McSally is impressive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn_darqWMZY She's just been appointed Chairwoman of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee on the Committee on Homeland Security. The influential assignment gives Rep. McSally the lead role on the subcommittee with primary jurisdiction over border security.
She 's the perfect fit for Trump's Veep. An attractive, articulate woman who's done more with her life than scheme for office. [Hint] And means business, like Trump, against the threats to America.
I think Trump will actually be stronger in the general election than he is in the nomination. For a republican he has quite a number of centralist positions, some of which he will remember after the nomination is sewn up.
I just can't see Hillary coping with him at all. I am very happy with my bets on him.
@rosschawkins: Donald Tusk: EU agreement "cannot be annulled by the European Court of Justice"
Tell that to the Danes.
In 1992 EU leaders pledged that EU citizenship would “not in any way take the place of national citizenship”. Less than a decade later, the ECJ declared that EU citizenship would “be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States”. Tusk doesn't know what he is talk about.
Joshua Rozenberg's take - maybe it is binding, maybe it isn't. There are arguments on both sides.
Clearly it wasn't binding in fact irrespective of what people think. The Danes were promised their concession in the Council of Europe, and the ECJ threw it out. The rejection of that agreement has subsequently been confirmed in over 80 rulings.
I think Trump will actually be stronger in the general election than he is in the nomination. For a republican he has quite a number of centralist positions, some of which he will remember after the nomination is sewn up.
I just can't see Hillary coping with him at all. I am very happy with my bets on him.
The group of Walsall friends who became Britain's largest group of Isil fanatics
The group included four Muslim converts, two teachers and three couples.Two of them were killed in Syria, two more are still there and four are now facing prison.
A law graduate and treasurer of Islam Walsall Shaukat, 27, was the fixer for the group, driving at least two jihadists to the airport and helping tie up loose ends in the UK for those not planning to return...
Despite his insistence he was working to prevent people becoming extremists, postings on his Facebook account showed a very different picture.
In the wake of the terror attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris last year, he wrote he hoped the editors “rot in hell”...
Sorry, isam, but I'm going to blow my own trumpet a bit. Last June I sought to predict how the boundary review might work out and I came up with the following in England:
Eastern 56 East Midlands 43 London 70 North East 25 North West 68 South East 83 (including two Isle of Wight constituencies) South West 53 West Midlands 54 Yorkshire & The Humber 50
Good quote from BBC F1 livefeed: "“Alonso was only eighth fastest - and the speed traps told you where the loss was. He was slowest of all at the end of the long pit straight, and second slowest at the finish line. But third fastest - behind the Ferrari and Red Bull, which used both the ultra-soft and super-soft tyres while Alonso was on the softs - in the twisty final sector.”"
The codfish lays ten thousand eggs, The homely hen lays one. The codfish never cackles To tell you what she’s done. And so we scorn the codfish, While the humble hen we prize, Which only goes to show you That it pays to advertise.
It's very odd that the Leave side are so desperate to argue that a deal which they claim has no content might not be 100% legally binding.
Of course this is very helpful to the Remain side, as it suggests the deal did achieve something important. The Leave side would be far better advised to shrug their shoulders and say it doesn't matter either way.
Virtually every constituency will be withdrawn, whether they have too few, too many or the right number of voters, as even where they're right of themselves, their neighbours will in all probability intrude.
Yes. I'm trying to see if there are any counties or parts of counties which contain seats that don't require alterations. As you say you'd need a cluster of them.
It's very odd that the Leave side are so desperate to argue that a deal which they claim has no content might not be 100% legally binding.
Of course this is very helpful to the Remain side, as it suggests the deal did achieve something important. The Leave side would be far better advised to shrug their shoulders and say it doesn't matter either way.
On the other hand, the Remain side think it's a fantastic deal, so it does work against that argument.
McSally is impressive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn_darqWMZY She's just been appointed Chairwoman of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee on the Committee on Homeland Security. The influential assignment gives Rep. McSally the lead role on the subcommittee with primary jurisdiction over border security.
She 's the perfect fit for Trump's Veep. An attractive, articulate woman who's done more with her life than scheme for office. [Hint] And means business, like Trump, against the threats to America.
She's remarkably like a US President in a TV pilot I have recently written, before I was aware of McSally's existence. (Mine was an Apache helicopter pilot, not an A-10 pilot....both seem quite kick-ass!)
It's very odd that the Leave side are so desperate to argue that a deal which they claim has no content might not be 100% legally binding.
Of course this is very helpful to the Remain side, as it suggests the deal did achieve something important. The Leave side would be far better advised to shrug their shoulders and say it doesn't matter either way.
They're very schizophrenic on the issue in general. Why would a committed Outer affect to be upset that Cameron didn't want much more than he got, when the Out case gets weaker the more substantial the deal becomes. They should be celebrating that Cameron has made it easy for them.
'On the other hand, the Remain side think it's a fantastic deal, so it does work against that argument.'
Yes indeed - and they continue to big it up, as in the laughable quote from one of the PM's pet businessmen earlier on.
We know it's rubbish, but this argument isn't aimed at us, it's aimed at the less politically engaged part of the public who might take the PM and his chums at their word.
I'm quite happy using a double argument, that the deal is both empty of useful content and empty of legal force. As I said, it represents a double deception of the voters. Persuade the voters that either deception is indeed a deception and you have a chance to get their vote.
It's very odd that the Leave side are so desperate to argue that a deal which they claim has no content might not be 100% legally binding.
Of course this is very helpful to the Remain side, as it suggests the deal did achieve something important. The Leave side would be far better advised to shrug their shoulders and say it doesn't matter either way.
On the other hand, the Remain side think it's a fantastic deal, so it does work against that argument.
Except that the experts like Tusk are saying it is binding and you are puffing it up into something worth arguing over. I suspect most people will give the benefit of the doubt that an agreement signed between 28 countries will be honoured as you don't sign agreements to not honour them and you're making it into a big deal.
May appeal to the small minority who don't trust the EU to honour anything but they're won over anyway. Arguments like this don't further the Leave cause to winning 51% and I say that as someone newly leaning leave.
