Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
We might solve them, we might not - but at least we could not blame our problems on anyone else, legitimately or otherwise.
Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
We might solve them, we might not - but at least we could not blame our problems on anyone else, legitimately or otherwise.
I suppose in the end this rests on who you personally call (or are prepared to call) 'us' and 'them'.
Even that the UK this is hardly agreed. For example few North of the border would call Westminster "us". Many other people across the UK blame "them" at Westminster.
What we need are politicians that are prepared to take responsibility at all levels, including the EU and start talking about 'us' a bit more.
Disappointing lack of response to David's comments about Wales in the thread header in the comments. Any contributions that are not about the EU but about how things might change in Wales and whether UKIP are really likely to get 7 seats would be particularly welcome.
It seems to me that the loss of their majority (well 50%) hold on the Welsh Parliament will, along with Scotland, be a major blow to the Labour party in May significantly taking the gloss off the recapturing of the London Mayoralty. The perception of Labour as a London party of diminishing relevance to the rest of the country will be enhanced. This is worth paying attention to.
I think the South Wales valleys certainly could fall to UKIP.
But, UKIP would need to be better organised. They have certainly shot themselves in the foot by appointing failed Tory politicians (like Reckless and Hamilton) to the regional lists. So, I am less convinced that UKIP will make big inroads than I was six months ago.
Historically, these constituencies (at Westminster) have fallen to independent Labour candidates (e.g., Peter Law, S.O Davies) , and so I think it is more likely that -- many useless Welsh Governments down the line -- a truly grass-roots left-leaning party will emerge and displace the corrupt lumbering hulk of Welsh Labour in the Valleys.
Glasgow eventually got rid of SLAB. I am sure that the Valleys will eventually follow suit.
That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.
...
Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.
Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.
Agreed, but that means joining the Euro and Schengen, which might be slightly politically problematic.
Disappointing lack of response to David's comments about Wales in the thread header in the comments. Any contributions that are not about the EU but about how things might change in Wales and whether UKIP are really likely to get 7 seats would be particularly welcome.
It seems to me that the loss of their majority (well 50%) hold on the Welsh Parliament will, along with Scotland, be a major blow to the Labour party in May significantly taking the gloss off the recapturing of the London Mayoralty. The perception of Labour as a London party of diminishing relevance to the rest of the country will be enhanced. This is worth paying attention to.
Unfortunately I am not qualified to say anything about Welsh politics. However we know that UKIP did well in south Wales in the election, there is the steel, there is the referendum.
That said, after Oldham I am very averse to backing UKIP. I suspect that they will not be organised, will underperform and, if I bet on them, will cost me money.
Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
We might solve them, we might not - but at least we could not blame our problems on anyone else, legitimately or otherwise.
I suppose in the end this rests on who you personally call (or are prepared to call) 'us' and 'them'.
Even that the UK this is hardly agreed. For example few North of the border would call Westminster "us". Many other people across the UK blame "them" at Westminster.
What we need are politicians that are prepared to take responsibility at all levels, including the EU and start talking about 'us' a bit more.
As I pointed out a few threads ago, I think that europoliticians are held in no more contempt than politicians at any other level of government, local, regional, or national.
Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
We might solve them, we might not - but at least we could not blame our problems on anyone else, legitimately or otherwise.
People can blame who they like for anything. Just watch.
An excellent thread (though as usual many deviations from topic!)
I don't think that Port Talbot as an issue at the election would be dominated by the Brexit referendum, as it is not particularly an EU issue. In particular it is not clear whether the prospects are better within the EU or out of it for the steelworkers. It was us that voted against anti-dumping tariffs for example.
Where it will strike a chord is with the people that see Tory government ministers returning from their holidays saying "crisis, what crisis" then doing the headless chicken thing that we saw yesterday. Catch Jess Phillips disembowelling Andrea Jenkyns live on air on R4 Any Questions at lunchtime!
It is bad for the Tories, good for Labour and possibly PC, UKIP and LDs. I forsee a good Labour performance in Wales to go along with London, and a respectable performance in the locals to offset the Labour disaster in Scotland.
Corbyn will become more secure rather than less, and the Cameroons will start to get very worried, as will Labour moderates.
Chatted yesterday to someone at BIS who had better remain anonymous - opinion was that in the end they will do precisely nothing about Port Talbot except organise meetings and try to verbally encourage a sale on any terms and look concerned, but they will not make that clear before July.
I see their difficulty, but I don't think that concealing a strategy of masterly inactivity will work in electoral terms for 3 months.
Disappointing lack of response to David's comments about Wales in the thread header in the comments. Any contributions that are not about the EU but about how things might change in Wales and whether UKIP are really likely to get 7 seats would be particularly welcome.
It seems to me that the loss of their majority (well 50%) hold on the Welsh Parliament will, along with Scotland, be a major blow to the Labour party in May significantly taking the gloss off the recapturing of the London Mayoralty. The perception of Labour as a London party of diminishing relevance to the rest of the country will be enhanced. This is worth paying attention to.
I think the South Wales valleys certainly could fall to UKIP.
But, UKIP would need to be better organised. They have certainly shot themselves in the foot by appointing failed Tory politicians (like Reckless and Hamilton) to the regional lists. So, I am less convinced that UKIP will make big inroads than I was six months ago.
Historically, these constituencies (at Westminster) have fallen to independent Labour candidates (e.g., Peter Law, S.O Davies) , and so I think it is more likely that -- many useless Welsh Governments down the line -- a truly grass-roots left-leaning party will emerge and displace the corrupt lumbering hulk of Welsh Labour in the Valleys.
Glasgow eventually got rid of SLAB. I am sure that the Valleys will eventually follow suit.
Thanks. The reason I was bemused by the idea that UKIP might gain such representation is their incredibly self destructive behaviour since the election. I also agree that failed, right wing politicians like Reckless seems a pretty odd way to seek to win over disillusioned Labour voters in the valleys.
Lord knows, we have an infestation of Greens in the Scottish Parliament, an infestation that looks likely to grow after May, so anything is possible with PR seats but Scully's analysis seems surprisingly favourable to UKIP.
That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.
...
Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.
Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.
Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.
That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.
Well both have histories dominated by occupation by larger neighbours.
But I must have missed Ireland becoming part of continental Europe!
I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?
They've been leading it since 1999.
That's what they've voted for, why should one feel sorry for them if things turn out poorly as a result? (Not that it is guaranteed anyone else would have done better of course)
It's not entirely what they've voted for, although ironically the vote shares and seat outcome is almost identical to that of the UKGE for the Conservatives.
I did say that I'd work out what the results would have been under AMS with a 40/40 split rather than a 40/20. It turns out that all the overhang effects are eliminated, even in the South Wales Labour heartlands. Consequently, the 2016 election using the March YouGov poll, would be:
Lab 29, Plaid 20, Con 18, UKIP 10, LD 2, Grn 1.
Again, that would point to a Lab minority or coalition deal with Plaid but would substantially increase the relative power of the rest.
That said, as long as there's such a left-right divide, with no meaningful centre presence, it's probably impossible to boot Labour out unless Plaid's prepared to take on the leadership and the other parties are prepared to put them there.
We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.
Indeed. For me, it's an open and shut case.
Culturally, maybe - common language is a good start. In terms of economic priorities and other political preoccupations, though, not at all.
I mean, just how do you boot Labour out of the Welsh administration?
They've been leading it since 1999.
One other alternative would be for the Tories and UKIP to have a laugh and nominate Plaid to lead the Assembly.
Fact is, while Plaid is so pro-Labour (which by being virulently anti-Tory and even more virulently anti-UKIP, it is by default), Labour is in the box seat even when performing poorly.
But the long-term solution has to be to smash Labour in the valleys. That's not as daft as it sounds. The more Labour becomes the party of Islington dinner parties and Cardiff thinking middle classes, the more it moves away from men hewn from Wales' black rock.
Plaid's decision to support Labour has doomed their chances of becoming Wales' second party.
Yes and no. It certainly places a ceiling on their support but there are also relatively low ceilings on Con, UKIP and LD so the position is still up for grabs. The Plaid limit is lower than the Con one these days but if Plaid is fishing in the anti-Tory pool then it does give them the opportunity to 'do an SNP' and replace Labour altogether. They'd need to change their offering to the electorate first though.
If UKIP do as well in Wales as polls predict, then they'll win several top up seats in the Assembly. Poor organisation doesn't count against you so much in PR elections, as in First past the Post. I'd expect the threat to Port Talbot to work against both Labour and the Conservatives, and in favour of Plaid and UKIP.
That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.
...
Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.
Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.
Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.
That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.
Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.
Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.
France and Germany, along with much of the rest of Europe, were formed out of a common legal and philsophical tradition which England and its successors nations around the world abandoned at least in the 17th century and perhaps as far back as the 11th century.
There are fundamental differences in the approach to law and the relationship between the state and the individual and these are reflected in both our political and most importantly our legal principles today. In legal terms it is defined as the difference between Civil Law and Common Law systems.
A very quick and basic overview of the principles is found here:
That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.
...
Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.
Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.
Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.
That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.
Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.
Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.
We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.
And further away.
But cultural, legal and political differences can easily be overstated simply by looking for differences. All nations are different; that's what makes them nations in the first place.
'Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously. '
Even Blair that liked all things EU including the euro failed spectacularly and managed to give away a large chunk of our rebate for empty promises.
The standard response from pro EU politicians of all parties is that the EU needs to be reformed,it never happens because the EU doesn't want to be reformed.
Disappointing lack of response to David's comments about Wales in the thread header in the comments. Any contributions that are not about the EU but about how things might change in Wales and whether UKIP are really likely to get 7 seats would be particularly welcome.
It seems to me that the loss of their majority (well 50%) hold on the Welsh Parliament will, along with Scotland, be a major blow to the Labour party in May significantly taking the gloss off the recapturing of the London Mayoralty. The perception of Labour as a London party of diminishing relevance to the rest of the country will be enhanced. This is worth paying attention to.
