Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Any proof for that claim or are you talking bollocks yet again?
Not true. Whilst we signed when we were a member of the EU (having previously been a member of EFTA) we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. Under the Vienna Convention we would only cease to be a member of the EEA if we were neither in the EU or EFTA. No signatory can be forced out of a treaty unless they breach the terms or the treaty alls completely.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
Yes, we have discussed it before, but still you keep repeating the same rubbish. I've no idea why, since the full text of the agreement is available free of charge on the internet.
It is you who are incapable of understanding very basic treaty law under the 1969 Vienna Convention. As a signatory to the EEA Agreement we cannot be forced out unless we are in breach of the treaty terms.
And I don't need a copy of the internet. I have a copy myself and have quoted it on here often enough in the past.
The UK is a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement. They cannot be removed as such without the whole treaty ceasing to function.
The World at One Verified account Closure of European border crossings to migrants 'untenable' - UN's @PDSutherlandUNhttp://bbc.in/24yLTTC #wato
He also said Merkel is a hero for "finding a solution" to the migrant crisis....by solution I presume he means encourage millions more to flow to Europe, the vast majority not from Syria.
Presumably the same former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland who said the EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, and called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
If individuals should have a freedom of choice about whether to come and study or work in another country then presumably individuals in that country should also have the freedom of choice to decide whether they want to allow in people who want to study or work in their country.
Or are only some individuals granted this freedom?
This is the UN channelling the "I want therefore I get" entitlement into some grandiose sounding bullshit.
And, @rcs100 look away now, proof that Goldman Sachs produces some highly intelligent cretins.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Any proof for that claim or are you talking bollocks yet again?
The current government absolutely are the ones making the decision but your argument sounds like an argument against ever voting against the status quo in any election.
It's not anything of the sort. I'm just being realistic about the timescales.
The timescale is two years as Article 50 says. There is a reason that timescale was given in the Article.
That's the default timescale before our EU membership falls away after we invoke Article 50 (unless extended by unanimous vote of all 28 countries). It's not a guarantee that a new deal would be in place by that time.
In practice, in the EEA route, I'd hope that a deal could be done that quickly, but I don't see it being done much more quickly from the date of a Leave decision in the referendum.
Actually the article says it is time the timescale for both leaving and for a new arrangement to be put in place. The article says the rest of the EU should negotiate an agreement "taking account of the framework for its [the leaving nation's] future relationship with the Union". There is no credible reason why the negotiation should take longer than two years.
Not only that but there is no reason why the government would want or should expect to have this still on-going before the next General Election. In the event of a leave vote the arrangements will be in place in that window.
The World at One Verified account Closure of European border crossings to migrants 'untenable' - UN's @PDSutherlandUNhttp://bbc.in/24yLTTC #wato
He also said Merkel is a hero for "finding a solution" to the migrant crisis....by solution I presume he means encourage millions more to flow to Europe, the vast majority not from Syria.
Presumably the same former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland who said the EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, and called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
If individuals should have a freedom of choice about whether to come and study or work in another country then presumably individuals in that country should also have the freedom of choice to decide whether they want to allow in people who want to study or work in their country.
Or are only some individuals granted this freedom?
This is the UN channelling the "I want therefore I get" entitlement into some grandiose sounding bullshit.
And, @rcs100 look away now, proof that Goldman Sachs produces some highly intelligent cretins.
I will always have a soft spot for Peter Sutherland. (Bear with me.) There was a Goldman Sachs conference about a decade ago, and among the speakers were Jim O'Neill and Peter Sutherland.
Jim O'Neill stood up and said "I've just spent a week in China, and I can tell you that the Chinese people neither want democracy, and nor are they ready for it."
Peter Sutherland followed him and said "Jim has just spent a week with the Politbureau and the heads of China's SEOs. From which he has divined the will of the Chinese people."
Which was a very funny (and very true) put down.
In the fight between Sutherland and Browne at BP, it's also not hard - with hindsight - to agree that Sutherland was in the right.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Not true. Whilst we signed when we were a member of the EU (having previously been a member of EFTA) we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. Under the Vienna Convention we would only cease to be a member of the EEA if we were neither in the EU or EFTA. No signatory can be forced out of a treaty unless they breach the terms or the treaty alls completely.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
But we aren't members of the EFTA are we?
I don't think anyone disagrees with the assumption that if we join the EFTA then we would remain in the EEA. The question is would we join the EFTA (I think so) and how long it would take to ratify that (less than 2 years).
Actually that is the very point Richard N. is making. I have stated repeatedly that if we left the EU and didn't join EFTA we would be in breach of the treaty terms. But if we moved directly from EU membership to EFTA membership we would not be in breach. Richard does not accept this.
John Oliver joked on air a few years ago he would put up £10000 of his own money to help Trump run for president, I believe, as the country wanted to see it even if they didn't want him as president. Fair to say he probably wouldn't find that as funny now as then, even if he no doubt thinks Hilary will beat Trump.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Not true. Whilst we signed when we were a member of the EU (having previously been a member of EFTA) we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. Under the Vienna Convention we would only cease to be a member of the EEA if we were neither in the EU or EFTA. No signatory can be forced out of a treaty unless they breach the terms or the treaty alls completely.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
But we aren't members of the EFTA are we?
I don't think anyone disagrees with the assumption that if we join the EFTA then we would remain in the EEA. The question is would we join the EFTA (I think so) and how long it would take to ratify that (less than 2 years).
Actually that is the very point Richard N. is making. I have stated repeatedly that if we left the EU and didn't join EFTA we would be in breach of the treaty terms. But if we moved directly from EU membership to EFTA membership we would not be in breach. Richard does not accept this.
I thought he was just saying we'd have to join the EFTA in order to be in EEA and we aren't currently.
If he's trying to say we could join the EFTA and still not be in the EEA then that's just bizarre.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Not true. Whilst we signed when we were a member of the EU (having previously been a member of EFTA) we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. Under the Vienna Convention we would only cease to be a member of the EEA if we were neither in the EU or EFTA. No signatory can be forced out of a treaty unless they breach the terms or the treaty alls completely.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
But we aren't members of the EFTA are we?
I don't think anyone disagrees with the assumption that if we join the EFTA then we would remain in the EEA. The question is would we join the EFTA (I think so) and how long it would take to ratify that (less than 2 years).