Virtually every constituency will be withdrawn, whether they have too few, too many or the right number of voters, as even where they're right of themselves, their neighbours will in all probability intrude.
Yes. I'm trying to see if there are any counties or parts of counties which contain seats that don't require alterations. As you say you'd need a cluster of them.
Lambeth and Southwark are currently joined with 5 Constituencies, and under the new electorates have a quota of exactly 5. You could thus get away with minor changes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark and Camberwell and Peckham are both oversized, with the other 3 being undersized). However, I don't think that it will end up happening due to the surrounding electorates not working well.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
I'd rather Trump than Cruz or Sanders.
Trump is acting crazy to win the nomination but if you look at his historical statements he's a big ego but not a nut. Cruz and Sanders have always been nuts.
There is every chance that Trump is looking at this thinking "what have I done" himself and if he gets into power will actually be reasonable. There is no chance that Cruz or Sanders will be reasonable. They mean what they're saying.
I suspect most people will give the benefit of the doubt that an agreement signed between 28 countries will be honoured as you don't sign agreements to not honour them and you're making it into a big deal.
Precisely.
I just don't get the Leave side's tactics or strategy. Both make sense only if they genuinely think that undecided voters are as obsessed with and distrustful of the EU as they are. But, as you point out, any such voters will be voting Leave anyway.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
He'd pay for half of my holiday to the states if he did!
You've put that many bets on him then? Wow!
@MarqueeMark I don't think I could bet on an outcome that I actively didn't want to happen! It would feel a bit odd taking that money. If Trump becomes POTUS, Bush is going to look like a socialist!
The agreement may well be legally valid but this is not the end of the matter. Here is my post on this from the previous thread.
International law is a notoriously tricky area but there are a number of points to make - and Dominic Grieve QC also made them in the Today programme, namely:-
1. An agreement can be legally binding (Grieve is probably right on that and Gove probably wrong - though he is really addressing a different point - see no. 3 below) but that does not tell you very much about how it will be interpreted should there be a challenge nor how it interacts with other agreements and treaties.
2. The justiciability of an international agreement is a minefield i.e. the extent to which a court can rule on the legal consequences for particular parties of what is set out in the treaty.
3. How the agreement which has been reached will be incorporated into any new EU treaties will play a very important part in determining what its legal effect will be as part of EU law. This is the key point which Gove is making: that this agreement is not yet part of EU law and that the final interpreter of EU law is not Cameron or the British Parliament but the ECJ which has a very specific mandate.
4. So will how the ECJ interprets it - which will in turn depend on the basis of any challenge brought. It is worth remembering that the likely route of any challenge will be something like this: benefits limited to a Pole, Pole challenges this in UK courts, appeal goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the latter determines that there is a point of EU law which will need to be determined by the ECJ. Matter goes to ECJ who rule.
5. It is true up to a point that even though this agreement is not part of EU law the ECJ should "take account of" it. ("Should" not "must", BTW.) But "taking account of" is not the same as "giving effect to" let alone "giving effect to in the way that one out of 29 governments thought".
The next issue is what more detailed regulations and rules and Directives are enacted and how they interact with other rules and EU treaties and how they are enacted into national law and how they are, if challenged, interpreted by the ECJ. So how single market rules are made and what their effect will be will depend not just on this agreement but on what the rules say and how they are interpreted, taking into account the whole corpus of relevant EU law.
At any event, you are conflating two issues: (1) did the deal achieve what people hoped it would e.g. for instance appropriate protection for the UK's financial sector?; and (2) is what it has achieved, whether good, not very much or not what was hoped for, binding in such a way that it cannot be unpicked / ignored or interpreted very differently from what people are now saying.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
He'd pay for half of my holiday to the states if he did!
You've put that many bets on him then? Wow!
@MarqueeMark I don't think I could bet on an outcome that I actively didn't want to happen! It would feel a bit odd taking that money. If Trump becomes POTUS, Bush is going to look like a socialist!
Where do you get that idea? Trump categorically condemned the Iraq war, accused Bush of lying.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
He'd pay for half of my holiday to the states if he did!
You've put that many bets on him then? Wow!
@MarqueeMark I don't think I could bet on an outcome that I actively didn't want to happen! It would feel a bit odd taking that money. If Trump becomes POTUS, Bush is going to look like a socialist!
Yes, but we aren't there yet. And about half is dependent on the presidency, not the nomination, and we are very far from that.
The package of reforms negotiated by David Cameron cannot be reversed by European judges, according to the EU Council president. Donald Tusk told MEPs the deal was "legally binding and irreversible". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35653155
Completely daft amount of non runners in the POTUS market, it's persistently skewed it toward a backing game from a technical point of view.
22 I count now of 0% 1000-1 shots = 2.2% of no hopers. (Not including the various Hilary FBI subs here).
OK Some like Chris Christie were initially in the game, but when was Nikki Haley added ?
Betfair add nearly everyone requested - it is an exchange after all. You are right about the technicals though - I have a very big field red having never backed no-hopers like Jeb!
Sorry, isam, but I'm going to blow my own trumpet a bit. Last June I sought to predict how the boundary review might work out and I came up with the following in England:
Eastern 56 East Midlands 43 London 70 North East 25 North West 68 South East 83 (including two Isle of Wight constituencies) South West 53 West Midlands 54 Yorkshire & The Humber 50
I estimated one too few in Eastern and East Midlands, two too many in London, one too many in West Midlands.
I'll take that.
Why are we paying the boundary commission again? How good are your map drawing skills?
Seems like the North West will be quite hit. Wonder who that will hurt most? There are a number of blue seats in a sea of red that could vanish so not necessarily just hurt red.
Completely daft amount of non runners in the POTUS market, it's persistently skewed it toward a backing game from a technical point of view.
22 I count now of 0% 1000-1 shots = 2.2% of no hopers. (Not including the various Hilary FBI subs here).
OK Some like Chris Christie were initially in the game, but when was Nikki Haley added ?
Betfair add nearly everyone requested - it is an exchange after all. You are right about the technicals though - I have a very big field red having never backed no-hopers like Jeb!
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
I'd rather Trump than Cruz or Sanders.
Trump is acting crazy to win the nomination but if you look at his historical statements he's a big ego but not a nut. Cruz and Sanders have always been nuts.