I think the South Wales valleys certainly could fall to UKIP.
But, UKIP would need to be better organised. They have certainly shot themselves in the foot by appointing failed Tory politicians (like Reckless and Hamilton) to the regional lists. So, I am less convinced that UKIP will make big inroads than I was six months ago.
Historically, these constituencies (at Westminster) have fallen to independent Labour candidates (e.g., Peter Law, S.O Davies) , and so I think it is more likely that -- many useless Welsh Governments down the line -- a truly grass-roots left-leaning party will emerge and displace the corrupt lumbering hulk of Welsh Labour in the Valleys.
Glasgow eventually got rid of SLAB. I am sure that the Valleys will eventually follow suit.
Thanks. The reason I was bemused by the idea that UKIP might gain such representation is their incredibly self destructive behaviour since the election. I also agree that failed, right wing politicians like Reckless seems a pretty odd way to seek to win over disillusioned Labour voters in the valleys.
Lord knows, we have an infestation of Greens in the Scottish Parliament, an infestation that looks likely to grow after May, so anything is possible with PR seats but Scully's analysis seems surprisingly favourable to UKIP.
The Welsh Green Party does not exist. There are the Scottish Greens and the Green Party of EnglandandWales.
The Green's Welsh branch office is composed of the kind of chancers you might meet in a third-rate, snobbish and mildly anti-semitic novel written in the 1920s.
An excellent thread (though as usual many deviations from topic!)
I don't think that Port Talbot as an issue at the election would be dominated by the Brexit referendum, as it is not particularly an EU issue. In particular it is not clear whether the prospects are better within the EU or out of it for the steelworkers. It was us that voted against anti-dumping tariffs for example.
Where it will strike a chord is with the people that see Tory government ministers returning from their holidays saying "crisis, what crisis" then doing the headless chicken thing that we saw yesterday. Catch Jess Phillips disembowelling Andrea Jenkyns live on air on R4 Any Questions at lunchtime!
It is bad for the Tories, good for Labour and possibly PC, UKIP and LDs. I forsee a good Labour performance in Wales to go along with London, and a respectable performance in the locals to offset the Labour disaster in Scotland.
Corbyn will become more secure rather than less, and the Cameroons will start to get very worried, as will Labour moderates.
How has the Welsh administration avoided any blame for this *in Wales*. Does no-one take it seriously there either or are the opposition parties in Cardiff just a bit crap?
That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.
...
Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.
Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.
Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.
That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.
Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.
Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.
We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.
All 3 of those countries export mainly agricultural products and commodities. I doubt that there will be much of a market for Australian iron ore in Britain...
The Australasians see their future export markets in Asia. All NZ lamb is halal for example to make sales to the middle east easier. China is the destination for dairy and beef exports, as well as Australian ore.
We cannot recreate the Empire a century on. Those countries have moved on.
Commodities are not all they export. We produce a lot of lamb too is there a reason you think we can't export to Asia?
Disappointing lack of response to David's comments about Wales in the thread header in the comments. Any contributions that are not about the EU but about how things might change in Wales and whether UKIP are really likely to get 7 seats would be particularly welcome.
It seems to me that the loss of their majority (well 50%) hold on the Welsh Parliament will, along with Scotland, be a major blow to the Labour party in May significantly taking the gloss off the recapturing of the London Mayoralty. The perception of Labour as a London party of diminishing relevance to the rest of the country will be enhanced. This is worth paying attention to.
As someone who defended UKIP for a good few years on here I have kind of given up on them and do not now necessarily see any UKIP advance as being either good for the Brexit campaign nor any real reflection of support or otherwise for Leave. In itself I am sure UKIP will try to take advantage of the Port Talbot problems but I am not sure that however well or badly they do it will be considered any real indicator of support or otherwise for Leave. I generally now view UKIP as an irrelevance at best.
WRT the EU, there's not a lot of common ground between wanting a trading relationship (as mostly we do) and wanting full political union (as most politicians in the original six countries do). If we wanted to lead the EU, we'd have to be committed to full political union, Euro membership, and see the solution to every problem as "more Europe.". I'm guessing that would be unacceptable to British voters.
Disappointing lack of response to David's comments about Wales in the thread header in the comments. Any contributions that are not about the EU but about how things might change in Wales and whether UKIP are really likely to get 7 seats would be particularly welcome.
It seems to me that the loss of their majority (well 50%) hold on the Welsh Parliament will, along with Scotland, be a major blow to the Labour party in May significantly taking the gloss off the recapturing of the London Mayoralty. The perception of Labour as a London party of diminishing relevance to the rest of the country will be enhanced. This is worth paying attention to.
As someone who defended UKIP for a good few years on here I have kind of given up on them and do not now necessarily see any UKIP advance as being either good for the Brexit campaign nor any real reflection of support or otherwise for Leave. In itself I am sure UKIP will try to take advantage of the Port Talbot problems but I am not sure that however well or badly they do it will be considered any real indicator of support or otherwise for Leave. I generally now view UKIP as an irrelevance at best.
The question is what is the purpose of UKIP. If it is to get us out of Europe then we have the referendum and all efforts should be to win that.
If it is to be an actual party then that has no relationship now with Brexit.
Disappointing lack of response to David's comments about Wales in the thread header in the comments. Any contributions that are not about the EU but about how things might change in Wales and whether UKIP are really likely to get 7 seats would be particularly welcome.
It seems to me that the loss of their majority (well 50%) hold on the Welsh Parliament will, along with Scotland, be a major blow to the Labour party in May significantly taking the gloss off the recapturing of the London Mayoralty. The perception of Labour as a London party of diminishing relevance to the rest of the country will be enhanced. This is worth paying attention to.
As someone who defended UKIP for a good few years on here I have kind of given up on them and do not now necessarily see any UKIP advance as being either good for the Brexit campaign nor any real reflection of support or otherwise for Leave. In itself I am sure UKIP will try to take advantage of the Port Talbot problems but I am not sure that however well or badly they do it will be considered any real indicator of support or otherwise for Leave. I generally now view UKIP as an irrelevance at best.
I agree Richard which is why I was surprised to see them with 7 seats in the projection. To date UKIP's contributions to the Leave campaign have been almost entirely negative. If they cannot make a useful or meaningful contribution to that debate why would anyone vote for them for the Welsh Assembly?
I *so* want to be there if / when it flies for any distance (first flights will almost certainly be ground flights). Cardington's only a short distance down the A428 from me.
As it's also near Bedford, any jokes about a toupee delivery system for OGH should be roundly avoided.
That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.
...
Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.
Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.
Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.
That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.
Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.
Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.
We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.
All 3 of those countries export mainly agricultural products and commodities. I doubt that there will be much of a market for Australian iron ore in Britain...
The Australasians see their future export markets in Asia. All NZ lamb is halal for example to make sales to the middle east easier. China is the destination for dairy and beef exports, as well as Australian ore.
We cannot recreate the Empire a century on. Those countries have moved on.
Commodities are not all they export. We produce a lot of lamb too is there a reason you think we can't export to Asia?
Is there anything stopping us exporting lamb to the middle east and asia at present?
That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.
...
Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.
Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.
Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.
That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.
Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.
Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.
We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.
And further away.
But cultural, legal and political differences can easily be overstated simply by looking for differences. All nations are different; that's what makes them nations in the first place.
You can draw a line around anything and claim it is fundamentally different.
Europe is different to the US Britain is different to France England is different to Scotland London is different to Yorkshire Kensington and Chelsea is different to Newham Kensington is different to Chelsea South Kensington is different to North Kensington Fulham Road is different to Cromwell Road
Arguably the biggest difference here is within London.
An excellent thread (though as usual many deviations from topic!)
I don't think that Port Talbot as an issue at the election would be dominated by the Brexit referendum, as it is not particularly an EU issue. In particular it is not clear whether the prospects are better within the EU or out of it for the steelworkers. It was us that voted against anti-dumping tariffs for example.
Where it will strike a chord is with the people that see Tory government ministers returning from their holidays saying "crisis, what crisis" then doing the headless chicken thing that we saw yesterday. Catch Jess Phillips disembowelling Andrea Jenkyns live on air on R4 Any Questions at lunchtime!
It is bad for the Tories, good for Labour and possibly PC, UKIP and LDs. I forsee a good Labour performance in Wales to go along with London, and a respectable performance in the locals to offset the Labour disaster in Scotland.
Corbyn will become more secure rather than less, and the Cameroons will start to get very worried, as will Labour moderates.
How has the Welsh administration avoided any blame for this *in Wales*. Does no-one take it seriously there either or are the opposition parties in Cardiff just a bit crap?
That is an extremely good question.
The Welsh Government was busy taking the credit for persuading Aston Martin to move to the Vale of Glamorgan (although the full details of what Aston have been offered are unclear). This presumably had been timed for maximum effect for the Assembly Elections, and the problems at Port Talbot have now de-railed this.
There are countless bodies run by Carwyn and his associates. Like the Welsh Regeneration Investment Fund. What have they been doing?
In fact, the Welsh Regeneration Investment Fund has been caught up in a familiar scandal involving sale of public land at rock bottom prices to Welsh businessmen.
But, you are completely correct. Carwyn and company should not be riding off into the Sunset. The have questions to answer as well. They manage the European Structural Regeneration Funds (1.8 billion).
We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.
All 3 of those countries export mainly agricultural products and commodities. I doubt that there will be much of a market for Australian iron ore in Britain...
The Australasians see their future export markets in Asia. All NZ lamb is halal for example to make sales to the middle east easier. China is the destination for dairy and beef exports, as well as Australian ore.
We cannot recreate the Empire a century on. Those countries have moved on.
Commodities are not all they export. We produce a lot of lamb too is there a reason you think we can't export to Asia?