Actually that is the very point Richard N. is making. I have stated repeatedly that if we left the EU and didn't join EFTA we would be in breach of the treaty terms. But if we moved directly from EU membership to EFTA membership we would not be in breach. Richard does not accept this.
Where exactly would you be in breach of the agreement if you didn't join EFTA? The agreement defines the UK as a member of the EU. That definition doesn't cease merely because of some other contract /Treaty (ie EU membership) ending.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Not true. Whilst we signed when we were a member of the EU (having previously been a member of EFTA) we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. Under the Vienna Convention we would only cease to be a member of the EEA if we were neither in the EU or EFTA. No signatory can be forced out of a treaty unless they breach the terms or the treaty alls completely.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
But we aren't members of the EFTA are we?
I don't think anyone disagrees with the assumption that if we join the EFTA then we would remain in the EEA. The question is would we join the EFTA (I think so) and how long it would take to ratify that (less than 2 years).
Actually that is the very point Richard N. is making. I have stated repeatedly that if we left the EU and didn't join EFTA we would be in breach of the treaty terms. But if we moved directly from EU membership to EFTA membership we would not be in breach. Richard does not accept this.
I thought he was just saying we'd have to join the EFTA in order to be in EEA and we aren't currently.
If he's trying to say we could join the EFTA and still not be in the EEA then that's just bizarre.
Unless he has changed his position in the last few days that is exactly the point he was making. He seems to be arguing that by leaving the EU our membership of the EEA would lapse even if we moved directly into EFTA.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Not true. Whilst we signed when we were a member of the EU (having previously been a member of EFTA) we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. Under the Vienna Convention we would only cease to be a member of the EEA if we were neither in the EU or EFTA. No signatory can be forced out of a treaty unless they breach the terms or the treaty alls completely.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
But we aren't members of the EFTA are we?
I don't think anyone disagrees with the assumption that if we join the EFTA then we would remain in the EEA. The question is would we join the EFTA (I think so) and how long it would take to ratify that (less than 2 years).
Actually that is the very point Richard N. is making. I have stated repeatedly that if we left the EU and didn't join EFTA we would be in breach of the treaty terms. But if we moved directly from EU membership to EFTA membership we would not be in breach. Richard does not accept this.
I thought he was just saying we'd have to join the EFTA in order to be in EEA and we aren't currently.
If he's trying to say we could join the EFTA and still not be in the EEA then that's just bizarre.
Unless he has changed his position in the last few days that is exactly the point he was making. He seems to be arguing that by leaving the EU our membership of the EEA would lapse even if we moved directly into EFTA.
That's just stupid if so. That's like suggesting new EU members aren't a member of the EEA.
The current government absolutely are the ones making the decision but your argument sounds like an argument against ever voting against the status quo in any election.
It's not anything of the sort. I'm just being realistic about the timescales.
Richard Nabavi, you keep repeating how long the negotiations with a foreign government will take. In doing this you create the impression that you understand from your work experience how long and difficult negotiating a major long term contract with a foreign country is. Could you please inform us how many countries have you negotiated such contracts with?
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Not true. Whilst we signed when we were a member of the EU (having previously been a member of EFTA) we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. Under the Vienna Convention we would only cease to be a member of the EEA if we were neither in the EU or EFTA. No signatory can be forced out of a treaty unless they breach the terms or the treaty alls completely.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
But we aren't members of the EFTA are we?
I don't think anyone disagrees with the assumption that if we join the EFTA then we would remain in the EEA. The question is would we join the EFTA (I think so) and how long it would take to ratify that (less than 2 years).
Actually that is the very point Richard N. is making. I have stated repeatedly that if we left the EU and didn't join EFTA we would be in breach of the treaty terms. But if we moved directly from EU membership to EFTA membership we would not be in breach. Richard does not accept this.
I thought he was just saying we'd have to join the EFTA in order to be in EEA and we aren't currently.
If he's trying to say we could join the EFTA and still not be in the EEA then that's just bizarre.
Unless he has changed his position in the last few days that is exactly the point he was making. He seems to be arguing that by leaving the EU our membership of the EEA would lapse even if we moved directly into EFTA.
That's just stupid if so. That's like suggesting new EU members aren't a member of the EEA.
They're not, until the EEA agreement is amended to make them so.
The World at One Verified account Closure of European border crossings to migrants 'untenable' - UN's @PDSutherlandUNhttp://bbc.in/24yLTTC #wato
He also said Merkel is a hero for "finding a solution" to the migrant crisis....by solution I presume he means encourage millions more to flow to Europe, the vast majority not from Syria.
Presumably the same former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland who said the EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, and called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
If individuals should have a freedom of choice about whether to come and study or work in another country then presumably individuals in that country should also have the freedom of choice to decide whether they want to allow in people who want to study or work in their country.
Or are only some individuals granted this freedom?
This is the UN channelling the "I want therefore I get" entitlement into some grandiose sounding bullshit.
And, @rcs100 look away now, proof that Goldman Sachs produces some highly intelligent cretins.
I will always have a soft spot for Peter Sutherland. (Bear with me.) There was a Goldman Sachs conference about a decade ago, and among the speakers were Jim O'Neill and Peter Sutherland.
Jim O'Neill stood up and said "I've just spent a week in China, and I can tell you that the Chinese people neither want democracy, and nor are they ready for it."
Peter Sutherland followed him and said "Jim has just spent a week with the Politbureau and the heads of China's SEOs. From which he has divined the will of the Chinese people."
Which was a very funny (and very true) put down.
In the fight between Sutherland and Browne at BP, it's also not hard - with hindsight - to agree that Sutherland was in the right.
Hmm, I've been to China many times on business and as a tourist. It is hard to disagree with Jim's view. The people are not ready for democracy, there may be a few who want it, but the majority don't. I think it is changing, but not that fast.
It is you who are incapable of understanding very basic treaty law under the 1969 Vienna Convention. As a signatory to the EEA Agreement we cannot be forced out unless we are in breach of the treaty terms.
And I don't need a copy of the internet. I have a copy myself and have quoted it on here often enough in the past.
The UK is a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement. They cannot be removed as such without the whole treaty ceasing to function.