There is every chance that Trump is looking at this thinking "what have I done" himself and if he gets into power will actually be reasonable. There is no chance that Cruz or Sanders will be reasonable. They mean what they're saying.
That's an interesting theory. I can't say I want either Cruz or Sanders as POTUS too, although I don't believe either of those two have much of chance. I suppose it would be funny to see the reaction of Republicans who support Trump if he became far more moderate during the GE. I have always taken Trump's statements at face value, but time will tell whether he actually believes the stuff he's saying, or whether he was playing up to get the Republican nomination.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
He'd pay for half of my holiday to the states if he did!
You've put that many bets on him then? Wow!
@MarqueeMark I don't think I could bet on an outcome that I actively didn't want to happen! It would feel a bit odd taking that money. If Trump becomes POTUS, Bush is going to look like a socialist!
Where do you get that idea? Trump categorically condemned the Iraq war, accused Bush of lying.
Yes and apparently he's quite friendly with the Clintons. It not so much his left/right position that scares me as much as his extreme personality faults. Give me a President who would consider things carefully any day.
I suspect most people will give the benefit of the doubt that an agreement signed between 28 countries will be honoured as you don't sign agreements to not honour them and you're making it into a big deal.
Precisely.
I just don't get the Leave side's tactics or strategy. Both make sense only if they genuinely think that undecided voters are as obsessed with and distrustful of the EU as they are. But, as you point out, any such voters will be voting Leave anyway.
Leave's problem is that admirably set out by DavidL earlier this morning. No clear statement of what the alternative would be. (You too have made this very good point.) I could certainly sign up for what DavidL set out this am but the immigration issue which Farage has gone on about constantly scuppers that. And this ambiguity - ironically, an ambiguity worthy of the EU at its best - or worst - will likely proved fatal to the Leave case.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
He'd pay for half of my holiday to the states if he did!
You've put that many bets on him then? Wow!
@MarqueeMark I don't think I could bet on an outcome that I actively didn't want to happen! It would feel a bit odd taking that money. If Trump becomes POTUS, Bush is going to look like a socialist!
Where do you get that idea? Trump categorically condemned the Iraq war, accused Bush of lying.
Socialism had nothing to do with the Iraq War. Realpolitik did.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
I'd rather Trump than Cruz or Sanders.
Trump is acting crazy to win the nomination but if you look at his historical statements he's a big ego but not a nut. Cruz and Sanders have always been nuts.
There is every chance that Trump is looking at this thinking "what have I done" himself and if he gets into power will actually be reasonable. There is no chance that Cruz or Sanders will be reasonable. They mean what they're saying.
That's an interesting theory. I can't say I want either Cruz or Sanders as POTUS too, although I don't believe either of those two have much of chance. I suppose it would be funny to see the reaction of Republicans who support Trump if he became far more moderate during the GE. I have always taken Trump's statements at face value, but time will tell whether he actually believes the stuff he's saying, or whether he was playing up to get the Republican nomination.
Trump has said what he means and means what he says. He said that Planned Parenthood did excellent things for women's health. Even "moderate" Kasich hasn't defended Planned Parenthood - its seen as suicidal for GOP nominees normally.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
I'd rather Trump than Cruz or Sanders.
Trump is acting crazy to win the nomination but if you look at his historical statements he's a big ego but not a nut. Cruz and Sanders have always been nuts.
There is every chance that Trump is looking at this thinking "what have I done" himself and if he gets into power will actually be reasonable. There is no chance that Cruz or Sanders will be reasonable. They mean what they're saying.
That's an interesting theory. I can't say I want either Cruz or Sanders as POTUS too, although I don't believe either of those two have much of chance. I suppose it would be funny to see the reaction of Republicans who support Trump if he became far more moderate during the GE. I have always taken Trump's statements at face value, but time will tell whether he actually believes the stuff he's saying, or whether he was playing up to get the Republican nomination.
That said, I am hoping that President Trump will nominate Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell to the Supreme Court.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
He'd pay for half of my holiday to the states if he did!
You've put that many bets on him then? Wow!
@MarqueeMark I don't think I could bet on an outcome that I actively didn't want to happen! It would feel a bit odd taking that money. If Trump becomes POTUS, Bush is going to look like a socialist!
Where do you get that idea? Trump categorically condemned the Iraq war, accused Bush of lying.
Yes and apparently he's quite friendly with the Clintons. It not so much his left/right position that scares me as much as his extreme personality faults. Give me a President who would consider things carefully any day.
Let's face it, they've all got extreme personality faults. Its almost a requirement of the job. America is a democracy, with all the checks and balances that entails. Free press, elected chambers, separate judiciary, free speech, the works.
The package of reforms negotiated by David Cameron cannot be reversed by European judges, according to the EU Council president. Donald Tusk told MEPs the deal was "legally binding and irreversible". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35653155
An example of someone giving an assurance on a point which is not in doubt but ignoring the point of concern.
The issue is not whether it can be reversed but whether it will be interpreted in such a way as to render it largely ineffective.
Tusk isn't an expert he is a politician. The real legal experts are at best saying 'maybe' at worst saying the deal has no legal force.
'I suspect most people will give the benefit of the doubt that an agreement signed between 28 countries will be honoured as you don't sign agreements to not honour them'
Incredibly naive, there must be hundreds of such examples by different governments over recent centuries.
And the EU has abundant form on reneging on what parties to agreements think they achieved, as others have pointed out.
Trump has it in the bag right now, he has t only make a good or ok appearance on the debate tommorow and coast to victory on Super Tuesday in 6 days.
As for his 2 biggest opponents, Cruz is a sinking ship, his credibility was shattered by everyone accusing him of being a liar publicly and his campaign provided evidence for that.
Rubio is also a sinking ship, for the second consecutive state he won the endorsement of every elected official bar 1 who when for Cruz, including the popular governor and the biggest Las Vegas newspaper endorsed him 4 consecutive times, and he lost hispanics to Trump by double digits and he lost mormons to Cruz (Rubio is was a mormon), and he advertised continually that his father was a bartender in Las Vegas, and he has extended family there. In the end he couldn't even get close again.