Is there anything stopping us exporting lamb to the middle east and asia at present?
Yes.
The EU due to French influence and obsession with the Common Agricultural Policy is very protectionist over agriculture and refuses to sign free trade deals for agriculture (like the Australasians have been signing).
If we leave the EU perhaps to the EEA then this is one of those areas where we could sign a trade deal that the EU blocks due to French protectionism.
Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
This is one of the problems though, isn't it. Crap politicians at Westminster blaming the EU for their own ineptness.
One can understand why so many are reluctant to leave. It's a handy organisation to shift blame on to, and an excellent way for duffers turfed out of Parliament to keep their sticky hands in the honey pot. Isn't there someone here who's expressed an interest in clambering onto the Euro greasy pole?
Incidentally, the Duck island claim was never paid out. Brussels hands over loot as 'allowances', no questions asked.
An excellent thread (though as usual many deviations from topic!)
I don't think that Port Talbot as an issue at the election would be dominated by the Brexit referendum, as it is not particularly an EU issue. In particular it is not clear whether the prospects are better within the EU or out of it for the steelworkers. It was us that voted against anti-dumping tariffs for example.
Where it will strike a chord is with the people that see Tory government ministers returning from their holidays saying "crisis, what crisis" then doing the headless chicken thing that we saw yesterday. Catch Jess Phillips disembowelling Andrea Jenkyns live on air on R4 Any Questions at lunchtime!
It is bad for the Tories, good for Labour and possibly PC, UKIP and LDs. I forsee a good Labour performance in Wales to go along with London, and a respectable performance in the locals to offset the Labour disaster in Scotland.
Corbyn will become more secure rather than less, and the Cameroons will start to get very worried, as will Labour moderates.
Chatted yesterday to someone at BIS who had better remain anonymous - opinion was that in the end they will do precisely nothing about Port Talbot except organise meetings and try to verbally encourage a sale on any terms and look concerned, but they will not make that clear before July.
I see their difficulty, but I don't think that concealing a strategy of masterly inactivity will work in electoral terms for 3 months.
Hear Hear, lots of hot air and nothing will be done, pity it is not being run by their chums.
OK, I think Trump is going to lose but Dems taking Missouri is a step too far in terms of believability
Are you still expecting Trump to be the candidate?
This long pause between contests has made me uncertain and the stuff with loyalty pledges and delegates becoming unbound has certainly rattled me but I still think Trump will take it in the end.
Maybe.
My betting affairs are certainly organised for such an eventuality.
An excellent thread (though as usual many deviations from topic!)
I don't think that Port Talbot as an issue at the election would be dominated by the Brexit referendum, as it is not particularly an EU issue. In particular it is not clear whether the prospects are better within the EU or out of it for the steelworkers. It was us that voted against anti-dumping tariffs for example.
Where it will strike a chord is with the people that see Tory government ministers returning from their holidays saying "crisis, what crisis" then doing the headless chicken thing that we saw yesterday. Catch Jess Phillips disembowelling Andrea Jenkyns live on air on R4 Any Questions at lunchtime!
It is bad for the Tories, good for Labour and possibly PC, UKIP and LDs. I forsee a good Labour performance in Wales to go along with London, and a respectable performance in the locals to offset the Labour disaster in Scotland.
Corbyn will become more secure rather than less, and the Cameroons will start to get very worried, as will Labour moderates.
Chatted yesterday to someone at BIS who had better remain anonymous - opinion was that in the end they will do precisely nothing about Port Talbot except organise meetings and try to verbally encourage a sale on any terms and look concerned, but they will not make that clear before July.
I see their difficulty, but I don't think that concealing a strategy of masterly inactivity will work in electoral terms for 3 months.
Hear Hear, lots of hot air and nothing will be done, pity it is not being run by their chums.
Good. The government shouldn't be in the business of bailing out failed businesses as sad as it may be.
An excellent thread (though as usual many deviations from topic!)
I don't think that Port Talbot as an issue at the election would be dominated by the Brexit referendum, as it is not particularly an EU issue. In particular it is not clear whether the prospects are better within the EU or out of it for the steelworkers. It was us that voted against anti-dumping tariffs for example.
Where it will strike a chord is with the people that see Tory government ministers returning from their holidays saying "crisis, what crisis" then doing the headless chicken thing that we saw yesterday. Catch Jess Phillips disembowelling Andrea Jenkyns live on air on R4 Any Questions at lunchtime!
It is bad for the Tories, good for Labour and possibly PC, UKIP and LDs. I forsee a good Labour performance in Wales to go along with London, and a respectable performance in the locals to offset the Labour disaster in Scotland.
Corbyn will become more secure rather than less, and the Cameroons will start to get very worried, as will Labour moderates.
Chatted yesterday to someone at BIS who had better remain anonymous - opinion was that in the end they will do precisely nothing about Port Talbot except organise meetings and try to verbally encourage a sale on any terms and look concerned, but they will not make that clear before July.
I see their difficulty, but I don't think that concealing a strategy of masterly inactivity will work in electoral terms for 3 months.
Hear Hear, lots of hot air and nothing will be done, pity it is not being run by their chums.
If only it were the Hindujas rather than Tata, and Mandelson and Vaz were still in government.
Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
This is one of the problems though, isn't it. Crap politicians at Westminster blaming the EU for their own ineptness.
One can understand why so many are reluctant to leave. It's a handy organisation to shift blame on to, and an excellent way for duffers turfed out of Parliament to keep their sticky hands in the honey pot. Isn't there someone here who's expressed an interest in clambering onto the Euro greasy pole?
If we leave the EU, the UK's fundamental problems will remain. The way we blame and scapegoat might change a bit. That's what passes for progress these days.
Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
This is one of the problems though, isn't it. Crap politicians at Westminster blaming the EU for their own ineptness.
One can understand why so many are reluctant to leave. It's a handy organisation to shift blame on to, and an excellent way for duffers turfed out of Parliament to keep their sticky hands in the honey pot. Isn't there someone here who's expressed an interest in clambering onto the Euro greasy pole?
Incidentally, the Duck island claim was never paid out. Brussels hands over loot as 'allowances', no questions asked.
I was going to make the same point about Duck Island.
And I note that, just yesterday, though not widely reported, another MEP is facing stir for fiddling his Euro expenses.
Peter Skinner (Labour), former MEP for SE England.
An excellent thread (though as usual many deviations from topic!)
I don't think that Port Talbot as an issue at the election would be dominated by the Brexit referendum, as it is not particularly an EU issue. In particular it is not clear whether the prospects are better within the EU or out of it for the steelworkers. It was us that voted against anti-dumping tariffs for example.
Where it will strike a chord is with the people that see Tory government ministers returning from their holidays saying "crisis, what crisis" then doing the headless chicken thing that we saw yesterday. Catch Jess Phillips disembowelling Andrea Jenkyns live on air on R4 Any Questions at lunchtime!
It is bad for the Tories, good for Labour and possibly PC, UKIP and LDs. I forsee a good Labour performance in Wales to go along with London, and a respectable performance in the locals to offset the Labour disaster in Scotland.
Corbyn will become more secure rather than less, and the Cameroons will start to get very worried, as will Labour moderates.
How has the Welsh administration avoided any blame for this *in Wales*. Does no-one take it seriously there either or are the opposition parties in Cardiff just a bit crap?
Dead easy. Blame the Westminster government.
You will notice they sent an opposition MP, not an AS (y'knos, somebody who could DO something) to these negotiations to reinforce the idea that this crisis comes from England and that they are continually being shafted by evil Tories in Westminster. Cameron and Osborne not being exactly beloved in the Valleys, and tribal loyalty to 'their' party being strong, people believe this because they desperately want to believe it's true.
Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
This is one of the problems though, isn't it. Crap politicians at Westminster blaming the EU for their own ineptness.
One can understand why so many are reluctant to leave. It's a handy organisation to shift blame on to, and an excellent way for duffers turfed out of Parliament to keep their sticky hands in the honey pot. Isn't there someone here who's expressed an interest in clambering onto the Euro greasy pole?
If we leave the EU, the UK's fundamental problems will remain. The way we blame and scapegoat might change a bit. That's what passes for progress these days.
That is progress. We should have accountability.
Any organisation that lacks accountability is going to languish.
Disappointing lack of response to David's comments about Wales in the thread header in the comments. Any contributions that are not about the EU but about how things might change in Wales and whether UKIP are really likely to get 7 seats would be particularly welcome.
It seems to me that the loss of their majority (well 50%) hold on the Welsh Parliament will, along with Scotland, be a major blow to the Labour party in May significantly taking the gloss off the recapturing of the London Mayoralty. The perception of Labour as a London party of diminishing relevance to the rest of the country will be enhanced. This is worth paying attention to.
As someone who defended UKIP for a good few years on here I have kind of given up on them and do not now necessarily see any UKIP advance as being either good for the Brexit campaign nor any real reflection of support or otherwise for Leave. In itself I am sure UKIP will try to take advantage of the Port Talbot problems but I am not sure that however well or badly they do it will be considered any real indicator of support or otherwise for Leave. I generally now view UKIP as an irrelevance at best.
I agree Richard which is why I was surprised to see them with 7 seats in the projection. To date UKIP's contributions to the Leave campaign have been almost entirely negative. If they cannot make a useful or meaningful contribution to that debate why would anyone vote for them for the Welsh Assembly?
In fairness Leave.EU which I believe is the more Ukippy of the two main Leave organisations has been erunning a fairly effective twitter campaign. Just now for example they have posted a photo of the EU fisheries Commissioner with the caption "you didn't vote him in and you can't vote him out. Hope you like him".
Voters no doubt pay considerably less attention to the inner workings of UKIP than we do on here so 7 seats may well be obtainable. It is after the referendum (win or lose) that their problems will start
Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.
That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.
Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.
