production is better than the UK. Italians just wouldn't buy cheaply produced meat.. They would think there is something wrong with the meat, and they would also think the animal has been badly treated to produce prices this low.
Actually, you will find that the TB incidence in Italy is much less. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Italians farm and rear their cattle and slaughter them much more humanely, but pay more for their meat.
In the UK people want to go Tescos, and buy a pack of 2 sirloin steaks for a fiver, or less. With Brexit, and without any kind of regulation, we can drive our terrible, inhumane meat production even lower.
As said previously, Europe can be a much more civilising influence and teach us how to behave that bit better. Go DC. In the unlikeliest places, people find their heroes.....
And once again you make the perhaps purposeful error of conflating Europe and the EU. They are not the same thing at all.
And the UK animal welfare standards are better than many other parts of the EU. It is only your own bigotry that stops you seeing that.
You will like this article.it is from 2010 but civilised Italy gets a special mention.
I think the Betfair market for the GOP nomination is being manipulated. Massively - there is someone with deep pockets holding Rubio up and taking an almighty red position on Ted Cruz that barely makes sense.
I wonder if it is anything to do with the RNC.
You must be right I think. Trump is 90% certain to be the candidate, Rubio 10%.
It's probably a second order effect from Predictit actually - thats the "prediction" (Not betting !) market the US uses, someone will most likely be arbing it off against Betfair.
Exactly my thoughts.
Although Predictit seems to have trump @ 2/1 for POTUS & 4/6 for the GOP. If you were going to arb Cruz, you'd probably arb Trump too.
Just remembered Predictit has a contract limit per user for each market. Basically, from what I can tell, arbing by buying on Predictit & selling on Betfair becomes less profitable as the odds of a candidate winning increases.
If, theoretically, you can buy cruz.gop for as much as possible ($850 I think?) @ 1c (or 1%) - your betfair lay would be ~£$2500 @ 33/1 or whatever
That's quite a big amount when it shows up in Cruz's lay box.
Selling trump.potus @30c for $850 would only leave you with ~$1200 to back on betfair
Which isn't going to have much of an impact on trump's liquidity at all.
I'm not sure precisely how predictit works - and I may have got the calculation slightly wrong here. Does anyone (lurkers included) have any experience with predicit?
Might just be mugs then.
No, I think you're right.
I was arguing with myself. Cruz is (or was) viably arbable for large stakes, Trump much less so.
Cruz is at 9 cents though !!
So he is a sell on Predictit and a buy at the equivalent 2-2.5 c price Betfair is giving here.
From Sky... "house building shares were lower, with Berkeley Group down 5% and Barratt Developments off by 4%. A note last month from analysts at Credit Suisse suggested a fall in immigration as a result of Brexit could cut housing demand."
Many ppl would think that a good thing.
House builder shares are off because the government has been briefing that it's had enough of them and is going to get tough on them as well as local authorities to achieve house building targets. How many new build london apartments house eu economic migrants Ffs?
A bunch of backbench MPs who still have not forgiven him for winning a majority and were never going to accept any deal on Europe are venting their spleens.
To no avail. Again.
Don't be silly. Unhappiness with Cameron's "deal" runs way beyond the usual malcontents..
Personally? I think there's something else going on here.
I think the thinking was that the election of Corbyn was a licence for the Tory party to move to the Left, win the "centre ground" and crown Osborne.
I think there's a large chunk of the backbenches who really don't like that.
Maybe. But I think there is a simpler explanation here. Cameron came back with a poor deal - potentially very poor, if it does indeed expose our service sector to greater scrutiny and burdens from Brussels. Things that were sold as wins are now discovered still to be resolved. The MEPs still have to rubber stamp it. Simply put, the Prime minister way oversold the deal.
He probably recognised he had no choice, such was his paucity of achievement. But in doing so, he has really pissed off a cohort of his MPs - and even more of the party membership. He has put the Referendum outcome in some doubt. And he has foregone rapturous applause as he disappears into the sunset. Instead, he risks being bundled out the back door into a Transit van, hidden under a blanket.