Cruz is leading in Texas but just so he might stay after March 1st for a while, Rubio is 20 points behind in Florida (he is so unpopular in his home state that he isn't running for re-election) so he is finished on March 15th.
I suspect most people will give the benefit of the doubt that an agreement signed between 28 countries will be honoured as you don't sign agreements to not honour them and you're making it into a big deal.
Precisely.
I just don't get the Leave side's tactics or strategy. Both make sense only if they genuinely think that undecided voters are as obsessed with and distrustful of the EU as they are. But, as you point out, any such voters will be voting Leave anyway.
Leave's problem is that admirably set out by DavidL earlier this morning. No clear statement of what the alternative would be. (You too have made this very good point.) I could certainly sign up for what DavidL set out this am but the immigration issue which Farage has gone on about constantly scuppers that. And this ambiguity - ironically, an ambiguity worthy of the EU at its best - or worst - will likely proved fatal to the Leave case.
If you remember that Farage and UKIP will be nowhere near any Brexit negotiations you know that the only people worth listening to in the debate are the senior Tories that are likely to be part of the talks. On the Leave side that means Gove and Johnson. No-one else on the Leave side matters as they can deliver nothing post-vote.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
He'd pay for half of my holiday to the states if he did!
You've put that many bets on him then? Wow!
@MarqueeMark I don't think I could bet on an outcome that I actively didn't want to happen! It would feel a bit odd taking that money. If Trump becomes POTUS, Bush is going to look like a socialist!
Where do you get that idea? Trump categorically condemned the Iraq war, accused Bush of lying.
Yes and apparently he's quite friendly with the Clintons. It not so much his left/right position that scares me as much as his extreme personality faults. Give me a President who would consider things carefully any day.
He's made no secret of the fact that he gave cash to the Clintons in order to further his business interests. They're one of the most powerful political families in the USA.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
He'd pay for half of my holiday to the states if he did!
You've put that many bets on him then? Wow!
@MarqueeMark I don't think I could bet on an outcome that I actively didn't want to happen! It would feel a bit odd taking that money. If Trump becomes POTUS, Bush is going to look like a socialist!
Where do you get that idea? Trump categorically condemned the Iraq war, accused Bush of lying.
Trump to me comes off as having a pretty extreme personality. In that sense, I can see him making reactionary decisions.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
I'd rather Trump than Cruz or Sanders.
Trump is acting crazy to win the nomination but if you look at his historical statements he's a big ego but not a nut. Cruz and Sanders have always been nuts.
There is every chance that Trump is looking at this thinking "what have I done" himself and if he gets into power will actually be reasonable. There is no chance that Cruz or Sanders will be reasonable. They mean what they're saying.
That's an interesting theory. I can't say I want either Cruz or Sanders as POTUS too, although I don't believe either of those two have much of chance. I suppose it would be funny to see the reaction of Republicans who support Trump if he became far more moderate during the GE. I have always taken Trump's statements at face value, but time will tell whether he actually believes the stuff he's saying, or whether he was playing up to get the Republican nomination.
That said, I am hoping that President Trump will nominate Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell to the Supreme Court.
I think Trump will actually be stronger in the general election than he is in the nomination. For a republican he has quite a number of centralist positions, some of which he will remember after the nomination is sewn up.
I just can't see Hillary coping with him at all. I am very happy with my bets on him.
Trump has some useful advantages over Clinton.
He is new and fresh - to politics. He is an unknown political operator, and as his staying power (against a lot of predictions) in the primaries shows, he can kick ass. He hasn't a lot of long held political positions to contradict. He is a good media manipulator - moving the topic to different ground, the sound bite and dominating the cycle. Self publicity is second nature to him He is a risk taker in his campaigning - HRC would get some unexpected curve balls to deal with which with her 'conservative' style could be problematic. He will not be brow beaten into political correctness, which will be a plus and minus, but get the headlines.
There is a risk that as a politician Trump is underestimated. I would argue that in the Republican primaries his early surge was dismissed as a blip from an outsider and that it is his political skills (that he is supposed to lack) that have maintained his momentum and position. Just may be he knows what he is doing. God knows if that is good news or a disaster for USA!
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
I'd rather Trump than Cruz or Sanders.
Trump is acting crazy to win the nomination but if you look at his historical statements he's a big ego but not a nut. Cruz and Sanders have always been nuts.
There is every chance that Trump is looking at this thinking "what have I done" himself and if he gets into power will actually be reasonable. There is no chance that Cruz or Sanders will be reasonable. They mean what they're saying.
That's an interesting theory. I can't say I want either Cruz or Sanders as POTUS too, although I don't believe either of those two have much of chance. I suppose it would be funny to see the reaction of Republicans who support Trump if he became far more moderate during the GE. I have always taken Trump's statements at face value, but time will tell whether he actually believes the stuff he's saying, or whether he was playing up to get the Republican nomination.
That said, I am hoping that President Trump will nominate Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell to the Supreme Court.
It's very odd that the Leave side are so desperate to argue that a deal which they claim has no content might not be 100% legally binding.
Of course this is very helpful to the Remain side, as it suggests the deal did achieve something important. The Leave side would be far better advised to shrug their shoulders and say it doesn't matter either way.
On the other hand, the Remain side think it's a fantastic deal, so it does work against that argument.
Except that the experts like Tusk are saying it is binding and you are puffing it up into something worth arguing over. I suspect most people will give the benefit of the doubt that an agreement signed between 28 countries will be honoured as you don't sign agreements to not honour them and you're making it into a big deal.
May appeal to the small minority who don't trust the EU to honour anything but they're won over anyway. Arguments like this don't further the Leave cause to winning 51% and I say that as someone newly leaning leave.
You have no idea when he next treaty will be due. You have no idea whether the legislatures of every EU country are supportive of the deal even right now. You certainly don't know they will be supportive in several years time or more when the next treaty is negotiated.
A number of countries can only ratify the treaties by referendum. Even if you trust the governments of those countries you certainly have no assurance the people themselves will agree.
At least some parts of the deal have to be passed by the European Parliament. That is by no means certain to pass.
So the idea that this deal is in any way binding and sure to be in a future treaty agreement is laughable.