I've heard it said before [that the EU countries have Napoleonic Code legal systems] and I'm doubtful. It's not obvious prima facie that it's true: a set of 26 countries (ex UK) that includes the Scandis, three (ex)Commonwealth countries, and countries not conquered by Napoleon (Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics) does not scream "Napoleonic Code" to me. In the case of Germany, it did not exist in Napoleonic times - Prussia was not conquered by Napoleon - and its law was built from the ground up post-WWII: what it has now feels basically American and lacks things like inquisitorial courts that are distinctly Napoleonic
I think you meant to say "most European countries are civil law jurisdictions with no/little common law" - which would be true. However, is that more simply explained by the fact that they had their slates wiped clean post WWII for the Nazisphere/post-1991 for the Warsaw Pact? They've simply not had time to accrete enough cases for "common law" to exist in the same way as it does for England&Wales.
As for Ireland: it takes great pride in defining itself in contradistinction to the UK...then adopts basically the same things, so I think you're right de facto. However Ireland has a constitution and the UK has not, and that is quite a big difference.
It's interesting to hear the experience of someone that opened their door to strangers. Leaving aside the financial and social problems around this issue it would appear that the biggest cost could be that it's changed German politics forever. There's always been a sense that German politics is more consensual than ours but the last 12 months appears to have changed that.
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited. I see no mention is made of the likes of Ladbrokes (and Corals),who through their expert Shadsy, really do know their political betting onions and who have Trump largely unmoved over the past few days at 1.44, compared with Betfair's 1.82. One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited. I see no mention is made of the likes of Ladbrokes (and Corals),who through their expert Shadsy, really do know their political betting onions and who have Trump largely unmoved over the past few days at 1.44, compared with Betfair's 1.82. One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
This is one of the problems though, isn't it. Crap politicians at Westminster blaming the EU for their own ineptness.
One can understand why so many are reluctant to leave. It's a handy organisation to shift blame on to, and an excellent way for duffers turfed out of Parliament to keep their sticky hands in the honey pot. Isn't there someone here who's expressed an interest in clambering onto the Euro greasy pole?
If we leave the EU, the UK's fundamental problems will remain. The way we blame and scapegoat might change a bit. That's what passes for progress these days.
That is progress. We should have accountability.
Any organisation that lacks accountability is going to languish.
Blame and Scapegoating does not equal accountability. Take the Steel crisis. Everyone is chucking around blame. The EU, the Chinese, the Tories.
Whereas the truth is we are all responsible. For example, we like to buy cheap consumer products and take quick and easy returns on capital through property inflation rather than investment in productive work.
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited. I see no mention is made of the likes of Ladbrokes (and Corals),who through their expert Shadsy, really do know their political betting onions and who have Trump largely unmoved over the past few days at 1.44, compared with Betfair's 1.82. One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
Isn't his comment that the exchange odds don't actually make any sense?
Just arrived in Brighton for today's game against Burnley. I've been invited by one of the team's directors and will be sitting in the director's box - the first time I've ever done that.
Disappointing lack of response to David's comments about Wales in the thread header in the comments. Any contributions that are not about the EU but about how things might change in Wales and whether UKIP are really likely to get 7 seats would be particularly welcome.
It seems to me that the loss of their majority (well 50%) hold on the Welsh Parliament will, along with Scotland, be a major blow to the Labour party in May significantly taking the gloss off the recapturing of the London Mayoralty. The perception of Labour as a London party of diminishing relevance to the rest of the country will be enhanced. This is worth paying attention to.
As someone who defended UKIP for a good few years on here I have kind of given up on them and do not now necessarily see any UKIP advance as being either good for the Brexit campaign nor any real reflection of support or otherwise for Leave. In itself I am sure UKIP will try to take advantage of the Port Talbot problems but I am not sure that however well or badly they do it will be considered any real indicator of support or otherwise for Leave. I generally now view UKIP as an irrelevance at best.
I agree Richard which is why I was surprised to see them with 7 seats in the projection. To date UKIP's contributions to the Leave campaign have been almost entirely negative. If they cannot make a useful or meaningful contribution to that debate why would anyone vote for them for the Welsh Assembly?
In fairness Leave.EU which I believe is the more Ukippy of the two main Leave organisations has been erunning a fairly effective twitter campaign. Just now for example they have posted a photo of the EU fisheries Commissioner with the caption "you didn't vote him in and you can't vote him out. Hope you like him".
Voters no doubt pay considerably less attention to the inner workings of UKIP than we do on here so 7 seats may well be obtainable. It is after the referendum (win or lose) that their problems will start
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited. I see no mention is made of the likes of Ladbrokes (and Corals),who through their expert Shadsy, really do know their political betting onions and who have Trump largely unmoved over the past few days at 1.44, compared with Betfair's 1.82. One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
Isn't his comment that the exchange odds don't actually make any sense?
Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
This is one of the problems though, isn't it. Crap politicians at Westminster blaming the EU for their own ineptness.
One can understand why so many are reluctant to leave. It's a handy organisation to shift blame on to, and an excellent way for duffers turfed out of Parliament to keep their sticky hands in the honey pot. Isn't there someone here who's expressed an interest in clambering onto the Euro greasy pole?
Incidentally, the Duck island claim was never paid out. Brussels hands over loot as 'allowances', no questions asked.
I was going to make the same point about Duck Island.
And I note that, just yesterday, though not widely reported, another MEP is facing stir for fiddling his Euro expenses.
Peter Skinner (Labour), former MEP for SE England.
Peter Skinner had been an MEP since 1994. Interestingly he won Kent West an ultra Tory area for Labour in that year at a particular low point of the Major administration.
That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.
...
Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.
Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.
Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.
That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.
Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.
Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.
Have a quick look at the difference between Napoleonic and English law and then come back to me with facts rather than dismissive guff.
Nice quote from HRC that she will "put a lot of coal companies and coal miners out of business." That should play well in the Rust Belt, should she make it that far. The investigation into influence peddling through the Clinton Foundation is picking up steam, surely not even Obama and his corrupt cronies can block that one?
Interesting to see where Trump is stumping in WI. CDs 1,3,4,7 and 8. Take as many as he can and hope for the best. Some early voting before his recent dip and he seems to be picking back up again in the Ipsos/Reuters tracking poll now anyway.
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited. I see no mention is made of the likes of Ladbrokes (and Corals),who through their expert Shadsy, really do know their political betting onions and who have Trump largely unmoved over the past few days at 1.44, compared with Betfair's 1.82. One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
Not intending to be rude but pb is way behind on US politics. Nate knows his onions. It's a good piece which I'm guessing you didn't read 'cos he says the markets make no sense. His piece's about delegate math and the system.
On topic, chances were missed to sort out the Welsh Assembly and we are where we are. The most striking failures were:
Rejection of 5 member constituencies elected by STV, in 2003(?)
Rejection of the Rainbow Coalition deal by the Liberal Democrats in 2007, forcing Plaid Cymru into coalition with Labour
Election of far-left and ultra-nationalist Leanne Wood as PC leader in 2011, rather than a centrist figure like Elin Jones, coupled to the loss of Nick Bourne and the consequent swing of the Conservatives to the right and a weakening of their commitment to a Welsh form of Conservative policy, ruining any chance of an anti-Labour coalition.
Under the current system, unless Labour dips below about 25% they will always have most seats (anything less than 25 seats would be a shockingly bad result). This is of course why they quietly ditched a commitment to STV. Therefore it is almost inconceivable that any other two parties could command a majority. Even if they could, those two parties are not currently willing to deal with each other.
The net result is that by 2021 Labour will have been continuously in power for 22 years. They are already exhausted. Their ministers are old and intellectually exhausted (those that had intellects to start with). In England, at least two would currently be serving prison sentences for breaking data protection laws, if nothing worse. (So would at least 2 county CEs, by the way.) But they will almost certainly still be in power after that.
Bluntly, short of electoral reform, which would be difficult to get through without imperilling FPTP at Westminster (and therefore won't happen) the only realistic way of breaking Labour's hegemony is if they go bust after the 2020 election and cannot reorganise and recapitalise in time for the nominations process. It's not impossible but it is unlikely. And the overwhelming majority in Wales who hate them and want them out pay the price in terms of lost Jobs and appalling public services.
That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.
...
Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.
Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.
Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.
That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.
Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.
Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.
We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.
Don't diss Estonia! We're actually quite similar in outlook to them (they are a Hanseatic trading nation).
There was even a suggestion that Prince Edward become their King, but the Foreign Office vetoed it...
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited. I see no mention is made of the likes of Ladbrokes (and Corals),who through their expert Shadsy, really do know their political betting onions and who have Trump largely unmoved over the past few days at 1.44, compared with Betfair's 1.82. One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
A wise observation PfP.
Isn't that Grima Wormtongue's favoured expression?
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited. I see no mention is made of the likes of Ladbrokes (and Corals),who through their expert Shadsy, really do know their political betting onions and who have Trump largely unmoved over the past few days at 1.44, compared with Betfair's 1.82. One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
What I would really liked to have heard from Nate Silver is - if not Trump then whom as between Cruz and Kasich? I would rather hope it would be the latter, having backed him as far out as 200/1 and having been largely ridiculed for doing so by a number of so-called experts on PB.com. Are you listening David Herdson and others?
Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
This is one of the problems though, isn't it. Crap politicians at Westminster blaming the EU for their own ineptness.
One can understand why so many are reluctant to leave. It's a handy organisation to shift blame on to, and an excellent way for duffers turfed out of Parliament to keep their sticky hands in the honey pot. Isn't there someone here who's expressed an interest in clambering onto the Euro greasy pole?
Incidentally, the Duck island claim was never paid out. Brussels hands over loot as 'allowances', no questions asked.
I was going to make the same point about Duck Island.
And I note that, just yesterday, though not widely reported, another MEP is facing stir for fiddling his Euro expenses.
Peter Skinner (Labour), former MEP for SE England.