(Rolls eyes)
It is an agreement BETWEEEN the EU/EC states and the EFTA states, as the whole text of the agreement makes clear
How hard is this to understand?
For example, which bit of Article 2.2b did you struggle to comprehend? the term "EFTA States" means the Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway
If you really put your mind to this, you might be able to grasp that it means that the UK is not an EFTA state. If we leave the EU, we won't be an 'EC state' either. So how on earth, in your bizarre interpretation, could you parse for example, Article 36?
Within the framework of the provisions of this Agreement, there shall be no restrictions on freedom to provide services within the territory of the Contracting Parties in respect of nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States who are established in an EC Member State or an EFTA State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.
The agreement would fall away in respect of the UK because we'd be outside the two categories of signatories. That might indeed require a technical amendment to the treaty, but it doesn't follow that we'd automatically migrate to an EFTA state. We're not members of EFTA.
Given that we are already EEA and EFTA members would we even need to apply to join? We would only be leaving the EU, not the EEA or EFTA. What the mechanism is to leave one and not the other two is not clear but Article 50 is for leaving the EU specifically and wouldn't necessarily mean leaving the EEA or EFTA.
We are signatories to the EEA agreement, but in our capacity as EU members. We are not EFTA members.
Not true. Whilst we signed when we were a member of the EU (having previously been a member of EFTA) we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. Under the Vienna Convention we would only cease to be a member of the EEA if we were neither in the EU or EFTA. No signatory can be forced out of a treaty unless they breach the terms or the treaty alls completely.
Of course we have been over this before but still you repeat the same rubbish.
But we aren't members of the EFTA are we?
I don't think anyone disagrees with the assumption that if we join the EFTA then we would remain in the EEA. The question is would we join the EFTA (I think so) and how long it would take to ratify that (less than 2 years).
Actually that is the very point Richard N. is making. I have stated repeatedly that if we left the EU and didn't join EFTA we would be in breach of the treaty terms. But if we moved directly from EU membership to EFTA membership we would not be in breach. Richard does not accept this.
Where exactly would you be in breach of the agreement if you didn't join EFTA? The agreement defines the UK as a member of the EU. That definition doesn't cease merely because of some other contract /Treaty (ie EU membership) ending.
It is a case of a material breach which would mean the treaty could no longer function. The EEA is governed by a two pillar system with each body in the EU being mirrored by a body in EFTA and each combining to form an EEA supervisory committee. This is all written into the treaty and for a country to be part of the EEA it has to be a member of either EFTA or the EU. Anything else would require a completely new treaty.
It is you who are incapable of understanding very basic treaty law under the 1969 Vienna Convention. As a signatory to the EEA Agreement we cannot be forced out unless we are in breach of the treaty terms.
And I don't need a copy of the internet. I have a copy myself and have quoted it on here often enough in the past.
The UK is a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement. They cannot be removed as such without the whole treaty ceasing to function.
(Rolls eyes)
It is an agreement BETWEEEN the EU/EC states and the EFTA states, as the whole text of the agreement makes clear
How hard is this to understand?
For example, which bit of Article 2.2b did you struggle to comprehend? the term "EFTA States" means the Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway
If you really put your mind to this, you might be able to grasp that it means that the UK is not an EFTA state. If we leave the EU, we won't be an 'EC state' either. So how on earth, in your bizarre interpretation, could you parse for example, Article 36?
Within the framework of the provisions of this Agreement, there shall be no restrictions on freedom to provide services within the territory of the Contracting Parties in respect of nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States who are established in an EC Member State or an EFTA State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.
The agreement would fall away in respect of the UK because we'd be outside the two categories of signatories. That might indeed require a technical amendment to the treaty, but it doesn't follow that we'd automatically migrate to an EFTA state. We're not members of EFTA.
Wouldn't we cease to be an EU member at 11:59pm and then become EFTA members at 12:00am?
He also said Merkel is a hero for "finding a solution" to the migrant crisis....by solution I presume he means encourage millions more to flow to Europe, the vast majority not from Syria.
Presumably the same former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland who said the EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, and called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
If individuals should have a freedom of choice about whether to come and study or work in another country then presumably individuals in that country should also have the freedom of choice to decide whether they want to allow in people who want to study or work in their country.
Or are only some individuals granted this freedom?
This is the UN channelling the "I want therefore I get" entitlement into some grandiose sounding bullshit.
And, @rcs100 look away now, proof that Goldman Sachs produces some highly intelligent cretins.
I will always have a soft spot for Peter Sutherland. (Bear with me.) There was a Goldman Sachs conference about a decade ago, and among the speakers were Jim O'Neill and Peter Sutherland.
Jim O'Neill stood up and said "I've just spent a week in China, and I can tell you that the Chinese people neither want democracy, and nor are they ready for it."
Peter Sutherland followed him and said "Jim has just spent a week with the Politbureau and the heads of China's SEOs. From which he has divined the will of the Chinese people."
Which was a very funny (and very true) put down.
In the fight between Sutherland and Browne at BP, it's also not hard - with hindsight - to agree that Sutherland was in the right.
Hmm, I've been to China many times on business and as a tourist. It is hard to disagree with Jim's view. The people are not ready for democracy, there may be a few who want it, but the majority don't. I think it is changing, but not that fast.
The point is that Jim didn't meet a single ordinary Chinese person in a week. He flew by private jet from one meeting with bigwigs to another. The idea that he could divine what ordinary Chinese people wanted was - as Peter Sutherland observed - ridiculous.
The people of China are no poorer or worse educated than those of Taiwan, who got democracy at a similar stage of their development, and seem to have show no desire to rid themselves of it.
It is you who are incapable of understanding very basic treaty law under the 1969 Vienna Convention. As a signatory to the EEA Agreement we cannot be forced out unless we are in breach of the treaty terms.
And I don't need a copy of the internet. I have a copy myself and have quoted it on here often enough in the past.
The UK is a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement. They cannot be removed as such without the whole treaty ceasing to function.
(Rolls eyes)
It is an agreement BETWEEEN the EU/EC states and the EFTA states, as the whole text of the agreement makes clear
How hard is this to understand?