Virtually every constituency will be withdrawn, whether they have too few, too many or the right number of voters, as even where they're right of themselves, their neighbours will in all probability intrude.
Yes. I'm trying to see if there are any counties or parts of counties which contain seats that don't require alterations. As you say you'd need a cluster of them.
Lambeth and Southwark are currently joined with 5 Constituencies, and under the new electorates have a quota of exactly 5. You could thus get away with minor changes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark and Camberwell and Peckham are both oversized, with the other 3 being undersized). However, I don't think that it will end up happening due to the surrounding electorates not working well.
The boundary commission will probably try to avoid pairing more than 2 London boroughs although that may not be possible with the new 5% limit.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
I'd rather Trump than Cruz or Sanders.
Trump is acting crazy to win the nomination but if you look at his historical statements he's a big ego but not a nut. Cruz and Sanders have always been nuts.
There is every chance that Trump is looking at this thinking "what have I done" himself and if he gets into power will actually be reasonable. There is no chance that Cruz or Sanders will be reasonable. They mean what they're saying.
That's an interesting theory. I can't say I want either Cruz or Sanders as POTUS too, although I don't believe either of those two have much of chance. I suppose it would be funny to see the reaction of Republicans who support Trump if he became far more moderate during the GE. I have always taken Trump's statements at face value, but time will tell whether he actually believes the stuff he's saying, or whether he was playing up to get the Republican nomination.
Trump has said what he means and means what he says. He said that Planned Parenthood did excellent things for women's health. Even "moderate" Kasich hasn't defended Planned Parenthood - its seen as suicidal for GOP nominees normally.
"Planned Parenthood does a really good job at a lot of different areas. But not on abortion," he said Sunday. "So I'm not going to fund it if it's doing the abortion. I am not going to fund it."
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
I'd rather Trump than Cruz or Sanders.
Trump is acting crazy to win the nomination but if you look at his historical statements he's a big ego but not a nut. Cruz and Sanders have always been nuts.
There is every chance that Trump is looking at this thinking "what have I done" himself and if he gets into power will actually be reasonable. There is no chance that Cruz or Sanders will be reasonable. They mean what they're saying.
That's an interesting theory. I can't say I want either Cruz or Sanders as POTUS too, although I don't believe either of those two have much of chance. I suppose it would be funny to see the reaction of Republicans who support Trump if he became far more moderate during the GE. I have always taken Trump's statements at face value, but time will tell whether he actually believes the stuff he's saying, or whether he was playing up to get the Republican nomination.
That said, I am hoping that President Trump will nominate Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell to the Supreme Court.
Palin?
Really?
When I put this to a prominent US Attorney (on another website) he replied "I don't think SCOTUS Justices are allowed to write their opinions in crayon."
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
I'd rather Trump than Cruz or Sanders.
Trump is acting crazy to win the nomination but if you look at his historical statements he's a big ego but not a nut. Cruz and Sanders have always been nuts.
There is every chance that Trump is looking at this thinking "what have I done" himself and if he gets into power will actually be reasonable. There is no chance that Cruz or Sanders will be reasonable. They mean what they're saying.
That's an interesting theory. I can't say I want either Cruz or Sanders as POTUS too, although I don't believe either of those two have much of chance. I suppose it would be funny to see the reaction of Republicans who support Trump if he became far more moderate during the GE. I have always taken Trump's statements at face value, but time will tell whether he actually believes the stuff he's saying, or whether he was playing up to get the Republican nomination.
That said, I am hoping that President Trump will nominate Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell to the Supreme Court.
The #Heathrow13 – climate activists convicted of trespassing on and disrupting Britain’s busiest airport – have been told by the judge that they face jail sentences.
According to a small group of green protesters who have gathered outside the magistrates court this represents a terrible travesty of justice. Apparently this will be the first time in the UK anyone has ever been jailed for protesting about climate change.
“A disgrace” says (terrorist-supporting, hard-left) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell. “Deeply unjust” says Green MP Caroline Lucas.
No, Caroline, love, what’s really unjust is this: thousands of holidaymakers and business travellers making their way to the airport to catch planes only to miss their flights because a bunch of spoiled trustafarians, unemployable Environmental Sciences graduates and professional wasters have gone and cut through the perimeter fence and lain down on the runway.
One of the idiots – it goes almost without saying – was dressed as a polar bear.
Another of the idiots – again, it almost goes without saying – holds a PhD in climate science from the University of East Anglia (aka the University of Easy Access). And guess who her course supervisor was (h/t Paul Matthews at Bishop Hill). Why – the story gets better and better – it was none other than Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the Climatic Research Unit, as featured so unimpressively in the Climategate emails.
Does anyone with half a brain take Breitbart seriously?
Anyway, viz. climategate - many Government committees have found there was NO evidence of manipulation of data or scientific misconduct.
The World is warming and humans are significantly contributing to that warming that's more or less scientific consensus. I've challenged many of the right-wing nutters on here to place a bet with me on whether 2016 will the warmest year ever recorded (using a broad spectrum of datasets) or whether the10 year period (2007-2016) will be warmest 10 year period. I guess it's easier to spout out stuff like "AGW trough" and pin your faith on disgraced scientists such as John Christy and Roy 'wrong-sign' Spencer (who believe it or not does not believe in the theory of evolution - no shock there I guess!) than put money on where your mouth is!
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
He'd pay for half of my holiday to the states if he did!
You've put that many bets on him then? Wow!
@MarqueeMark I don't think I could bet on an outcome that I actively didn't want to happen! It would feel a bit odd taking that money. If Trump becomes POTUS, Bush is going to look like a socialist!
Where do you get that idea? Trump categorically condemned the Iraq war, accused Bush of lying.
Trump to me comes off as having a pretty extreme personality. In that sense, I can see him making reactionary decisions.
Well as I say America is a democracy with a series of checks and balances to prevent reactionary decisions.
And one man's reactionary decision is another's masterstroke.
Tusk isn't an expert he is a politician. The real legal experts are at best saying 'maybe' at worst saying the deal has no legal force.