I'm with Mark on this, CR. Not least because I'm entirely happy for my party to occupy the centre ground provided it also secures British sovereignty.
I could have been persuaded by a proper deal, especially one where Cameron left and suggested that Europe grovel to him when they came up with better. I could even have been persuaded with a lesser deal that was made in such a way as to guarantee the security of the city, if it had been delivered in measured tones
But the triumphalism of the current leadership over the weekend has made an outer and an opponent of a centrist, liberal leaning Tory activist. For shame, Mr Cameron.
Are the Democrat delegates per state directly correlated with population btw ?
Roughly proportional with the Democrat vote in the state, I think. I believe the Republicans allocate on that basis too.
The Reps have incredibly complex rules...
"The rules for the 2016 Republican National Convention call for the following formula for determining the number of delegates:
For Jurisdictions with Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress: 10 At-Large delegates from each state, that is, 5 at-large delegates for each U.S. Senator [Rule 13(a)(1)]. 3 District delegates for each U.S. Representative as established by the 2010 census [Rule 13(a)(3)].
For Jurisdictions without Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress [Rule 13(a)(4)]: 6 at-large delegates from American Samoa. 16 at-large delegates from the District of Columbia. 6 at-large delegates from Guam. 6 at-large delegates from the Northern Mariana Islands. 20 at-large delegates from Puerto Rico. 6 at-large delegates from Virgin Islands.
For all Jurisdictions - 3 party leaders: the national committeeman, the national committee woman, and the chairman of the state Republican Party. [Rule 13(a)(2)]
Bonus Delegates President: States casting a majority of their 2008 Electoral Votes for the Republican Candidate receive 4.5 + 0.60 × the Jurisdiction's Total 2008 Electoral Vote in bonus delegates. Should the District of Columbia cast the majority of their electoral votes for the Republican Candidate, the District will receive 4.5 + (0.30 × 16) in bonus delegates. Round any fractions UP to the next whole number. [Rules 13(a)(5) and 13(a)(7)]
U.S. Senate: Award 1 bonus delegate for each Republican Senator elected in the 6 year period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2011. Limit 2. [Rule 13(a)(6)]
Governor States electing a Republican Governor between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit: 1. [Rule 13(a)(5)(i)]
U.S. House: States electing Republicans to 50% or more of their U.S. House seats between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit 1. [Rule 13(a)(5)(ii)]
One Chamber: States electing a Republican majority to one chamber of the state legislature (OR the legislature is presided over by a Republican) between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit 1. [Rule 13(a)(5)(iii)]
All Chambers: States electing a Republican majority to all chambers of the state legislature (OR all chambers are presided over by a Republican) between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit 1. [Rule 13(a)(5)(iv)]"
Simply put, the Prime minister way oversold the deal.
Exactly, Dave has utterly failed to meet expectations, which he himself is responsible for setting in his pre-general election campaigning. Now when people are quite reasonably pointing out that Dave's got no clothes on and that they can see his hairy arse he is getting angry that they can't go along with his nonsense about having achieved a breakthrough.
He seems to think loyalty means MPs should suspend their faculties and say that black is white.
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
Exactly but between now and June the LEAVERS are not going to get away without explaining exactly what the impact of LEAVE will be on immigration. Once they need to be specific that's when the wheel's will come off the wagon and the chances of a credible unified response will be on a par with herding cats, with Farage, Galloway, Boris all coming up with different and mutually exclusive answers.
This is where I have my doubts about Johnson,he isn't up for the fight,Flashman made him look not PM material today.
So after today in the commons,if I was him,my pay back would to put my heart and soul into the campaign,get your self out there with well informed information on leaving the EU.
Take it to the country man and put the shitters on the establishment
Yep, thats what Boris needs to so but it depends how committed he really is.
As we see in the US with Trump, these are very much anti-establishment and anti-elite times.