For example, which bit of Article 2.2b did you struggle to comprehend? the term "EFTA States" means the Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway
If you really put your mind to this, you might be able to grasp that it means that the UK is not an EFTA state. If we leave the EU, we won't be an 'EC state' either. So how on earth, in your bizarre interpretation, could you parse for example, Article 36?
Within the framework of the provisions of this Agreement, there shall be no restrictions on freedom to provide services within the territory of the Contracting Parties in respect of nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States who are established in an EC Member State or an EFTA State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.
The agreement would fall away in respect of the UK because we'd be outside the two categories of signatories. That might indeed require a technical amendment to the treaty, but it doesn't follow that we'd automatically migrate to an EFTA state. We're not members of EFTA.
So you are now accepting that as long as we move from the EU to EFTA we would not be in breach and would still remain a member of the EEA?
Wouldn't we cease to be an EU member at 11:59pm and then become EFTA members at 12:00am?
In practice, yes, probably, in advance we'd negotiate that with our EFTA friends, and also negotiate the EFTA-supervised relationship with the EU (which might involve us signing up to the EEA agreeement in our new capacity as an EFTA state, or some other deal like the Swiss). But it would need to be agreed with the counterparties!
It is you who are incapable of understanding very basic treaty law under the 1969 Vienna Convention. As a signatory to the EEA Agreement we cannot be forced out unless we are in breach of the treaty terms.
And I don't need a copy of the internet. I have a copy myself and have quoted it on here often enough in the past.
The UK is a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement. They cannot be removed as such without the whole treaty ceasing to function.
(Rolls eyes)
It is an agreement BETWEEEN the EU/EC states and the EFTA states, as the whole text of the agreement makes clear
How hard is this to understand?
For example, which bit of Article 2.2b did you struggle to comprehend? the term "EFTA States" means the Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway
If you really put your mind to this, you might be able to grasp that it means that the UK is not an EFTA state. If we leave the EU, we won't be an 'EC state' either. So how on earth, in your bizarre interpretation, could you parse for example, Article 36?
Within the framework of the provisions of this Agreement, there shall be no restrictions on freedom to provide services within the territory of the Contracting Parties in respect of nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States who are established in an EC Member State or an EFTA State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.
The agreement would fall away in respect of the UK because we'd be outside the two categories of signatories. That might indeed require a technical amendment to the treaty, but it doesn't follow that we'd automatically migrate to an EFTA state. We're not members of EFTA.
Complete nonsense. We'd still be an 'EC Member State' per the document even after we left the EU.
Is it a sign I'm too obsessed with politics, when I'm booking a day off work solely so I can stay up all night to watch grainy online streams of CNN coverage of US primaries?
Wouldn't we cease to be an EU member at 11:59pm and then become EFTA members at 12:00am?
In practice, yes, probably, in advance we'd negotiate that with our EFTA friends, and also negotiate the EFTA-supervised relationship with the EU (which might involve us signing up to the EEA agreeement in our new capacity as an EFTA state, or some other deal like the Swiss). But it would need to be agreed with the counterparties!
No it wouldn't. If they wanted to challenge it they would have to do so under the 1969 convention. And as long as we had become a member of EFTA they would have no grounds or that.
No it wouldn't. If they wanted to challenge it they would have to do so under the 1969 convention. And as long as we had become a member of EFTA they would have no grounds or that.
Chairman Mao still has pictures and huge statues all over China. Health and wealth are concerns over democracy I think. They're generally a friendly bunch but there's a massive element of collectivism, their tour parties all wear the same hats generally !
That's it? Trump has small fingers and his ancestral name was Drumpf ?
That's pathetic, it's not even a rant, " please don't vote Trump because his family ancestral name was Drumpf " can't be even classified as an attack.
And John Oliver knows how to attack, compare it with his FIFA attacks and you'll see how weak the Trump attacks are.
Did you not watch it? Those were tiny parts of the points being made, the bulk of the time spent trying to undermine the things that people consider to be Trump's strengths, claiming he is not a straight talker, is not tough, is not beholden to no-one, is not as successful as he claims, etc etc.
I've no doubt it won't affect a damn thing, certainly not with anyone considering voting for Trump, and he signed it off with a deliberately silly point, but it was clearly not 'it' that Trump's family name used to be different and he has small fingers (for one, he actually said 'his fingers seem fine' - the criticism is he's thin skinned, not that that is news)
I don't agree with the automatic assumption that there will be a short term hit to the economy if we leave the EU. Same argument has been made many times about shocks but very often the exact opposite happened.
Take Black Wednesday, late in 1992. Presumably we'll have had a hit after that right? Wrong. Germany growth rate: 1991 5.1 1992 1.9 1993 -1.0 1994 2.5 1995 1.7
Far from this shock causing damage to the UK it took the shackles off the country and gave our growth a shot of adrenaline and we outgrew Germany in every single year from 1993 to 2005.
There is no reason why leaving the EU has to have any short term damage rather than providing new opportunities for growth either.
It allowed for a devaluation after going in at the wrong rate. I'm not sure that amounts to taking the shackles off. I don't think ended a semi-fixed exchange rate quite compares to leaving the EU either.
You can say that leaving the EU will also provide a devaluation of some magnitude.
Yup. Although the pedant in me winces at the imprecision of "some magnitude". Where we part company is whether such a devaluation would be good or bad.
I think Rubio could be a surprisingly strong runner in the western Mountain states (in defiance of the polls), like Wyoming and North Dakota. I think Republicans out there tend to be a bit wealthier, and I think they tend to like candidates who are a bit more...sedate than the southerners do.
Clinton Alabama Arkansas Colorado Georgia Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Virginia
Sanders Massachusetts Minnesota Vermont
Trump Alabama Arkansas Colorado Georgia Massachusetts Oklahoma Tennessee Vermont Virginia
Rubio Alaska Minnesota North Dakota Wyoming
Cruz Texas
Point of order.
Wyoming and N.Dakota don't vote today, and Colorado doesn't vote on the GOP side.
My predictions are Trump wins everything apart from Texas. Sanders wins Vermont and perhaps Oklahoma, Minnesota and Colorado, with a small chance in Massachusetts.
No it wouldn't. If they wanted to challenge it they would have to do so under the 1969 convention. And as long as we had become a member of EFTA they would have no grounds or that.
So the Treaty would amend itself? A curious view.