Peter Skinner had been an MEP since 1994. Interestingly he won Kent West an ultra Tory area for Labour in that year at a particular low point of the Major administration.
His expense fiddling seems to have been on an industrial scale.
I do think -- having had dealings with the EU myself -- that there is a culture of financial irresponsibility.
I can see how a long-serving MEP, initially with good intentions, can gradually become corrupted by this.
When there is such much money wastage, it must become easy to rationalise to yourself that you too are due a bit more money.
That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.
...
Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.
Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.
Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.
That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.
Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.
Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.
We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.
And further away.
But cultural, legal and political differences can easily be overstated simply by looking for differences. All nations are different; that's what makes them nations in the first place.
The original point, though, was that in virtually every situation the UK starts from a different position (just because of the operation of legal systems) to continental Europe. Sure we can reach common ground, but there's a round of negotiation first before we even get to the point where France and Germany started. As a result it's difficult for us to exercise leadership.
Change the EU? I suspect you are either an idealist or very young (that communism looks a nice idea. It's never been tried but it deserves a go). I suspect it's the former. When one country out of 28 can veto a new idea, it won't be changing its destination at all. Political Union is the destination and always has been. That's an idealistic notion, and a worthy aim for idealists.
Even here, you get pork barrel politics as the norm. Inevitably, you lose influence as the numbers increase. France got in at the beginning, and made sure the UK didn't. That ship has sailed, hence CAP became established and won't change.
The idea of meaningful change is fanciful.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The idea that any of this is solved by leaving the EU and returning power to Westminster is absurd. Have you seen Westminster? I guess we'll get bigger, better duck islands.
This is one of the problems though, isn't it. Crap politicians at Westminster blaming the EU for their own ineptness.
One can understand why so many are reluctant to leave. It's a handy organisation to shift blame on to, and an excellent way for duffers turfed out of Parliament to keep their sticky hands in the honey pot. Isn't there someone here who's expressed an interest in clambering onto the Euro greasy pole?
If we leave the EU, the UK's fundamental problems will remain. The way we blame and scapegoat might change a bit. That's what passes for progress these days.
That is progress. We should have accountability.
Any organisation that lacks accountability is going to languish.
Blame and Scapegoating does not equal accountability. Take the Steel crisis. Everyone is chucking around blame. The EU, the Chinese, the Tories.
Whereas the truth is we are all responsible. For example, we like to buy cheap consumer products and take quick and easy returns on capital through property inflation rather than investment in productive work.
Steel's going through the same death throes as ship building did. The UK simply can't compete with modern, lower cost production in the Far East. It has a chance with the more specialised products, but that can never provide as many jobs as exist now.
Car manufacturing rose from the ashes. Honda, Nissan, JLR and BMW are booming. Perhaps someone can analyse why they're doing so well, and apply that to the problem. I'm guessing the key might be very modern and highly efficient plant with lower energy costs, and flexible working.
That's where I disagree. You speak as though positively influencing the Eu has not been tried yet.
...
Us holding them back, even could we achieve it, seems bad for us and them, fostering even more bitterness and resentment.
Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously.
Because we have a different legal and philosophical tradition and therefore start from a less aligned position than most of continental europe.
That's rubbish. For example, please explain how Estonia's legal and philosophical tradition is more aligned to Ireland's than ours.
Stupid example. The candidates for leadership - let's say France, Germany, possibly Spain and Italy, and the UK. 4of those countries have legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code. One does not. Most of the continental European legal systems have tha same basis. I'd assume Ireland's is closer to the UK.
Come off it. If France and Germany can overcome vast differences, with a little imagination and leadership it is possible to bridge other smaller gaps. In any case we would do well to remember we have far more in common than what separates us.
We have more in common with Canada, Australia and New Zealand than we do France, Germany or Estonia. They're also richer per capita than France, Germany and Estonia.
Culturally, linguistically and historically yes, of course, but in terms of hard-nosed trading not a chance unfortunately.
Just arrived in Brighton for today's game against Burnley. I've been invited by one of the team's directors and will be sitting in the director's box - the first time I've ever done that.
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited. I see no mention is made of the likes of Ladbrokes (and Corals),who through their expert Shadsy, really do know their political betting onions and who have Trump largely unmoved over the past few days at 1.44, compared with Betfair's 1.82. One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
Not intending to be rude but pb is way behind on US politics. Nate knows his onions.
Apart from having been consistently wrong on Trump for the last year.
On topic, chances were missed to sort out the Welsh Assembly and we are where we are. The most striking failures were:
Rejection of 5 member constituencies elected by STV, in 2003(?)
Rejection of the Rainbow Coalition deal by the Liberal Democrats in 2007, forcing Plaid Cymru into coalition with Labour
Election of far-left and ultra-nationalist Leanne Wood as PC leader in 2011, rather than a centrist figure like Elin Jones, coupled to the loss of Nick Bourne and the consequent swing of the Conservatives to the right and a weakening of their commitment to a Welsh form of Conservative policy, ruining any chance of an anti-Labour coalition.
Under the current system, unless Labour dips below about 25% they will always have most seats (anything less than 25 seats would be a shockingly bad result). This is of course why they quietly ditched a commitment to STV. Therefore it is almost inconceivable that any other two parties could command a majority. Even if they could, those two parties are not currently willing to deal with each other.
The net result is that by 2021 Labour will have been continuously in power for 22 years. They are already exhausted. Their ministers are old and intellectually exhausted (those that had intellects to start with). In England, at least two would currently be serving prison sentences for breaking data protection laws, if nothing worse. (So would at least 2 county CEs, by the way.) But they will almost certainly still be in power after that.
Bluntly, short of electoral reform, which would be difficult to get through without imperilling FPTP at Westminster (and therefore won't happen) the only realistic way of breaking Labour's hegemony is if they go bust after the 2020 election and cannot reorganise and recapitalise in time for the nominations process. It's not impossible but it is unlikely. And the overwhelming majority in Wales who hate them and want them out pay the price in terms of lost Jobs and appalling public services.
I would agree with that pessimistic analysis.
You are right to highlight the behaviour of the LibDems in 2007. Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives had -- astonishingly -- agreed a deal, but it was the LibDem activists who vetoed the Rainbow alliance and prevented the first chance of an alternative Government.
The other turning point was in 1999. It is often forgotten that Plaid Cymru did better than the SNP (relatively speaking) in the first set of devolved elections.
Plaid responded to success by axing their leader (Wigley), and have never replicated their performance in the first set of elections.
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited. I see no mention is made of the likes of Ladbrokes (and Corals),who through their expert Shadsy, really do know their political betting onions and who have Trump largely unmoved over the past few days at 1.44, compared with Betfair's 1.82. One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
A wise observation PfP.
Morning all,
I like to think in implied % in these situations. Shadys is saying just under 70% chance of Trump, BF is saying mid-50%.
The thrust of the Sliver article is that unless Trump gets over the line in delegates, there are a huge number of uncertainties ahead at the convention and the politics of GOP delegate choice are against him. I've no idea what % chance of Trump failing to get across the line on first pass, and then still going on to win in terms of delegates is, but my hunch is that it is low-ish. This means the fundamental question really is what are the % chances of Trump getting 1237 delegates?
FWIW , I think the projection given above by David Herdson courtesy Roger Scully is too pessimistic for Labour and too optimistic for UKIP in Wales . The imposition of Hamilton , Reckless and others on the UKIP list candidates will have an adverse effect on their vote share but I still expect them to get 5 list seats . My guesstimate is Lab 30 Plaid 13 Con 10 UKIP 5 LD 2 leaving Labour just short ( again ) of an overall majority ) .
Sunil, with all the wonderful puns you could attempt about multinationals steeling our industry, or steeling ourselves for the challenge of saving it, or how China steels our chances of survival, is that really the best you could manage?
To address the article rather than the below-the-line comments for the moment.
I think the Port Talbot situation will resonate in South East Wales. The Thatcher government was loathed in the Valleys because it was seen as the unsympathetic instigator of its deindustrialisation. If the EU is seen in the same light[1] regarding Port Talbot then UKIP (I assume the main beneficiary of anti-EU votes) will see an increase.
[1] This is arguably already true. L'affaire Greece hit hard in Wales, who looked at an unsympathetic Germany harassing Greece for debt repayment and remembered the 80's. It's not true that the EU was the cause of Port Talbot but right now it's a blame sponge and a soon-to-be-unemployed steelworker will not be in the mood for niceties when it comes to a vote.
Just arrived in Brighton for today's game against Burnley. I've been invited by one of the team's directors and will be sitting in the director's box - the first time I've ever done that.
Mike - best leave those Claret and Blue colours behind and restrict yourself to restrained applause as Burnley take the lead and go on to win, as they probably will. Enjoy the pork pie and cucumber sandwiches at half time!
Sunil, with all the wonderful puns you could attempt about multinationals steeling our industry, or steeling ourselves for the challenge of saving it, or how China steels our chances of survival, is that really the best you could manage?
Just arrived in Brighton for today's game against Burnley. I've been invited by one of the team's directors and will be sitting in the director's box - the first time I've ever done that.
Mike - best leave those Claret and Blue colours behind and restrict yourself to restrained applause as Burnley take the lead and go on to win, as they probably will. Enjoy the pork pie and cucumber sandwiches at half time!
Nigel Farage has been one of the big losers so far of the referendum campaign, having been largely eclipsed by the Conservative Leavers in the public debate. Interestingly, however, this does not seem to have affected UKIP's polling. That suggests to me that UKIP's brand is now independent of the EU, being a bucket for Trumpite incoherent populist nativist voters.
So UKIP might do well on 6 May without telling us too much about what's going on in the referendum. However, I'm inclined to agree with Mark Senior that they will underperform their polling in the Welsh elections. Their voters don't have all much motivation to come out for this election.