Cameron hasn't just put himself at the heart of the ultimate establishment, the elite to end all elites (namely the corrupt EU) he is actually going to spend the next three months campaigning for that elite to the point where he may utterly destroy his Party (and he does it for no other reason than he is a passionate lover of the EU to his very core)
If an "outsider" wants to come along and grasp the nettle it's there and waiting, question is, does Boris really have the stomach for it.
So if it were a commons vote REMAIN would win easily.
More to the point, in a Commons vote after a Leave, the least-disruptive options (i.e. an EEA-style deal) would presumably win easily.
This is an aspect which the commentariat doesn't seem to have given any thought to, but it's potentially quite explosive if Leave wins on migration fears.
Exactly but between now and June the LEAVERS are not going to get away without explaining exactly what the impact of LEAVE will be on immigration. Once they need to be specific that's when the wheel's will come off the wagon and the chances of a credible unified response will be on a par with herding cats, with Farage, Galloway, Boris all coming up with different and mutually exclusive answers.
A bunch of backbench MPs who still have not forgiven him for winning a majority and were never going to accept any deal on Europe are venting their spleens.
To no avail. Again.
No. They were always going to be there.
It's the 70 or 80 MPs that have joined them because the deal was so poor - and sold as having secured King Solomon's Mines for the nation.
It seems Cameron has left no other option for the Leavers in the Tory party but open warfare. I'm still convinced that Corbyn will keep the Tory party united, but Cameron is testing the limits of my assumption.
The effect on Labour's leadership with all the focus on the Conservatives.
Will it help Labour in the May elections ? If Labour does badly in May will it not be noticed ? If Corbyn is unable to exploit Conservative divisions will he be considered ineffective ? If there is a Conservative leadership election would Corbyn be safer or more vulnerable ?
It seems Cameron has left no other option for the Leavers in the Tory party but open warfare. I'm still convinced that Corbyn will keep the Tory party united, but Cameron is testing the limits of my assumption.
Incidentally, if the leave camp can paint themselves as plucky, anti political establishment and concerned about British sovereignty, this campaign can be won.
Simply put, the Prime minister way oversold the deal.
Exactly, Dave has utterly failed to meet expectations, which he himself is responsible for setting in his pre-general election campaigning. Now when people are quite reasonably pointing out that Dave's got no clothes on and that they can see his hairy arse he is getting angry that they can't go along with his nonsense about having achieved a breakthrough.
He seems to think loyalty means MPs should suspend their faculties and say that black is white.
Clearly the idea was that they'd copy Harold Wilson in 1975 and pull the wool over everyone's eyes by claming they'd got something meaningful when in reality they asked for nothing and received even less.
Was a stupid move because we live in such different, less reverential times plus the Tory Party then was almost universally signed up to the EU where-as now Cameron is clearly at odds with the vast majority of his Party to the point where he's had to spend years lying about being a eurosceptic and only now does he reveal his true europhile self.
Though I guess when he said he would NEVER in any circumstances recommend leaving the EU that was a pretty big clue...
Yep. Very much agree. I have never been able to reconcile Nick's views on Swiss direct democracy and the monolithic EU bureaucracy.
I like them for different reasons.
I like the Swiss system for its successful engagement with the people - ordinary people get involved with the pros and cons of decisions to an extent entirely unthinkable here.
I like the EU because I think Europeans have a lot in common and it makes sense to try to have a basis for common government in a difficult world. I'm not a fan of the undemocratic aspects, though I think romantics here exaggerate the wonders of our democracy. It works less differently from Brussels than might appear - in both places, the leaders work out what they want to do and then think how to sell it.
The effect on Labour's leadership with all the focus on the Conservatives.
Will it help Labour in the May elections ? If Labour does badly in May will it not be noticed ? If Corbyn is unable to exploit Conservative divisions will he be considered ineffective ? If there is a Conservative leadership election would Corbyn be safer or more vulnerable ?
It seems Cameron has left no other option for the Leavers in the Tory party but open warfare.