Nope. For something like this where the intent is to maintain the integrity of the treaty a change is made by the Treaty Executive Council without the need for recourse to formal approval by the contracting parties.
Complete nonsense. We'd still be an 'EC Member State' per the document even after we left the EU.
Please yourself. I can't argue with people who refuse to read what the document actually says.
You can read it as many times as you like, but until you understand what a contract is, what the term 'contracting party' means and that 'in our capacity as EU members' is not meaningful, but some specious nonsense that you made up you will not understand the EEA agreement.
The UK is an EC Member state per the agreement, until the agreement is changed. Whether or not it is actually a member of the EU or EFTA makes no difference to the agreement.
Clinton Alabama Arkansas Colorado Georgia Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Virginia
Sanders Massachusetts Minnesota Vermont
Trump Alabama Arkansas Colorado Georgia Massachusetts Oklahoma Tennessee Vermont Virginia
Rubio Alaska Minnesota North Dakota Wyoming
Cruz Texas
Point of order.
Wyoming and N.Dakota don't vote today, and Colorado doesn't vote on the GOP side.
LOL, Wikipedia lied then
For Wyoming it's complicated since they actually started on Feb 16th and they end today, it's as clear as mud since they don't hold an actual preference poll (aka vote for Trump) directly but vote for delegates to the county convention that will vote for the delegates for the national convention in 12 days:
" Tuesday 16 February - Tuesday 1 March 2016: Precinct Caucuses. Candidates for delegates to the county conventions declare their presidential preference (including undecided). "
" Saturday 12 March 2016: The County Conventions meet over several days to choose 12 of 29 of Wyoming's delegates to the Republican National Convention. Approximately 980 (?) County precinct committeemen and women are eligible to vote for the National Convention Delegates and Alternates at the County Conventions."
Nope. For something like this where the intent is to maintain the integrity of the treaty a change is made by the Treaty Executive Council without the need for recourse to formal approval by the contracting parties.
It's a substantive change, not a technical change.
Sure the 1990-92 period was bad but the period before and after it were better. Before our boost after the Black Wednesday shock the last time we were ahead of France was 1961. But after Black Wednesday we stayed ahead of the French until 2007 and are almost certainly ahead of them again already now.
The notion shocks are automatically bad is fake.
To understand the growth post-ERM you have to understand why we went into it in the first place. Nigel Lawson wanted to take us in (to its predecessor?) and when Maggie wouldn't let him, he shadowed the DM. This was not to pose as communitaire but simply in an effort to choke inflation out of the system, the conquest of which had been an aim of government since the 70's. High inflation had been a bugbear of British life for some time and even though it was lower during the 80's, memories of the '70's were still fresh.
So: interest rates were kept high (8%? 10?), the exchange rate was fixed-ish, the screws were kept down and gradually people started to behave as if inflation would remain low and not put up prices/wages anticipatorily: the positive feedback loop was being choked off.
Problem was, fixed exchange rates eventually fail and despite chaotic efforts to keep it in place by frantic rate rises, it collapsed, causing much bad feeling at the size of the rates (15%!) and the obviously unprofessional handling.
But the dragon had been slain and interest rates could now drop dramatically, which they did. It's this sudden and prolonged drop in interest rates that caused the growth spurt you remark upon, not the detachment from a thing with "Euro" in its name. Unless you are contending that post-Brexit we will see a 4-5% drop in interest rates then it doesn't work as an analogy. Unless you envisage interest rates of minus 5%...
Complete nonsense. We'd still be an 'EC Member State' per the document even after we left the EU.
Please yourself. I can't argue with people who refuse to read what the document actually says.
You can read it as many times as you like, but until you understand what a contract is, what the term 'contracting party' means and that 'in our capacity as EU members' is not meaningful, but some specious nonsense that you made up you will not understand the EEA agreement.
The UK is an EC Member state per the agreement, until the agreement is changed. Whether or not it is actually a member of the EU or EFTA makes no difference to the agreement.
No that would be a material breach of the treaty and it would therefore be void. Anything which makes the treaty incapable of operation is a material breach.
"Friday 1 January - Tuesday 1 March 2016: The North Dakota Republican Party conducts caucuses in Legislative Districts to elect delegates to the State Convention. There is no Presidential preference vote."
Nope. For something like this where the intent is to maintain the integrity of the treaty a change is made by the Treaty Executive Council without the need for recourse to formal approval by the contracting parties.
It's a substantive change, not a technical change.
Nope. To quote directly from the Vienna Convention. Article 60.
"3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in: (a) A repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or (b) The violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty."
Is it a sign I'm too obsessed with politics, when I'm booking a day off work solely so I can stay up all night to watch grainy online streams of CNN coverage of US primaries?
You contracted the condition when you started posting to this board. Your squinting at low-rez images of an election to which you have no vote and cannot affect is only the latest symptom. Run away now, young man, before it consumes you to the uttermost...
Rubio's polling median in ST states except Alaska.
21.0 20.0 21.0 18.5 15.0 26.5 19.0 20.0 19.0
Alaska his last poll was 5.
He might win Minnesota.
I doubt it, the last poll was in the middle of January and it was the only one that didn't show Trump ahead, it's very easy that it might have been an outlier and Trump has moved up since then in every other poll, and there is no cultural or local factor that would aid Rubio (there are few mormons and minorities there).
I think Rubio could be a surprisingly strong runner in the western Mountain states (in defiance of the polls), like Wyoming and North Dakota. I think Republicans out there tend to be a bit wealthier, and I think they tend to like candidates who are a bit more...sedate than the southerners do.
Getting inside the heads of the GOP electorate is tough. The traditional logic of GOP races is being upended.
Self identifying evangelicals who regard conviction of faith as the most important attribute in a candidate... voting for trump?
I think Rubio could be a surprisingly strong runner in the western Mountain states (in defiance of the polls), like Wyoming and North Dakota. I think Republicans out there tend to be a bit wealthier, and I think they tend to like candidates who are a bit more...sedate than the southerners do.
Getting inside the heads of the GOP electorate is tough. The traditional logic of GOP races is being upended.
Self identifying evangelicals who regard conviction of faith as the most important attribute in a candidate... voting for trump?
In large numbers.
I mean WTF?