FWIW , I think the projection given above by David Herdson courtesy Roger Scully is too pessimistic for Labour and too optimistic for UKIP in Wales . The imposition of Hamilton , Reckless and others on the UKIP list candidates will have an adverse effect on their vote share but I still expect them to get 5 list seats . My guesstimate is Lab 30 Plaid 13 Con 10 UKIP 5 LD 2 leaving Labour just short ( again ) of an overall majority ) .
I would be very surprised if either Labour or UKIP get as many seats as that. 27 and 3 would be my expectation. Both parties underperform their polling and UKIP have never made their vote particularly efficient.
The big fight should be for second place. But as Plaid will ultimately have to deal with Labour to prevent financially ruinous new elections being called, that's not terribly relevant either.
The haggling over executive posts may be interesting, as will who Jones decides to sack to make room for Plaid. Otherwise this election will be alarmingly similar to the previous four.
@YBarddCwsc I could be wrong (I was not living in Wales at the time) but surely Wigley retired, rather than got the push? He was getting on a bit and had been leader for a long time.
FWIW , I think the projection given above by David Herdson courtesy Roger Scully is too pessimistic for Labour and too optimistic for UKIP in Wales . The imposition of Hamilton , Reckless and others on the UKIP list candidates will have an adverse effect on their vote share but I still expect them to get 5 list seats . My guesstimate is Lab 30 Plaid 13 Con 10 UKIP 5 LD 2 leaving Labour just short ( again ) of an overall majority ) .
The Scully projection already has Plaid ahead of the Tories in seats despite being behind on votes. You are indicating that gap will grow. Is that on the basis that you think the Tories will under perform their polling (a Port Talbot backlash perhaps) or do you simply think the vagaries of the system will work that way?
On topic, chances were missed to sort out the Welsh Assembly and we are where we are. The most striking failures were:
Rejection of 5 member constituencies elected by STV, in 2003(?)
Rejection of the Rainbow Coalition deal by the Liberal Democrats in 2007, forcing Plaid Cymru into coalition with Labour
Election of far-left and ultra-nationalist Leanne Wood as PC leader in 2011, rather than a centrist figure like Elin Jones, coupled to the loss of Nick Bourne and the consequent swing of the Conservatives to the right and a weakening of their commitment to a Welsh form of Conservative policy, ruining any chance of an anti-Labour coalition.
Under the current system, unless Labour dips below about 25% they will always have most seats (anything less than 25 seats would be a shockingly bad result). This is of course why they quietly ditched a commitment to STV. Therefore it is almost inconceivable that any other two parties could command a majority. Even if they could, those two parties are not currently willing to deal with each other.
The net result is that by 2021 Labour will have been continuously in power for 22 years. They are already exhausted. Their ministers are old and intellectually exhausted (those that had intellects to start with). In England, at least two would currently be serving prison sentences for breaking data protection laws, if nothing worse. (So would at least 2 county CEs, by the way.) But they will almost certainly still be in power after that.
Bluntly, short of electoral reform, which would be difficult to get through without imperilling FPTP at Westminster (and therefore won't happen) the only realistic way of breaking Labour's hegemony is if they go bust after the 2020 election and cannot reorganise and recapitalise in time for the nominations process. It's not impossible but it is unlikely. And the overwhelming majority in Wales who hate them and want them out pay the price in terms of lost Jobs and appalling public services.
I would agree with that pessimistic analysis.
You are right to highlight the behaviour of the LibDems in 2007. Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives had -- astonishingly -- agreed a deal, but it was the LibDem activists who vetoed the Rainbow alliance and prevented the first chance of an alternative Government.
The other turning point was in 1999. It is often forgotten that Plaid Cymru did better than the SNP (relatively speaking) in the first set of devolved elections.
Plaid responded to success by axing their leader (Wigley), and have never replicated their performance in the first set of elections.
The SNP took their chances, while Plaid didn’t.
Hadn’t Wigley had enough, and felt he needed a break?
I've heard it said before [that the EU countries have Napoleonic Code legal systems] and I'm doubtful. It's not obvious prima facie that it's true: a set of 26 countries (ex UK) that includes the Scandis, three (ex)Commonwealth countries, and countries not conquered by Napoleon (Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics) does not scream "Napoleonic Code" to me. In the case of Germany, it did not exist in Napoleonic times - Prussia was not conquered by Napoleon - and its law was built from the ground up post-WWII: what it has now feels basically American and lacks things like inquisitorial courts that are distinctly Napoleonic
I think you meant to say "most European countries are civil law jurisdictions with no/little common law" - which would be true. However, is that more simply explained by the fact that they had their slates wiped clean post WWII for the Nazisphere/post-1991 for the Warsaw Pact? They've simply not had time to accrete enough cases for "common law" to exist in the same way as it does for England&Wales.
As for Ireland: it takes great pride in defining itself in contradistinction to the UK...then adopts basically the same things, so I think you're right de facto. However Ireland has a constitution and the UK has not, and that is quite a big difference.
Germany's law was NOT built from the ground up after WW2. They didn't wipe the slate clean and create an entirely new system of laws, though of course they got a new constitution. They didn't even declare the Nazi-era laws all null and void - some remain in effect.
Most continental EU countries run on a hybrid of Roman law and the Napoleonic Code (which was itself based on Roman law). Talking about Napoleon bringing civil law to Germany is actually to get legal history backwards. Many of the German states (including Bavaria and Prussia) had civil law systems that were based on the Roman codes by the 18th century; the Naploeonic code actually scrapped France's old feudal-derived legal system and brought it into closer alignment with these other European states which inspired it.
Moreover, "where Napoleon reached" is a very poor guide to the spread of the Napoleonic legal influence, because the codification had legal influence in its own right. Even the German states that Napoleon did not conquer and which already had codes of their own were influenced to some extent by the Napoleonic Code. Switzerland adopted a civil code in 1907 that was based on a hybrid of the German and French systems; Ataturk then largely brought the Swiss civil code to Turkey in the 1920s. The Qing dynasty imported large aspects of the German code to China, and many aspects of the Communist Era legal system still derive from it.
It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited. I see no mention is made of the likes of Ladbrokes (and Corals),who through their expert Shadsy, really do know their political betting onions and who have Trump largely unmoved over the past few days at 1.44, compared with Betfair's 1.82. One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
Not intending to be rude but pb is way behind on US politics. Nate knows his onions. It's a good piece which I'm guessing you didn't read 'cos he says the markets make no sense. His piece's about delegate math and the system.
Nate Silver predicted that Donald Trump would fall at the first hurdle, then the second, then the third, then the same over and over and over again.
A better who followed his advice would be sitting on big red numbers for Bush, Walker (ha) and Rubio (after all, The Party Decides!)
Pedant's note: the UK DOES, of course, have a constitution - there is such a thing as constitutional law! It doesn't have a written constitution that appears in a single document, but even the claim that the UK doesn't have a "written constitution" is wide of the mark because some legislation is clearly constitutional in nature. As an aside, constitutional law in other countries is often not completely defined by the document that says "constitution" in the title.
@YBarddCwsc I could be wrong (I was not living in Wales at the time) but surely Wigley retired, rather than got the push? He was getting on a bit and had been leader for a long time.
Nigel Farage has been one of the big losers so far of the referendum campaign, having been largely eclipsed by the Conservative Leavers in the public debate. Interestingly, however, this does not seem to have affected UKIP's polling. That suggests to me that UKIP's brand is now independent of the EU, being a bucket for Trumpite incoherent populist nativist voters.
So UKIP might do well on 6 May without telling us too much about what's going on in the referendum. However, I'm inclined to agree with Mark Senior that they will underperform their polling in the Welsh elections. Their voters don't have all much motivation to come out for this election.
Nate Silver's article questions Betfair's market in one particular aspect. He says the prices on Trump at 53% to win the nomination AND multiple ballots occurring at 63% are not consistent with each other. He doesn't say which of these two prices is (most) wrong. (I think the multiple ballots price is the wrong one. % too big/price too short).
PfP. Shadsy, like any shrewd bookie, is making a book and keeping a nice slice for himself. His odds against the other GOP candidates for the nomination are not bigger than Betfair's. But his overround is.
Betfair's prices are the sum of all market opinion flowing into Betfair. Betfair rates Trump's chances of being the nominee at 1.84-1.86. Anyone who thinks Betfair has got this wrong has the opportunity of making plenty of money backing their opinion on Betfair.
All Nate Silver seems to be saying to me is that the sort of people who are actually likely to get selected as delegates in the GOP are not likely to be Trump supporters. They will probably follow their mandate and vote for him in the first round but after that all bets are off and the likelihood is that Trump will bleed support as unsympathetic delegates find reasons to find themselves unbound.
Personally, I think he underestimates Trump's chances. If he arrives at the Convention as the clear leader albeit short of an absolute majority, having won the most votes and the most States it seems to me that the Republicans would be committing electoral suicide to deny him the nomination. Cruz, who is not exactly Mr popular in the party anyway, has to show himself the winner in some category, either by States or votes or Republican voting states or something and he has to be close. I don't think he will be.
In the discussion downthread about the EU's different "legal and philosophical systems", a lot of work is done by the word "legal". The UK itself has three different legal systems! They do not pose a challenge to UK unity in any way. The real question is about philosophical systems - which are a more interesting topic, and harder to argue there why the Dutch or Danes would prefer French to UK leadership in the EU.
Pedant's note: the UK DOES, of course, have a constitution - there is such a thing as constitutional law! It doesn't have a written constitution that appears in a single document, but even the claim that the UK doesn't have a "written constitution" is wide of the mark because some legislation is clearly constitutional in nature. As an aside, constitutional law in other countries is often not completely defined by the document that says "constitution" in the title.