The Outers can, and will, vote Out, as they were always going to.
Nothing Cameron has done, or could have done, would change that
Showing some humility rather than crowing about a duff deal hasn't helped his cause.
Scot doesn't seem to understand that the crowing about a dreadful deal is the difference between MPs respecting an outgoing leader and having contempt for someone that they now might get rid of sooner.
A leader who cannot take his party along is replaced. That is how power works.
I think the Betfair market for the GOP nomination is being manipulated. Massively - there is someone with deep pockets holding Rubio up and taking an almighty red position on Ted Cruz that barely makes sense.
I wonder if it is anything to do with the RNC.
You must be right I think. Trump is 90% certain to be the candidate, Rubio 10%.
It's probably a second order effect from Predictit actually - thats the "prediction" (Not betting !) market the US uses, someone will most likely be arbing it off against Betfair.
Exactly my thoughts.
Although Predictit seems to have trump @ 2/1 for POTUS & 4/6 for the GOP. If you were going to arb Cruz, you'd probably arb Trump too.
Just remembered Predictit has a contract limit per user for each market. Basically, from what I can tell, arbing by buying on Predictit & selling on Betfair becomes less profitable as the odds of a candidate winning increases.
If, theoretically, you can buy cruz.gop for as much as possible ($850 I think?) @ 1c (or 1%) - your betfair lay would be ~£$2500 @ 33/1 or whatever
That's quite a big amount when it shows up in Cruz's lay box.
Selling trump.potus @30c for $850 would only leave you with ~$1200 to back on betfair
Which isn't going to have much of an impact on trump's liquidity at all.
I'm not sure precisely how predictit works - and I may have got the calculation slightly wrong here. Does anyone (lurkers included) have any experience with predicit?
Might just be mugs then.
No, I think you're right.
I was arguing with myself. Cruz is (or was) viably arbable for large stakes, Trump much less so.
Cruz is at 9 cents though !!
So he is a sell on Predictit and a buy at the equivalent 2-2.5 c price Betfair is giving here.
Hmm. Yes. My calculations are out. Cruz may not actually have been arbable (although he did trade as low as 4c a couple of days ago, when Betfair was much lower).
The theory is still correct though, I think - because you can only sell a set number of contracts ($850?) which all settle at $1 or $0.
So you could only sell at 8c and buy at ~40/1 for a (relatively) small amount. The impact on Betfair would be small.
Buying/selling the other way around for the max predictit market limit would potentially have a much bigger impact on the betfair lay price.
It seems Cameron has left no other option for the Leavers in the Tory party but open warfare.
The Outers can, and will, vote Out, as they were always going to.
Nothing Cameron has done, or could have done, would change that
I think thats true enough. Beyond all that there is pure invention and wishful thinking. Its the leavers who are playing the man (Cameron) and not the issues.
'Clearly the idea was that they'd copy Harold Wilson in 1975 and pull the wool over everyone's eyes by claming they'd got something meaningful when in reality they asked for nothing and received even less.'
Yes indeed. And they even briefed journalists to that effect, assuming the voters weren't listening. Quite extraordinary complacency/arrogance (delete as applicable).
Incidentally, if the leave camp can paint themselves as plucky, anti political establishment and concerned about British sovereignty, this campaign can be won.
If LEAVE wants to paint itself as plucky and antiestablishment, it would need somebody other than the entirely establishment and pluckless Boris Johnson
Anecdote alert: I've spoken to a non-political lifelong Tory voter today who's always expressed vague hostility to the EU and I would have expected to come down on the side of Leave. He previously said he would wait to see the result of Cameron's renegotiation. Today he said he's made up his mind to vote Remain and the reason: Boris Johnson's duplicity.
From the folk that brought you "Dave will never be PM, the coalition won't last, he will lose Scotland, and can't beat Ed Miliband"...
I think Cameron showed them exactly the right amount of humility
Scott - listen to reason sir. I have been cheering Cameron on since 2005. I voted for him. I went to the same college as him. I've knocked on tens of thousands of doors for him. No one has represented my views better than him.