Jesus wept.
Most GOP leaners from what I can work out on Facebook/Twitter not voting for Trump are doing so because he is far too liberal .
I think Rubio could be a surprisingly strong runner in the western Mountain states (in defiance of the polls), like Wyoming and North Dakota. I think Republicans out there tend to be a bit wealthier, and I think they tend to like candidates who are a bit more...sedate than the southerners do.
Getting inside the heads of the GOP electorate is tough.
Self identifying evangelicals who regard conviction of faith as the most important attribute in a candidate... voting for trump?
In large numbers.
I mean WTF?
Jesus wept.
Politics can be a messy business. The evangelicals seem to be tired about voting only about abortion with no positive results for them, so they changed their priority now to the jobs and immigration stuff.
The GOP had a sure way to trick evangelicals to vote against their own pockets, they would promise that they would outlaw abortion and in exchange the rich will get tax cuts, once in office they would enact the tax cuts but forget about abortion, and that trick went on for 36 years.
Nope. To quote directly from the Vienna Convention. Article 60.
"3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in: (a) A repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or (b) The violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty."
OK, so we'd be in material breach of the agreement, because we'd no longer be an 'EC member state', and therefore we'd violate a provision essential to the treaty. See, for example, Article 126:
The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty , and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.
Presumably therefore, we'd be obliged to withdraw from the EEA treaty by invoking Article 127, in order to avoid being in material breach.
What I think is clear is that the treaty is incredibly badly drafted, and doesn't seem to take account of the possibility of a state leaving the EU. There are probably lots of other treaties/agreements of which that is true.
That Guardian "no more Gruffalos after Brexit" story is just magnificent.
VOTE REMAIN, or the Very Hungry Caterpillar will BE BURNED TO DEATH
Not for the first time, you read a story in the Guardian, and you think "Are they serious, or is this a clever parody of Guardian Readers' attitudes" (viz grants to ethnic poets, or Thomas the Tank Engine is a racist)?
I think Rubio could be a surprisingly strong runner in the western Mountain states (in defiance of the polls), like Wyoming and North Dakota. I think Republicans out there tend to be a bit wealthier, and I think they tend to like candidates who are a bit more...sedate than the southerners do.
Getting inside the heads of the GOP electorate is tough. The traditional logic of GOP races is being upended.
Self identifying evangelicals who regard conviction of faith as the most important attribute in a candidate... voting for trump?
In large numbers.
I mean WTF?
Jesus wept.
Most GOP leaners from what I can work out on Facebook/Twitter not voting for Trump are doing so because he is far too liberal .
To be fair, that's why I wouldn't vote for him either if I lived out there.
I think Rubio could be a surprisingly strong runner in the western Mountain states (in defiance of the polls), like Wyoming and North Dakota. I think Republicans out there tend to be a bit wealthier, and I think they tend to like candidates who are a bit more...sedate than the southerners do.
Getting inside the heads of the GOP electorate is tough. The traditional logic of GOP races is being upended.
Self identifying evangelicals who regard conviction of faith as the most important attribute in a candidate... voting for trump?
In large numbers.
I mean WTF?
Jesus wept.
My guess (not based on anything concrete) is that culturally a lot of Republicans in the Deep South feel huge anger about "political correctness" and about being ignored by traditional politicians, which trumps (no pun intended) even their demand for Christian purity. The South has always been more receptive to anti-establishment politicians than anywhere else, especially when a tinge of race-based politics is thrown in (see George Wallace).
However, the Iowa result (where I think Trump only came 3rd with evangelicals?) MIGHT suggest it's different elsewhere.
...The UK is an EC Member state per the agreement...
Really? Where did you find that? And did you read Article 126 before posting?
And have you read Article 128? An application to join the EEA is administratively separate from joining the EU, even if in practice it follows as a matter of course.
It seems to me that the loophole is not that we could join EFTA overnight, but rather that we could insist that we remain a contracting party to the EEA in our own right and intend to stay that way.
I think Rubio could be a surprisingly strong runner in the western Mountain states (in defiance of the polls), like Wyoming and North Dakota. I think Republicans out there tend to be a bit wealthier, and I think they tend to like candidates who are a bit more...sedate than the southerners do.
Getting inside the heads of the GOP electorate is tough. The traditional logic of GOP races is being upended.
Self identifying evangelicals who regard conviction of faith as the most important attribute in a candidate... voting for trump?
In large numbers.
I mean WTF?
Jesus wept.
My guess (not based on anything concrete) is that culturally a lot of Republicans in the Deep South feel huge anger about "political correctness" and about being ignored by traditional politicians, which trumps (no pun intended) even their demand for Christian purity.
However, the Iowa result (where I think Trump only came 3rd with evangelicals?) MIGHT suggest it's different elsewhere.
Trump wasn't on the debate before Iowa.
He got like half the total talking time in the last one. Visibility is a huge element, and CNN (And the rest tbh) has been feeding the Trump beast well prior to Super Tuesday.
I think Rubio could be a surprisingly strong runner in the western Mountain states (in defiance of the polls), like Wyoming and North Dakota. I think Republicans out there tend to be a bit wealthier, and I think they tend to like candidates who are a bit more...sedate than the southerners do.
Getting inside the heads of the GOP electorate is tough. The traditional logic of GOP races is being upended.
Self identifying evangelicals who regard conviction of faith as the most important attribute in a candidate... voting for trump?
In large numbers.
I mean WTF?
Jesus wept.
Most GOP leaners from what I can work out on Facebook/Twitter not voting for Trump are doing so because he is far too liberal .
Actually they attack him for being not conservative enough and too conservative at the same time, Bill Kristol said that Trump was a liberal and a fascist, but how can someone be both ? Hence the attacks fail due to them being inconsistent, or in a short version :
Matt Bruenig @MattBruenig 17h17 hours ago Trump has the GOP so spun around that they can't figure out if he's an extremist lunatic or a secret moderate.
I think Rubio could be a surprisingly strong runner in the western Mountain states (in defiance of the polls), like Wyoming and North Dakota. I think Republicans out there tend to be a bit wealthier, and I think they tend to like candidates who are a bit more...sedate than the southerners do.
Getting inside the heads of the GOP electorate is tough. The traditional logic of GOP races is being upended.