'I suspect most people will give the benefit of the doubt that an agreement signed between 28 countries will be honoured as you don't sign agreements to not honour them'
Incredibly naive, there must be hundreds of such examples by different governments over recent centuries.
And the EU has abundant form on reneging on what parties to agreements think they achieved, as others have pointed out.
Again preaching to the choir. Those who believe the EU will reneg on anything are already converted.
51% of the voters that does not make though. Most voters won't look past Tusk and Cameron. Who are these so called real experts you think a majority of voters are listening to over Tusk and Cameron?
The codfish lays ten thousand eggs, The homely hen lays one. The codfish never cackles To tell you what she’s done. And so we scorn the codfish, While the humble hen we prize, Which only goes to show you That it pays to advertise.
It's very odd that the Leave side are so desperate to argue that a deal which they claim has no content might not be 100% legally binding.
Of course this is very helpful to the Remain side, as it suggests the deal did achieve something important. The Leave side would be far better advised to shrug their shoulders and say it doesn't matter either way.
Oh For Fucks Sake.
You tried this rhetorical bollocks last night.
The two issues separate and well you know it.
The first issues is, is the deal a little bit of fluff, yes it is, it mostly makes things worse
The second issues is, it goes the the credibility of the witness m'lord. Is the Prime Minister lying about it, he said is is legally binding, our former ECJ judge says it isn't. I know who most people will believe. If he is lying about that, it's not a big stretch to assume he is lying about other part of the deal.
The more LEAVE can demonstrate that the PM isn't trustworthy on this issue, the less credibility on it he will have, and that is important since he is Remains most powerful asset.
There is a risk that as a politician Trump is underestimated. I would argue that in the Republican primaries his early surge was dismissed as a blip from an outsider and that it is his political skills (that he is supposed to lack) that have maintained his momentum and position. Just may be he knows what he is doing. God knows if that is good news or a disaster for USA!
It's interesting to watch some of the old interviews with him in the 80s and 90s when he was teasingly asked about whether he would ever run for President. It's clearly something he has been thinking about and planning for a very long time and so far he's managed to wrong-foot everyone who's stood in his way. I see no reason why he will fail at the final hurdle.
I suspect most people will give the benefit of the doubt that an agreement signed between 28 countries will be honoured as you don't sign agreements to not honour them and you're making it into a big deal.
Precisely.
I just don't get the Leave side's tactics or strategy. Both make sense only if they genuinely think that undecided voters are as obsessed with and distrustful of the EU as they are. But, as you point out, any such voters will be voting Leave anyway.
Leave's problem is that admirably set out by DavidL earlier this morning. No clear statement of what the alternative would be. (You too have made this very good point.) I could certainly sign up for what DavidL set out this am but the immigration issue which Farage has gone on about constantly scuppers that. And this ambiguity - ironically, an ambiguity worthy of the EU at its best - or worst - will likely proved fatal to the Leave case.
If you remember that Farage and UKIP will be nowhere near any Brexit negotiations you know that the only people worth listening to in the debate are the senior Tories that are likely to be part of the talks. On the Leave side that means Gove and Johnson. No-one else on the Leave side matters as they can deliver nothing post-vote.
I think though that Leave won't win because the Leave case is so ambiguous that people will vote Remain even if they are sceptical of the EU as is, let alone the EU as it will likely be.
There are two types of Leavers: the Robert Smithsons, DavidL's etc who want some sort of associate membership / best friends arrangement i.e. Single Market / free movement but none of the political and other integration. And then there are the Farageists whose concern is immigration but who are less willing to accept or to say publicly that control over immigration would effectively lose us access to the Single Market and/or that it may not be possible to have the level of control they want.
It's very odd that the Leave side are so desperate to argue that a deal which they claim has no content might not be 100% legally binding.
Of course this is very helpful to the Remain side, as it suggests the deal did achieve something important. The Leave side would be far better advised to shrug their shoulders and say it doesn't matter either way.
On the other hand, the Remain side think it's a fantastic deal, so it does work against that argument.
Except that the experts like Tusk are saying it is binding and you are puffing it up into something worth arguing over. I suspect most people will give the benefit of the doubt that an agreement signed between 28 countries will be honoured as you don't sign agreements to not honour them and you're making it into a big deal.
May appeal to the small minority who don't trust the EU to honour anything but they're won over anyway. Arguments like this don't further the Leave cause to winning 51% and I say that as someone newly leaning leave.
You have no idea when he next treaty will be due. You have no idea whether the legislatures of every EU country are supportive of the deal even right now. You certainly don't know they will be supportive in several years time or more when the next treaty is negotiated.
A number of countries can only ratify the treaties by referendum. Even if you trust the governments of those countries you certainly have no assurance the people themselves will agree.
At least some parts of the deal have to be passed by the European Parliament. That is by no means certain to pass.
So the idea that this deal is in any way binding and sure to be in a future treaty agreement is laughable.
To you maybe Richard but are you an undecided 51% voter?
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
He'd pay for half of my holiday to the states if he did!
You've put that many bets on him then? Wow!
@MarqueeMark I don't think I could bet on an outcome that I actively didn't want to happen! It would feel a bit odd taking that money. If Trump becomes POTUS, Bush is going to look like a socialist!
Isn't it nice to get a consolation prize when something you don't like happens If you get the wrong president, at least you make a few hundred quid to go out and drown your sorrows
Trump isn't that far to the right on anything except Immigration. He supports Planned Parenthood, none of the others do. He is critical of most of the military adventures, none of the others are, and so forth. I would say (immigration aside) Trump is pretty centrist, just a very big mouthed centrist.
Also at the Primary stage the candidates have to play to the (mostly rightwing nutjob) gallery to get the nomination, then the non-crazy ones row in toward the centre to get the popular vote.
William Foxton Interesting that the "PUBLISH YOUR TAX RATE" stuff has backfired so badly on Labour, with Sadiq Khan paying a 26% tax rate.
That person doesn't understand our tax system. An MP with no additional income who makes a 10% AVC to their pension will have a net tax rate of about 26%.
The only way this turns into a scandal is if Khan has declared side interests but not declared the income, but since there is no evidence of this he is pretty clean on the issue of taxes paid. As was Zac.
I get the strange feeling that there's quite a few on PB who actually want Trump to become POTUS.