Until now - where he has utterly failed. And, worse still, he has the bare faced cheek to claim that he has succeeded.
If he can't carry me, one of his fervent cheerleaders, he doesn't have a hope of carrying the party at large.
I will vote out because it was less than I expected .
You were quite happy to be in, until Cameron brought back a better deal, at which point you can no longer stand it.
As I said, curious
But it's not a better deal, that's the point.
First we had a bad deal, then heaping helpings of lazy, transparent mendacity to back it up. I was always a BOOer, but Cameron's turned me into an ex-conservative.
This is where I have my doubts about Johnson,he isn't up for the fight,Flashman made him look not PM material today.
So after today in the commons,if I was him,my pay back would to put my heart and soul into the campaign,get your self out there with well informed information on leaving the EU.
Take it to the country man and put the shitters on the establishment
Yep, thats what Boris needs to so but it depends how committed he really is.
As we see in the US with Trump, these are very much anti-establishment and anti-elite times.
Cameron hasn't just put himself at the heart of the ultimate establishment, the elite to end all elites (namely the corrupt EU) he is actually going to spend the next three months campaigning for that elite to the point where he may utterly destroy his Party (and he does it for no other reason than he is a passionate lover of the EU to his very core)
If an "outsider" wants to come along and grasp the nettle it's there and waiting, question is, does Boris really have the stomach for it.
We shall see.
It reminds me of the Clegg vs Farage debates. Here Cameron assumes that defending the EU publicly and in the strongest possible terms is a net benefit for his party despite the obvious dangers.
Either that or he really loves Brussels more than his own party and he's willing to sacrifice it, being a lame duck PM means he also has little to care for the future of the Tories after he leaves office.
You will vote Out because Cameron got an enhancement on the status quo?
Curious
He didn't.
Save your breath. No one believes your rubbish.
Its hard to see how two minor welfare changes that may be reversed by EU parliament can outrank the entire UK finance industry coming under Eurozone governance.
From the folk that brought you "Dave will never be PM, the coalition won't last, he will lose Scotland, and can't beat Ed Miliband"...
I think Cameron showed them exactly the right amount of humility
You're being wilfully silly, now.
The people who are really really pissed off, on this website, and elsewhere, are people who had a lot of respect for Cameron, and expected him to negotiate a good deal, or else to admit he couldn't negotiate a good deal. Not me or Richard Tyndall, but people like Marquee Mark, David L, Mortimer and Cyclefree.
It seems Cameron has left no other option for the Leavers in the Tory party but open warfare.
The Outers can, and will, vote Out, as they were always going to.
Nothing Cameron has done, or could have done, would change that
Its the leavers who are playing the man (Cameron) and not the issues.
We've got plenty of time to come on to the issue's in due course but for now Cameron is wriggling on the hook and that's where he's got to be kept
But OK, on the issue's. Riddle me this:
How can staying in the EU make us more "secure" and "safer" when the entire Continent is completely and utterly borderless and nobody has the faintest idea who is entering and who is leaving the Continent from Greece in the south to Sweden in the north?
Clearly the idea was that they'd copy Harold Wilson in 1975 and pull the wool over everyone's eyes by claming they'd got something meaningful when in reality they asked for nothing and received even less.
When the details first leaked a few weeks ago I thought "ah you don't fool me, this is expectation management, it will be better than that." Not necessarily everything Cameron had said he wanted but enough to win over the waverers, which make up a large chunk of Tory supporters. Boy was I wrong, and I would never have expected the kidding on from Cameron that he's achieved what he wanted. We might as well have simply called a referendum for the EU as it currently is and saved the time and money.
Anecdote alert: I've spoken to a non-political lifelong Tory voter today who's always expressed vague hostility to the EU and I would have expected to come down on the side of Leave. He previously said he would wait to see the result of Cameron's renegotiation. Today he said he's made up his mind to vote Remain and the reason: Boris Johnson's duplicity.