Self identifying evangelicals who regard conviction of faith as the most important attribute in a candidate... voting for trump?
In large numbers.
I mean WTF?
Jesus wept.
Most GOP leaners from what I can work out on Facebook/Twitter not voting for Trump are doing so because he is far too liberal .
Actually they attack him for being not conservative enough and too conservative at the same time, Bill Kristol said that Trump was a liberal and a fascist, but how can someone be both ? Hence the attacks fail due to them being inconsistent, or in a short version :
Matt Bruenig @MattBruenig 17h17 hours ago Trump has the GOP so spun around that they can't figure out if he's an extremist lunatic or a secret moderate.
I think Rubio could be a surprisingly strong runner in the western Mountain states (in defiance of the polls), like Wyoming and North Dakota. I think Republicans out there tend to be a bit wealthier, and I think they tend to like candidates who are a bit more...sedate than the southerners do.
Getting inside the heads of the GOP electorate is tough. The traditional logic of GOP races is being upended.
Self identifying evangelicals who regard conviction of faith as the most important attribute in a candidate... voting for trump?
In large numbers.
I mean WTF?
Jesus wept.
Most GOP leaners from what I can work out on Facebook/Twitter not voting for Trump are doing so because he is far too liberal .
Actually they attack him for being not conservative enough and too conservative at the same time, Bill Kristol said that Trump was a liberal and a fascist, but how can someone be both ? Hence the attacks fail due to them being inconsistent, or in a short version :
Matt Bruenig @MattBruenig 17h17 hours ago Trump has the GOP so spun around that they can't figure out if he's an extremist lunatic or a secret moderate.
So he is a liberal democrat then.
The only reason he doesn't wear sandals is that he's embarrassed about his short toes.
Is that enough time for vote LEAVE to capitalise upon?
Whichever way the vote goes, as I've said before I don't think it really matters in the long run. This ship called the European Union is going down, and it will go down with a bang leaving destruction in its wake. I hope we extricate ourselves as a country from this abject mess in the least painful way possible, and the sooner the better.
The GOP had a sure way to trick evangelicals to vote against their own pockets, they would promise that they would outlaw abortion and in exchange the rich will get tax cuts, once in office they would enact the tax cuts but forget about abortion, and that trick went on for 36 years.
A bit like strikingly-haired Latin-quoting Eurosceptics who use phrases like "control of borders" or "controlled immigration" to make people think they want to reduce/reverse immigration, wheras in actuality they're quite fond of free labour movement.
If you can make someone think you have the appurtenances of the tribe, they'll forgive you lots, even if you are actively working against them.
Is that enough time for vote LEAVE to capitalise upon?
Whichever way the vote goes, as I've said before I don't think it really matters in the long run. This ship called the European Union is going down, and it will go down with a bang leaving destruction in its wake. I hope we extricate ourselves as a country from this abject mess in the least painful way possible, and the sooner the better.
Don't you think us leaving might need to be the catalyst?
Nope. To quote directly from the Vienna Convention. Article 60.
"3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in: (a) A repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or (b) The violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty."
OK, so we'd be in material breach of the agreement, because we'd no longer be an 'EC member state', and therefore we'd violate a provision essential to the treaty. See, for example, Article 126:
The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty , and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.
Presumably therefore, we'd be obliged to withdraw from the EEA treaty by invoking Article 127, in order to avoid being in material breach.
What I think is clear is that the treaty is incredibly badly drafted, and doesn't seem to take account of the possibility of a state leaving the EU. There are probably lots of other treaties/agreements of which that is true.
Nope we would not be in material breach. We would neither have repudiated the treaty nor would there have been a violation of of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty as long as we moved from EU membership to EFTA membership
I am afraid you really are grasping at straws here Richard. Face it, you are desperate to undermine any possible Leave option that might be a threat to your desire for us to stay in the EU. This has been apparent for a very long time and is the cause off you making these daft claims.
On this, as on so many other matters involving the EU, you are wrong. You just don't have the courage to admit it.
Is that enough time for vote LEAVE to capitalise upon?
Whichever way the vote goes, as I've said before I don't think it really matters in the long run. This ship called the European Union is going down, and it will go down with a bang leaving destruction in its wake. I hope we extricate ourselves as a country from this abject mess in the least painful way possible, and the sooner the better.
Don't you think us leaving might need to be the catalyst?
No, I think there are enough catalysts already - the faulty design of the Euro without a consolidated debt market for the whole of the eurozone and the migrant crisis. The suggestion that people are going to lose confidence in the ability of negative interest rates to stimulate the economy certainly appeals to me, and closely related to that is confidence in government and namely confidence in sovereign debt.
There are enough other places in Europe where disgust is running high eg Austria, Cyprus and Greece, so this revulsion with the EU is far from being a solely British (or as some in Brussels would like to think a narrow small Englander view) preoccupation.
Comments
http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main Text of the Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf
And I don't need a copy of the internet. I have a copy myself and have quoted it on here often enough in the past.
The UK is a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement. They cannot be removed as such without the whole treaty ceasing to function.
Not only that but there is no reason why the government would want or should expect to have this still on-going before the next General Election. In the event of a leave vote the arrangements will be in place in that window.
Jim O'Neill stood up and said "I've just spent a week in China, and I can tell you that the Chinese people neither want democracy, and nor are they ready for it."
Peter Sutherland followed him and said "Jim has just spent a week with the Politbureau and the heads of China's SEOs. From which he has divined the will of the Chinese people."
Which was a very funny (and very true) put down.
In the fight between Sutherland and Browne at BP, it's also not hard - with hindsight - to agree that Sutherland was in the right.
If he's trying to say we could join the EFTA and still not be in the EEA then that's just bizarre.
It is an agreement BETWEEEN the EU/EC states and the EFTA states, as the whole text of the agreement makes clear
How hard is this to understand?
For example, which bit of Article 2.2b did you struggle to comprehend? the term "EFTA States" means the Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway
If you really put your mind to this, you might be able to grasp that it means that the UK is not an EFTA state. If we leave the EU, we won't be an 'EC state' either. So how on earth, in your bizarre interpretation, could you parse for example, Article 36?