Which scares me.
I'd rather Trump than Cruz or Sanders.
Trump is acting crazy to win the nomination but if you look at his historical statements he's a big ego but not a nut. Cruz and Sanders have always been nuts.
There is every chance that Trump is looking at this thinking "what have I done" himself and if he gets into power will actually be reasonable. There is no chance that Cruz or Sanders will be reasonable. They mean what they're saying.
That's an interesting theory. I can't say I want either Cruz or Sanders as POTUS too, although I don't believe either of those two have much of chance. I suppose it would be funny to see the reaction of Republicans who support Trump if he became far more moderate during the GE. I have always taken Trump's statements at face value, but time will tell whether he actually believes the stuff he's saying, or whether he was playing up to get the Republican nomination.
That said, I am hoping that President Trump will nominate Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell to the Supreme Court.
Palin?
Really?
When I put this to a prominent US Attorney (on another website) he replied "I don't think SCOTUS Justices are allowed to write their opinions in crayon."
The embarrassing thing is if Cameron's mother saw the people on here who are bigging up her sons comments, she'd probably advise them to upgrade to Corbyns look
Labour MPs, several of whom have told me of similar remarks from their constituents, looked even more grim-faced than usual.
I had a minor argument with a hard leftie activist, who said it doesnt matter what he dresses like. I said that it matters to some. In fact it matters to quite a lot of people. It matters how you dress at a funeral, how you dress at a wedding, how you dress at a job interview. It matters how your surgeon dresses, it matters how your financial advisor dresses.
I think her head exploded when i tried to explained that the things that are important, arent just the things that are important to her.
Comments
I just can't see Hillary coping with him at all. I am very happy with my bets on him.
I see no reason to lay off Potus Trump above 2/1.
He's possibly even closer to 6/4, IMO.
Good quote from BBC F1 livefeed: "“Alonso was only eighth fastest - and the speed traps told you where the loss was. He was slowest of all at the end of the long pit straight, and second slowest at the finish line. But third fastest - behind the Ferrari and Red Bull, which used both the ultra-soft and super-soft tyres while Alonso was on the softs - in the twisty final sector.”"
McLaren for Monaco? They may do well in Oz.
Which really isn't good enough, is it?
Of course the real issue is not this, but the fact that the 'deal' actually contains almost zero content.
But the fact that the PM negotiated an empty deal which is not even guaranteed to be valid might be seen as a double deception of the public.
The codfish lays ten thousand eggs,
The homely hen lays one.
The codfish never cackles
To tell you what she’s done.
And so we scorn the codfish,
While the humble hen we prize,
Which only goes to show you
That it pays to advertise.
Of course this is very helpful to the Remain side, as it suggests the deal did achieve something important. The Leave side would be far better advised to shrug their shoulders and say it doesn't matter either way.
House of Commons
Today's #PMQs is available to watch on the Parliament YouTube channel https://t.co/bSMRCYtkye @Number10gov
Which scares me.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35649272
Yes indeed - and they continue to big it up, as in the laughable quote from one of the PM's pet businessmen earlier on.
We know it's rubbish, but this argument isn't aimed at us, it's aimed at the less politically engaged part of the public who might take the PM and his chums at their word.
I'm quite happy using a double argument, that the deal is both empty of useful content and empty of legal force. As I said, it represents a double deception of the voters. Persuade the voters that either deception is indeed a deception and you have a chance to get their vote.
22 I count now of 0% 1000-1 shots = 2.2% of no hopers. (Not including the various Hilary FBI subs here).
OK Some like Chris Christie were initially in the game, but when was Nikki Haley added ?
May appeal to the small minority who don't trust the EU to honour anything but they're won over anyway. Arguments like this don't further the Leave cause to winning 51% and I say that as someone newly leaning leave.
These will be the building blocks of the new constituencies.
http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/data-and-resources/electoral-data-for-the-2018-review/
That said, it would be a wild time for politics!
Trump is acting crazy to win the nomination but if you look at his historical statements he's a big ego but not a nut.
Cruz and Sanders have always been nuts.
There is every chance that Trump is looking at this thinking "what have I done" himself and if he gets into power will actually be reasonable.
There is no chance that Cruz or Sanders will be reasonable. They mean what they're saying.
I just don't get the Leave side's tactics or strategy. Both make sense only if they genuinely think that undecided voters are as obsessed with and distrustful of the EU as they are. But, as you point out, any such voters will be voting Leave anyway.
@MarqueeMark I don't think I could bet on an outcome that I actively didn't want to happen! It would feel a bit odd taking that money. If Trump becomes POTUS, Bush is going to look like a socialist!
#Imwithher
#MakeAmericagreatagain
Bernie is too old for Pres. Rubio would be the worst guy ever.
International law is a notoriously tricky area but there are a number of points to make - and Dominic Grieve QC also made them in the Today programme, namely:-
1. An agreement can be legally binding (Grieve is probably right on that and Gove probably wrong - though he is really addressing a different point - see no. 3 below) but that does not tell you very much about how it will be interpreted should there be a challenge nor how it interacts with other agreements and treaties.
2. The justiciability of an international agreement is a minefield i.e. the extent to which a court can rule on the legal consequences for particular parties of what is set out in the treaty.
3. How the agreement which has been reached will be incorporated into any new EU treaties will play a very important part in determining what its legal effect will be as part of EU law. This is the key point which Gove is making: that this agreement is not yet part of EU law and that the final interpreter of EU law is not Cameron or the British Parliament but the ECJ which has a very specific mandate.
4. So will how the ECJ interprets it - which will in turn depend on the basis of any challenge brought. It is worth remembering that the likely route of any challenge will be something like
this: benefits limited to a Pole, Pole challenges this in UK courts, appeal goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the latter determines that there is a point of EU law which will need to be determined by the ECJ. Matter goes to ECJ who rule.
5. It is true up to a point that even though this agreement is not part of EU law the ECJ should "take account of" it. ("Should" not "must", BTW.) But "taking account of" is not the same as "giving effect to" let alone "giving effect to in the way that one out of 29 governments thought".