Boris duplicitous? I'm shocked: shocked, I tell you...
From the folk that brought you "Dave will never be PM, the coalition won't last, he will lose Scotland, and can't beat Ed Miliband"...
I think Cameron showed them exactly the right amount of humility
You're being wilfully silly, now.
The people who are really really pissed off, on this website, and elsewhere, are people who had a lot of respect for Cameron, and expected him to negotiate a good deal, or else to admit he couldn't negotiate a good deal. Not me or Richard Tyndall, but people like Marquee Mark, David L, Mortimer and Cyclefree.
He didn't seem that bothered until Boris joined LEAVE... Flailing now
From the folk that brought you "Dave will never be PM, the coalition won't last, he will lose Scotland, and can't beat Ed Miliband"...
I think Cameron showed them exactly the right amount of humility
I said that Dave will be PM and that the coalition will last it's full 5 years and he will win the scottish referendum. But I was wrong about Miliband, I never expected the ex-LD to swing to the Tories in those numbers. Still 4 out of 5 isn't bad.
From the folk that brought you "Dave will never be PM, the coalition won't last, he will lose Scotland, and can't beat Ed Miliband"...
I think Cameron showed them exactly the right amount of humility
You're being wilfully silly, now.
The people who are really really pissed off, on this website, and elsewhere, are people who had a lot of respect for Cameron, and expected him to negotiate a good deal, or else to admit he couldn't negotiate a good deal. Not me or Richard Tyndall, but people like Marquee Mark, David L, Mortimer and Cyclefree.
Dave has done what everyone with half a brain knew he'd do: promise the moon to keep Tory right wingers away from UKIP prior to the election, then deliver the square root of F'all once it was won. He was never going to get much out of Brussels and he was never going to advocate leaving the EU. It's all pnned out entirely as expected. Those crying betrayal now clearly weren't watching for the last four years.
The next "betrayal" will come when Leavers who weren't properly watching and listening cry foul over our Brexit terms.
Clearly the idea was that they'd copy Harold Wilson in 1975 and pull the wool over everyone's eyes by claming they'd got something meaningful when in reality they asked for nothing and received even less.
When the details first leaked a few weeks ago I thought "ah you don't fool me, this is expectation management, it will be better than that." Not necessarily everything Cameron had said he wanted but enough to win over the waverers, which make up a large chunk of Tory supporters. Boy was I wrong, and I would never have expected the kidding on from Cameron that he's achieved what he wanted. We might as well have simply called a referendum for the EU as it currently is and saved the time and money.
I knew the "renegotiation" was just a charade because if Cameron was serious he'd have kept the "nuclear option" (leaving) on the table rather than ruling it out three bloody years ago.
I will vote out because it was less than I expected .
You were quite happy to be in, until Cameron brought back a better deal, at which point you can no longer stand it.
As I said, curious
But it's not a better deal, that's the point.
First we had a bad deal, then heaping helpings of lazy, transparent mendacity to back it up. I was always a BOOer, but Cameron's turned me into an ex-conservative.
I think you won't be the only one,the cameroon key board warriors just can't see it.
Comments
Westminster has overseen a century of decline, reform is long overdue. You argument that the EU is slow to change but Westminster is fine is ridiculous.
Apparently whilst banging on about immigration energises a lot of voters, it puts off even more voters.
Who could have predicted that?
Where I will agree with you is that the EU's border policy is betwixt and between. If you are going to have a single border area then you need a single border force to police it, also funded centrally. And you need a single immigration policy. This whole crisis has come about because the leader of one member state unilaterally amended her country's immigration policy so substantially that the border forces of the front-line states (especially the small one most in the front line) were overwhelmed and couldn't call on support from elsewhere.
So yes, it will be excruciatingly unfunny...
Leave have got all the voters they're going to get on immigration alone, IMHO.
I was arguing with myself. Cruz is (or was) viably arbable for large stakes, Trump much less so.
Is there an English translation?