Nigel Farage has been one of the big losers so far of the referendum campaign, having been largely eclipsed by the Conservative Leavers in the public debate. Interestingly, however, this does not seem to have affected UKIP's polling. That suggests to me that UKIP's brand is now independent of the EU, being a bucket for Trumpite incoherent populist nativist voters.
So UKIP might do well on 6 May without telling us too much about what's going on in the referendum. However, I'm inclined to agree with Mark Senior that they will underperform their polling in the Welsh elections. Their voters don't have all much motivation to come out for this election.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Yes, ignore the pundit who won massive sums of money on the rise of the SNP, after all as is constantly pointed out here he owns a house in NORTHERN IRELAND, that famous bastion of the privileged demeaning intellectual elite.
@YBarddCwsc I could be wrong (I was not living in Wales at the time) but surely Wigley retired, rather than got the push? He was getting on a bit and had been leader for a long time.
At least from what I understand from Plaid Cymru friends.
If that is the case, you're right, they were moronic. Ieuan Wyn Jones never had the same authority (look how at one point the party even made Dafydd Iwan the official leader!) or the same level of personal appeal.
However, it is not his fault Plaid were unable to oust Labour as the SNP did, and had to support them instead. Either a fair electoral system or a moment of sanity by the LDs would have sufficed in 2007.
The chance was squandered and Wales has paid. Any admirers of Corbyn please remember that Welsh Labour is to the right of him, and has far more experience of governing (indeed, more talent too). Public services in a Britain led by Corbyn would look like a much worse version of those in Wales.
Nigel Farage has been one of the big losers so far of the referendum campaign, having been largely eclipsed by the Conservative Leavers in the public debate. Interestingly, however, this does not seem to have affected UKIP's polling. That suggests to me that UKIP's brand is now independent of the EU, being a bucket for Trumpite incoherent populist nativist voters.
So UKIP might do well on 6 May without telling us too much about what's going on in the referendum. However, I'm inclined to agree with Mark Senior that they will underperform their polling in the Welsh elections. Their voters don't have all much motivation to come out for this election.
I think so too, though not been to Wales for years.
Change will come to Labour dominance in Wales, but not yet. The poor national performance of the Tories over the last few months in general, and over Port Talbot in particular are going to hit them. Having a few Kipper AMs should add to the gaity of the nation, if Mr Coburn MEP is anything to judge by. Mostly an incoherent protest vote than any indicator for Brexit.
I am hopeful for a modest LD revival. Wales needs at least one sensible party!
@YBarddCwsc I could be wrong (I was not living in Wales at the time) but surely Wigley retired, rather than got the push? He was getting on a bit and had been leader for a long time.
At least from what I understand from Plaid Cymru friends.
If that is the case, you're right, they were moronic. Ieuan Wyn Jones never had the same authority (look how at one point the party even made Dafydd Iwan the official leader!) or the same level of personal appeal.
However, it is not his fault Plaid were unable to oust Labour as the SNP did, and had to support them instead. Either a fair electoral system or a moment of sanity by the LDs would have sufficed in 2007.
The chance was squandered and Wales has paid. Any admirers of Corbyn please remember that Welsh Labour is to the right of him, and has far more experience of governing (indeed, more talent too). Public services in a Britain led by Corbyn would look like a much worse version of those in Wales.
Do you think Lib Dems agreeing to a coalition with Conservatives would have worked out well for them? We have some empirical evidence on the topic.
OK, I think Trump is going to lose but Dems taking Missouri is a step too far in terms of believability
Are you still expecting Trump to be the candidate?
This long pause between contests has made me uncertain and the stuff with loyalty pledges and delegates becoming unbound has certainly rattled me but I still think Trump will take it in the end.
Maybe.
My betting affairs are certainly organised for such an eventuality.
I got out of that market a few days ago. Now I'm looking at Trump's 1.8 and I'm tempted.
I do think the pause between primaries is a problem for Trump and that is noteworthy in itself. He doesn't seem able to just sit still and be the front-runner. He needs a constant diet of controversy and victory. Without primaries to win he just has the controversy.
One thing that the last week has persuaded me of is that Trump definitely wouldn't win the general. The only threats to Hillary are the FBI, Sanders, and the GOP picking an electable candidate at a contested convention.
UKIP have had a dreadful start to their Assembly campaign, riven by infighting and the eventual choosing of 'surprising' candidates such as Hamilton. This has not gone down well in the valleys and my strong feeling is that they will get less than the 7 seats projected in opinion polls, although I expect 3/4, still too many as far as i am concerned. It could well be that Hamilton will be a regional AM for my constituency, a though that turns my stomach. Labour is jot likely to get much benefit if UKIP do badly, with Plaid being the main beneficiaries. My guess at the moment is that Labour gets 27 seats. The Tories are having a bad press down here over the steel. This may make a marginal, but not significant difference to their chances. I think Labour is doing ok, Plaid are getting a lot of attention, but UKIP are nowhere on it and the charge that we could impose tariffs if we are outside the EU is not really making any impact. Did I mention the Liberals? Who are they? Don't think they will get even the 5 seats they had last time. They are the main losers to any UKIP gains. Ps Port Talbot is presently a dump. God knows what it will be like if the plant closes. Unlike Ken Clarke, I do visit there and not just pass by on the m4!
FWIW , I think the projection given above by David Herdson courtesy Roger Scully is too pessimistic for Labour and too optimistic for UKIP in Wales . The imposition of Hamilton , Reckless and others on the UKIP list candidates will have an adverse effect on their vote share but I still expect them to get 5 list seats . My guesstimate is Lab 30 Plaid 13 Con 10 UKIP 5 LD 2 leaving Labour just short ( again ) of an overall majority ) .
The Scully projection already has Plaid ahead of the Tories in seats despite being behind on votes. You are indicating that gap will grow. Is that on the basis that you think the Tories will under perform their polling (a Port Talbot backlash perhaps) or do you simply think the vagaries of the system will work that way?
A combination of the two ,there will be a Port Talbot backlash against the Conservatives particularly in South Wales to the benefit of both Labour and Plaid . My opinion only of course but we will see in a month's time .
Comments
Even that the UK this is hardly agreed. For example few North of the border would call Westminster "us". Many other people across the UK blame "them" at Westminster.
What we need are politicians that are prepared to take responsibility at all levels, including the EU and start talking about 'us' a bit more.
But, UKIP would need to be better organised. They have certainly shot themselves in the foot by appointing failed Tory politicians (like Reckless and Hamilton) to the regional lists. So, I am less convinced that UKIP will make big inroads than I was six months ago.
Historically, these constituencies (at Westminster) have fallen to independent Labour candidates (e.g., Peter Law, S.O Davies) , and so I think it is more likely that -- many useless Welsh Governments down the line -- a truly grass-roots left-leaning party will emerge and displace the corrupt lumbering hulk of Welsh Labour in the Valleys.
Glasgow eventually got rid of SLAB. I am sure that the Valleys will eventually follow suit.
That said, after Oldham I am very averse to backing UKIP. I suspect that they will not be organised, will underperform and, if I bet on them, will cost me money.
I see their difficulty, but I don't think that concealing a strategy of masterly inactivity will work in electoral terms for 3 months.
Lord knows, we have an infestation of Greens in the Scottish Parliament, an infestation that looks likely to grow after May, so anything is possible with PR seats but Scully's analysis seems surprisingly favourable to UKIP.
But I must have missed Ireland becoming part of continental Europe!
I did say that I'd work out what the results would have been under AMS with a 40/40 split rather than a 40/20. It turns out that all the overhang effects are eliminated, even in the South Wales Labour heartlands. Consequently, the 2016 election using the March YouGov poll, would be:
Lab 29, Plaid 20, Con 18, UKIP 10, LD 2, Grn 1.
Again, that would point to a Lab minority or coalition deal with Plaid but would substantially increase the relative power of the rest.
That said, as long as there's such a left-right divide, with no meaningful centre presence, it's probably impossible to boot Labour out unless Plaid's prepared to take on the leadership and the other parties are prepared to put them there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35949705
The fact he wants members to vote online shows what an utter idiot he is. Game time!
There are fundamental differences in the approach to law and the relationship between the state and the individual and these are reflected in both our political and most importantly our legal principles today. In legal terms it is defined as the difference between Civil Law and Common Law systems.
A very quick and basic overview of the principles is found here:
http://findlaw.co.uk/law/government/european_law/basics_european_law/a-comparative-overview-of-european-legal-systems.html
But cultural, legal and political differences can easily be overstated simply by looking for differences. All nations are different; that's what makes them nations in the first place.
'Honestly, I don't think it has been tried in any serious way. In part, because we've always been flirting with being semi detached, if not - as now - leaving all together. If Remain wins, we will be in, we will be committed and we will have to get on with it.
FWIW I see no magical reason why France or Germany can lead in Europe and we can't. We just have to take it seriously. '
Even Blair that liked all things EU including the euro failed spectacularly and managed to give away a large chunk of our rebate for empty promises.
The standard response from pro EU politicians of all parties is that the EU needs to be reformed,it never happens because the EU doesn't want to be reformed.
The Green's Welsh branch office is composed of the kind of chancers you might meet in a third-rate, snobbish and mildly anti-semitic novel written in the 1920s.
If it is to be an actual party then that has no relationship now with Brexit.
O/T there is a very good piece on Nate Silver's 538 about Donald Trump's chances. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-probably-first-ballot-or-bust-for-donald-trump-at-the-gop-convention/
Well worthy reading
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-35933333
I *so* want to be there if / when it flies for any distance (first flights will almost certainly be ground flights). Cardington's only a short distance down the A428 from me.
As it's also near Bedford, any jokes about a toupee delivery system for OGH should be roundly avoided.
Europe is different to the US
Britain is different to France
England is different to Scotland
London is different to Yorkshire
Kensington and Chelsea is different to Newham
Kensington is different to Chelsea
South Kensington is different to North Kensington
Fulham Road is different to Cromwell Road
Arguably the biggest difference here is within London.