Within the framework of the provisions of this Agreement, there shall be no restrictions on freedom to provide services within the territory of the Contracting Parties in respect of nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States who are established in an EC Member State or an EFTA State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.
The agreement would fall away in respect of the UK because we'd be outside the two categories of signatories. That might indeed require a technical amendment to the treaty, but it doesn't follow that we'd automatically migrate to an EFTA state. We're not members of EFTA.
The people of China are no poorer or worse educated than those of Taiwan, who got democracy at a similar stage of their development, and seem to have show no desire to rid themselves of it.
Well that is progress at least.
Trump has small fingers and his ancestral name was Drumpf ?
That's pathetic, it's not even a rant, " please don't vote Trump because his family ancestral name was Drumpf " can't be even classified as an attack.
And John Oliver knows how to attack, compare it with his FIFA attacks and you'll see how weak the Trump attacks are.
Clinton
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia
Mass.
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Sanders
Vermont
Oklahoma
Unclear
Colorado
Minnesota
Which suggests this one is finely balanced.
Clinton
Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Sanders
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Vermont
Trump
Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Rubio
Alaska
Minnesota
North Dakota
Wyoming
Cruz
Texas
I've no doubt it won't affect a damn thing, certainly not with anyone considering voting for Trump, and he signed it off with a deliberately silly point, but it was clearly not 'it' that Trump's family name used to be different and he has small fingers (for one, he actually said 'his fingers seem fine' - the criticism is he's thin skinned, not that that is news)
Rubio for example wasted his whole weekend making small penis jokes about Trump in an awkward fashion.
Palin.
Wyoming and N.Dakota don't vote today, and Colorado doesn't vote on the GOP side.
My predictions are Trump wins everything apart from Texas.
Sanders wins Vermont and perhaps Oklahoma, Minnesota and Colorado, with a small chance in Massachusetts.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MHRYdL8Lw3L6OXiHnKZHi1vo6vUblQhuKg7FPDFuuQ0/edit#gid=0 <- GOP Race
The UK is an EC Member state per the agreement, until the agreement is changed. Whether or not it is actually a member of the EU or EFTA makes no difference to the agreement.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WY-R
"
Tuesday 16 February - Tuesday 1 March 2016: Precinct Caucuses. Candidates for delegates to the county conventions declare their presidential preference (including undecided). "
" Saturday 12 March 2016: The County Conventions meet over several days to choose 12 of 29 of Wyoming's delegates to the Republican National Convention. Approximately 980 (?) County precinct committeemen and women are eligible to vote for the National Convention Delegates and Alternates at the County Conventions."
So: interest rates were kept high (8%? 10?), the exchange rate was fixed-ish, the screws were kept down and gradually people started to behave as if inflation would remain low and not put up prices/wages anticipatorily: the positive feedback loop was being choked off.
Problem was, fixed exchange rates eventually fail and despite chaotic efforts to keep it in place by frantic rate rises, it collapsed, causing much bad feeling at the size of the rates (15%!) and the obviously unprofessional handling.
But the dragon had been slain and interest rates could now drop dramatically, which they did. It's this sudden and prolonged drop in interest rates that caused the growth spurt you remark upon, not the detachment from a thing with "Euro" in its name. Unless you are contending that post-Brexit we will see a 4-5% drop in interest rates then it doesn't work as an analogy. Unless you envisage interest rates of minus 5%...
21.0
20.0
21.0
18.5
15.0
26.5
19.0
20.0
19.0
Alaska his last poll was 5.
He might win Minnesota.
"Friday 1 January - Tuesday 1 March 2016: The North Dakota Republican Party conducts caucuses in Legislative Districts to elect delegates to the State Convention. There is no Presidential preference vote."
"3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) A repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) The violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or
purpose of the treaty."
Self identifying evangelicals who regard conviction of faith as the most important attribute in a candidate... voting for trump?
In large numbers.
I mean WTF?
Jesus wept.
The evangelicals seem to be tired about voting only about abortion with no positive results for them, so they changed their priority now to the jobs and immigration stuff.
The GOP had a sure way to trick evangelicals to vote against their own pockets, they would promise that they would outlaw abortion and in exchange the rich will get tax cuts, once in office they would enact the tax cuts but forget about abortion, and that trick went on for 36 years.
The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty , and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.
Presumably therefore, we'd be obliged to withdraw from the EEA treaty by invoking Article 127, in order to avoid being in material breach.
What I think is clear is that the treaty is incredibly badly drafted, and doesn't seem to take account of the possibility of a state leaving the EU. There are probably lots of other treaties/agreements of which that is true.
However, the Iowa result (where I think Trump only came 3rd with evangelicals?) MIGHT suggest it's different elsewhere.
It seems to me that the loophole is not that we could join EFTA overnight, but rather that we could insist that we remain a contracting party to the EEA in our own right and intend to stay that way.
See how CNN fed the Trump monster lol
He got like half the total talking time in the last one. Visibility is a huge element, and CNN (And the rest tbh) has been feeding the Trump beast well prior to Super Tuesday.
Matt Bruenig @MattBruenig 17h17 hours ago
Trump has the GOP so spun around that they can't figure out if he's an extremist lunatic or a secret moderate.
There is a large corporate interest behind the scenes supporting Trump.
It reminds me of the film "Network".
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/the-eu-going-quietly-into-the-light/
Is that enough time for vote LEAVE to capitalise upon?
Whichever way the vote goes, as I've said before I don't think it really matters in the long run. This ship called the European Union is going down, and it will go down with a bang leaving destruction in its wake. I hope we extricate ourselves as a country from this abject mess in the least painful way possible, and the sooner the better.
If you can make someone think you have the appurtenances of the tribe, they'll forgive you lots, even if you are actively working against them.
I am afraid you really are grasping at straws here Richard. Face it, you are desperate to undermine any possible Leave option that might be a threat to your desire for us to stay in the EU. This has been apparent for a very long time and is the cause off you making these daft claims.
On this, as on so many other matters involving the EU, you are wrong. You just don't have the courage to admit it.
New Thread New Thread
There are enough other places in Europe where disgust is running high eg Austria, Cyprus and Greece, so this revulsion with the EU is far from being a solely British (or as some in Brussels would like to think a narrow small Englander view) preoccupation.
Network is Holywood fiction.