He probably recognised he had no choice, such was his paucity of achievement. But in doing so, he has really pissed off a cohort of his MPs - and even more of the party membership. He has put the Referendum outcome in some doubt. And he has foregone rapturous applause as he disappears into the sunset. Instead, he risks being bundled out the back door into a Transit van, hidden under a blanket.
If ever someone embodied the notion of the Tory party as the 'stupid party' it is he.
https://www.politicshome.com/foreign-and-defence/articles/dot-commons-diary/piers-morgan-bounces-cabinet-minister-bet-camerons
Right, I must sign-off. Busy day tomorrow.
Says the man with 15,000 posts under his belt. Good to see you have still got a sense of humour in these dark days.....
To no avail. Again.
@kevverage: Which we all knew when we voted.
The SNP really do seem to struggle with this democracy malarkey don't they? https://t.co/6gvtm3Skwt
So he is a sell on Predictit and a buy at the equivalent 2-2.5 c price Betfair is giving here.
I could have been persuaded by a proper deal, especially one where Cameron left and suggested that Europe grovel to him when they came up with better. I could even have been persuaded with a lesser deal that was made in such a way as to guarantee the security of the city, if it had been delivered in measured tones
But the triumphalism of the current leadership over the weekend has made an outer and an opponent of a centrist, liberal leaning Tory activist. For shame, Mr Cameron.
"The rules for the 2016 Republican National Convention call for the following formula for determining the number of delegates:
For Jurisdictions with Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress:
10 At-Large delegates from each state, that is, 5 at-large delegates for each U.S. Senator [Rule 13(a)(1)].
3 District delegates for each U.S. Representative as established by the 2010 census [Rule 13(a)(3)].
For Jurisdictions without Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress [Rule 13(a)(4)]:
6 at-large delegates from American Samoa.
16 at-large delegates from the District of Columbia.
6 at-large delegates from Guam.
6 at-large delegates from the Northern Mariana Islands.
20 at-large delegates from Puerto Rico.
6 at-large delegates from Virgin Islands.
For all Jurisdictions - 3 party leaders: the national committeeman, the national committee woman, and the chairman of the state Republican Party. [Rule 13(a)(2)]
Bonus Delegates
President: States casting a majority of their 2008 Electoral Votes for the Republican Candidate receive 4.5 + 0.60 × the Jurisdiction's Total 2008 Electoral Vote in bonus delegates. Should the District of Columbia cast the majority of their electoral votes for the Republican Candidate, the District will receive 4.5 + (0.30 × 16) in bonus delegates. Round any fractions UP to the next whole number. [Rules 13(a)(5) and 13(a)(7)]
U.S. Senate: Award 1 bonus delegate for each Republican Senator elected in the 6 year period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2011. Limit 2. [Rule 13(a)(6)]
Governor States electing a Republican Governor between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit: 1. [Rule 13(a)(5)(i)]
U.S. House: States electing Republicans to 50% or more of their U.S. House seats between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit 1. [Rule 13(a)(5)(ii)]
One Chamber: States electing a Republican majority to one chamber of the state legislature (OR the legislature is presided over by a Republican) between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit 1. [Rule 13(a)(5)(iii)]
All Chambers: States electing a Republican majority to all chambers of the state legislature (OR all chambers are presided over by a Republican) between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit 1. [Rule 13(a)(5)(iv)]"
At least Boris is doing it to advance his career...
Imagine if every Govt until you die had Nick Clegg as your Deputy Prime Minister. And you couldn't do a damned thing to move him on.
That's the EU, that is. Nick Clegg's leering face. Every day, for the rest of your life....
He seems to think loyalty means MPs should suspend their faculties and say that black is white.
'Who Governs Britain"
As we see in the US with Trump, these are very much anti-establishment and anti-elite times.
Cameron hasn't just put himself at the heart of the ultimate establishment, the elite to end all elites (namely the corrupt EU) he is actually going to spend the next three months campaigning for that elite to the point where he may utterly destroy his Party (and he does it for no other reason than he is a passionate lover of the EU to his very core)
If an "outsider" wants to come along and grasp the nettle it's there and waiting, question is, does Boris really have the stomach for it.