The next issue is what more detailed regulations and rules and Directives are enacted and how they interact with other rules and EU treaties and how they are enacted into national law and how they are, if challenged, interpreted by the ECJ. So how single market rules are made and what their effect will be will depend not just on this agreement but on what the rules say and how they are interpreted, taking into account the whole corpus of relevant EU law.
At any event, you are conflating two issues: (1) did the deal achieve what people hoped it would e.g. for instance appropriate protection for the UK's financial sector?; and (2) is what it has achieved, whether good, not very much or not what was hoped for, binding in such a way that it cannot be unpicked / ignored or interpreted very differently from what people are now saying.
Donald Tusk told MEPs the deal was "legally binding and irreversible".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35653155
Ben Carson
-£1,467.00
The issue is not whether it can be reversed but whether it will be interpreted in such a way as to render it largely ineffective.
Tusk isn't an expert he is a politician. The real legal experts are at best saying 'maybe' at worst saying the deal has no legal force.
'I suspect most people will give the benefit of the doubt that an agreement signed between 28 countries will be honoured as you don't sign agreements to not honour them'
Incredibly naive, there must be hundreds of such examples by different governments over recent centuries.
And the EU has abundant form on reneging on what parties to agreements think they achieved, as others have pointed out.
As for his 2 biggest opponents, Cruz is a sinking ship, his credibility was shattered by everyone accusing him of being a liar publicly and his campaign provided evidence for that.
Rubio is also a sinking ship, for the second consecutive state he won the endorsement of every elected official bar 1 who when for Cruz, including the popular governor and the biggest Las Vegas newspaper endorsed him 4 consecutive times, and he lost hispanics to Trump by double digits and he lost mormons to Cruz (Rubio is was a mormon), and he advertised continually that his father was a bartender in Las Vegas, and he has extended family there.
In the end he couldn't even get close again.
Cruz is leading in Texas but just so he might stay after March 1st for a while, Rubio is 20 points behind in Florida (he is so unpopular in his home state that he isn't running for re-election) so he is finished on March 15th.
"She's my gal. I came to the dance with her, and I'm leaving with her...or I go home alone"
Don't you just love American politics sometimes? So utterly, transparently, self-interested
Really?
Gandhi vs. Gandalf Quiz
Can you tell the difference?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/lpwjQQ2htKnhQh2zSD89DB/gandhi-vs-gandalf-quiz
He is new and fresh - to politics.
He is an unknown political operator, and as his staying power (against a lot of predictions) in the primaries shows, he can kick ass.
He hasn't a lot of long held political positions to contradict.
He is a good media manipulator - moving the topic to different ground, the sound bite and dominating the cycle.
Self publicity is second nature to him
He is a risk taker in his campaigning - HRC would get some unexpected curve balls to deal with which with her 'conservative' style could be problematic.
He will not be brow beaten into political correctness, which will be a plus and minus, but get the headlines.
There is a risk that as a politician Trump is underestimated. I would argue that in the Republican primaries his early surge was dismissed as a blip from an outsider and that it is his political skills (that he is supposed to lack) that have maintained his momentum and position. Just may be he knows what he is doing. God knows if that is good news or a disaster for USA!
A number of countries can only ratify the treaties by referendum. Even if you trust the governments of those countries you certainly have no assurance the people themselves will agree.
At least some parts of the deal have to be passed by the European Parliament. That is by no means certain to pass.
So the idea that this deal is in any way binding and sure to be in a future treaty agreement is laughable.
"Planned Parenthood does a really good job at a lot of different areas. But not on abortion," he said Sunday. "So I'm not going to fund it if it's doing the abortion. I am not going to fund it."
Interesting that the "PUBLISH YOUR TAX RATE" stuff has backfired so badly on Labour, with Sadiq Khan paying a 26% tax rate.
Does anyone with half a brain take Breitbart seriously?
Anyway, viz. climategate - many Government committees have found there was NO evidence of manipulation of data or scientific misconduct.
The World is warming and humans are significantly contributing to that warming that's more or less scientific consensus. I've challenged many of the right-wing nutters on here to place a bet with me on whether 2016 will the warmest year ever recorded (using a broad spectrum of datasets) or whether the10 year period (2007-2016) will be warmest 10 year period. I guess it's easier to spout out stuff like "AGW trough" and pin your faith on disgraced scientists such as John Christy and Roy 'wrong-sign' Spencer (who believe it or not does not believe in the theory of evolution - no shock there I guess!) than put money on where your mouth is!
And one man's reactionary decision is another's masterstroke.
51% of the voters that does not make though. Most voters won't look past Tusk and
Cameron. Who are these so called real experts you think a majority of voters are listening to over Tusk and Cameron?
New thread new thread
You tried this rhetorical bollocks last night.
The two issues separate and well you know it.
The first issues is, is the deal a little bit of fluff, yes it is, it mostly makes things worse
The second issues is, it goes the the credibility of the witness m'lord. Is the Prime Minister lying about it, he said is is legally binding, our former ECJ judge says it isn't. I know who most people will believe. If he is lying about that, it's not a big stretch to assume he is lying about other part of the deal.
The more LEAVE can demonstrate that the PM isn't trustworthy on this issue, the less credibility on it he will have, and that is important since he is Remains most powerful asset.
There are two types of Leavers: the Robert Smithsons, DavidL's etc who want some sort of associate membership / best friends arrangement i.e. Single Market / free movement but none of the political and other integration. And then there are the Farageists whose concern is immigration but who are less willing to accept or to say publicly that control over immigration would effectively lose us access to the Single Market and/or that it may not be possible to have the level of control they want.
Trump isn't that far to the right on anything except Immigration. He supports Planned Parenthood, none of the others do. He is critical of most of the military adventures, none of the others are, and so forth. I would say (immigration aside) Trump is pretty centrist, just a very big mouthed centrist.
Also at the Primary stage the candidates have to play to the (mostly rightwing nutjob) gallery to get the nomination, then the non-crazy ones row in toward the centre to get the popular vote.
The only way this turns into a scandal is if Khan has declared side interests but not declared the income, but since there is no evidence of this he is pretty clean on the issue of taxes paid. As was Zac.
I think her head exploded when i tried to explained that the things that are important, arent just the things that are important to her.