We shall see.
*I* am the only vegetarian in the PB Village!
It's the 70 or 80 MPs that have joined them because the deal was so poor - and sold as having secured King Solomon's Mines for the nation.
Almost strictly proportional, the fairest system there is. And we'll push Hilary over the line if it's close
Curious
I'm still convinced that Corbyn will keep the Tory party united, but Cameron is testing the limits of my assumption.
I'm surprised that you just found out about it.
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell · 1 hr1 hour ago
Overwhelming majority of UKIP councillors now backing @vote_leave #Winning
I will vote out because it was less than I expected and heralded as the new Jerusalem.
Nothing Cameron has done, or could have done, would change that
The effect on Labour's leadership with all the focus on the Conservatives.
Will it help Labour in the May elections ?
If Labour does badly in May will it not be noticed ?
If Corbyn is unable to exploit Conservative divisions will he be considered ineffective ?
If there is a Conservative leadership election would Corbyn be safer or more vulnerable ?
They forgot Nick Clegg as the finishing touch.
As I said, curious
Was a stupid move because we live in such different, less reverential times plus the Tory Party then was almost universally signed up to the EU where-as now Cameron is clearly at odds with the vast majority of his Party to the point where he's had to spend years lying about being a eurosceptic and only now does he reveal his true europhile self.
Though I guess when he said he would NEVER in any circumstances recommend leaving the EU that was a pretty big clue...
I like the Swiss system for its successful engagement with the people - ordinary people get involved with the pros and cons of decisions to an extent entirely unthinkable here.
I like the EU because I think Europeans have a lot in common and it makes sense to try to have a basis for common government in a difficult world. I'm not a fan of the undemocratic aspects, though I think romantics here exaggerate the wonders of our democracy. It works less differently from Brussels than might appear - in both places, the leaders work out what they want to do and then think how to sell it.
A leader who cannot take his party along is replaced. That is how power works.
I think Cameron showed them exactly the right amount of humility
The theory is still correct though, I think - because you can only sell a set number of contracts ($850?) which all settle at $1 or $0.
So you could only sell at 8c and buy at ~40/1 for a (relatively) small amount. The impact on Betfair would be small.
Buying/selling the other way around for the max predictit market limit would potentially have a much bigger impact on the betfair lay price.
Yes indeed. And they even briefed journalists to that effect, assuming the voters weren't listening. Quite extraordinary complacency/arrogance (delete as applicable).
Save your breath. No one believes your rubbish.
Almost....
Until now - where he has utterly failed. And, worse still, he has the bare faced cheek to claim that he has succeeded.
If he can't carry me, one of his fervent cheerleaders, he doesn't have a hope of carrying the party at large.
Here Cameron assumes that defending the EU publicly and in the strongest possible terms is a net benefit for his party despite the obvious dangers.
Either that or he really loves Brussels more than his own party and he's willing to sacrifice it, being a lame duck PM means he also has little to care for the future of the Tories after he leaves office.
The people who are really really pissed off, on this website, and elsewhere, are people who had a lot of respect for Cameron, and expected him to negotiate a good deal, or else to admit he couldn't negotiate a good deal. Not me or Richard Tyndall, but people like Marquee Mark, David L, Mortimer and Cyclefree.
But OK, on the issue's. Riddle me this:
How can staying in the EU make us more "secure" and "safer" when the entire Continent is completely and utterly borderless and nobody has the faintest idea who is entering and who is leaving the Continent from Greece in the south to Sweden in the north?
Should have put Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness in there are well.
SF/IRA needs its fair share of EU grant fraud after all
But I was wrong about Miliband, I never expected the ex-LD to swing to the Tories in those numbers.
Still 4 out of 5 isn't bad.
The next "betrayal" will come when Leavers who weren't properly watching and listening cry foul over our Brexit terms.