The Welsh Government was busy taking the credit for persuading Aston Martin to move to the Vale of Glamorgan (although the full details of what Aston have been offered are unclear). This presumably had been timed for maximum effect for the Assembly Elections, and the problems at Port Talbot have now de-railed this.
There are countless bodies run by Carwyn and his associates. Like the Welsh Regeneration Investment Fund. What have they been doing?
In fact, the Welsh Regeneration Investment Fund has been caught up in a familiar scandal involving sale of public land at rock bottom prices to Welsh businessmen.
But, you are completely correct. Carwyn and company should not be riding off into the Sunset. The have questions to answer as well. They manage the European Structural Regeneration Funds (1.8 billion).
The EU due to French influence and obsession with the Common Agricultural Policy is very protectionist over agriculture and refuses to sign free trade deals for agriculture (like the Australasians have been signing).
If we leave the EU perhaps to the EEA then this is one of those areas where we could sign a trade deal that the EU blocks due to French protectionism.
One can understand why so many are reluctant to leave. It's a handy organisation to shift blame on to, and an excellent way for duffers turfed out of Parliament to keep their sticky hands in the honey pot. Isn't there someone here who's expressed an interest in clambering onto the Euro greasy pole?
Incidentally, the Duck island claim was never paid out. Brussels hands over loot as 'allowances', no questions asked.
Maybe.
My betting affairs are certainly organised for such an eventuality.
And I note that, just yesterday, though not widely reported, another MEP is facing stir for fiddling his Euro expenses.
Peter Skinner (Labour), former MEP for SE England.
You will notice they sent an opposition MP, not an AS (y'knos, somebody who could DO something) to these negotiations to reinforce the idea that this crisis comes from England and that they are continually being shafted by evil Tories in Westminster. Cameron and Osborne not being exactly beloved in the Valleys, and tribal loyalty to 'their' party being strong, people believe this because they desperately want to believe it's true.
Any organisation that lacks accountability is going to languish.
Voters no doubt pay considerably less attention to the inner workings of UKIP than we do on here so 7 seats may well be obtainable. It is after the referendum (win or lose) that their problems will start
I think you meant to say "most European countries are civil law jurisdictions with no/little common law" - which would be true. However, is that more simply explained by the fact that they had their slates wiped clean post WWII for the Nazisphere/post-1991 for the Warsaw Pact? They've simply not had time to accrete enough cases for "common law" to exist in the same way as it does for England&Wales.
As for Ireland: it takes great pride in defining itself in contradistinction to the UK...then adopts basically the same things, so I think you're right de facto. However Ireland has a constitution and the UK has not, and that is quite a big difference.
http://tinyurl.com/zqy8q86
It's interesting to hear the experience of someone that opened their door to strangers. Leaving aside the financial and social problems around this issue it would appear that the biggest cost could be that it's changed German politics forever. There's always been a sense that German politics is more consensual than ours but the last 12 months appears to have changed that.
https://twitter.com/aidankerrpol/status/716191796078985216
I see no mention is made of the likes of Ladbrokes (and Corals),who through their expert Shadsy, really do know their political betting onions and who have Trump largely unmoved over the past few days at 1.44, compared with Betfair's 1.82.
One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.
Whereas the truth is we are all responsible. For example, we like to buy cheap consumer products and take quick and easy returns on capital through property inflation rather than investment in productive work.
I'm not sure that's possible.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/01/rand-paul-ll-support-trump-if-hes-nominee/82508578/
PA looking good for Trump.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/100000-pennsylvania-democrat-voters-switch-parties-vote-trump/
Interesting to see where Trump is stumping in WI. CDs 1,3,4,7 and 8. Take as many as he can and hope for the best. Some early voting before his recent dip and he seems to be picking back up again in the Ipsos/Reuters tracking poll now anyway.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/schedule
Not intending to be rude but pb is way behind on US politics. Nate knows his onions. It's a good piece which I'm guessing you didn't read 'cos he says the markets make no sense. His piece's about delegate math and the system.
Rejection of 5 member constituencies elected by STV, in 2003(?)
Rejection of the Rainbow Coalition deal by the Liberal Democrats in 2007, forcing Plaid Cymru into coalition with Labour
Election of far-left and ultra-nationalist Leanne Wood as PC leader in 2011, rather than a centrist figure like Elin Jones, coupled to the loss of Nick Bourne and the consequent swing of the Conservatives to the right and a weakening of their commitment to a Welsh form of Conservative policy, ruining any chance of an anti-Labour coalition.
Under the current system, unless Labour dips below about 25% they will always have most seats (anything less than 25 seats would be a shockingly bad result). This is of course why they quietly ditched a commitment to STV. Therefore it is almost inconceivable that any other two parties could command a majority. Even if they could, those two parties are not currently willing to deal with each other.
The net result is that by 2021 Labour will have been continuously in power for 22 years. They are already exhausted. Their ministers are old and intellectually exhausted (those that had intellects to start with). In England, at least two would currently be serving prison sentences for breaking data protection laws, if nothing worse. (So would at least 2 county CEs, by the way.) But they will almost certainly still be in power after that.
Bluntly, short of electoral reform, which would be difficult to get through without imperilling FPTP at Westminster (and therefore won't happen) the only realistic way of breaking Labour's hegemony is if they go bust after the 2020 election and cannot reorganise and recapitalise in time for the nominations process. It's not impossible but it is unlikely. And the overwhelming majority in Wales who hate them and want them out pay the price in terms of lost Jobs and appalling public services.
There was even a suggestion that Prince Edward become their King, but the Foreign Office vetoed it...
Isn't that Grima Wormtongue's favoured expression?
I do think -- having had dealings with the EU myself -- that there is a culture of financial irresponsibility.
I can see how a long-serving MEP, initially with good intentions, can gradually become corrupted by this.
When there is such much money wastage, it must become easy to rationalise to yourself that you too are due a bit more money.
It is form of protective mimicry.
Car manufacturing rose from the ashes. Honda, Nissan, JLR and BMW are booming. Perhaps someone can analyse why they're doing so well, and apply that to the problem. I'm guessing the key might be very modern and highly efficient plant with lower energy costs, and flexible working.
Save Our Steel!
You are right to highlight the behaviour of the LibDems in 2007. Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives had -- astonishingly -- agreed a deal, but it was the LibDem activists who vetoed the Rainbow alliance and prevented the first chance of an alternative Government.
The other turning point was in 1999. It is often forgotten that Plaid Cymru did better than the SNP (relatively speaking) in the first set of devolved elections.
Plaid responded to success by axing their leader (Wigley), and have never replicated their performance in the first set of elections.
The SNP took their chances, while Plaid didn’t.
I like to think in implied % in these situations. Shadys is saying just under 70% chance of Trump, BF is saying mid-50%.
The thrust of the Sliver article is that unless Trump gets over the line in delegates, there are a huge number of uncertainties ahead at the convention and the politics of GOP delegate choice are against him. I've no idea what % chance of Trump failing to get across the line on first pass, and then still going on to win in terms of delegates is, but my hunch is that it is low-ish.
This means the fundamental question really is what are the % chances of Trump getting 1237 delegates?
My guesstimate is Lab 30 Plaid 13 Con 10 UKIP 5 LD 2 leaving Labour just short ( again ) of an overall majority ) .
I think the Port Talbot situation will resonate in South East Wales. The Thatcher government was loathed in the Valleys because it was seen as the unsympathetic instigator of its deindustrialisation. If the EU is seen in the same light[1] regarding Port Talbot then UKIP (I assume the main beneficiary of anti-EU votes) will see an increase.
[1] This is arguably already true. L'affaire Greece hit hard in Wales, who looked at an unsympathetic Germany harassing Greece for debt repayment and remembered the 80's. It's not true that the EU was the cause of Port Talbot but right now it's a blame sponge and a soon-to-be-unemployed steelworker will not be in the mood for niceties when it comes to a vote.
Enjoy the pork pie and cucumber sandwiches at half time!
http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/817151/stream_img.jpg
So UKIP might do well on 6 May without telling us too much about what's going on in the referendum. However, I'm inclined to agree with Mark Senior that they will underperform their polling in the Welsh elections. Their voters don't have all much motivation to come out for this election.
The big fight should be for second place. But as Plaid will ultimately have to deal with Labour to prevent financially ruinous new elections being called, that's not terribly relevant either.
The haggling over executive posts may be interesting, as will who Jones decides to sack to make room for Plaid. Otherwise this election will be alarmingly similar to the previous four.
@YBarddCwsc I could be wrong (I was not living in Wales at the time) but surely Wigley retired, rather than got the push? He was getting on a bit and had been leader for a long time.
Most continental EU countries run on a hybrid of Roman law and the Napoleonic Code (which was itself based on Roman law). Talking about Napoleon bringing civil law to Germany is actually to get legal history backwards. Many of the German states (including Bavaria and Prussia) had civil law systems that were based on the Roman codes by the 18th century; the Naploeonic code actually scrapped France's old feudal-derived legal system and brought it into closer alignment with these other European states which inspired it.
Moreover, "where Napoleon reached" is a very poor guide to the spread of the Napoleonic legal influence, because the codification had legal influence in its own right. Even the German states that Napoleon did not conquer and which already had codes of their own were influenced to some extent by the Napoleonic Code. Switzerland adopted a civil code in 1907 that was based on a hybrid of the German and French systems; Ataturk then largely brought the Swiss civil code to Turkey in the 1920s. The Qing dynasty imported large aspects of the German code to China, and many aspects of the Communist Era legal system still derive from it.
A better who followed his advice would be sitting on big red numbers for Bush, Walker (ha) and Rubio (after all, The Party Decides!)
@ydoethur
I think he “retired”. Rather than retired.
At least from what I understand from Plaid Cymru friends.
PfP. Shadsy, like any shrewd bookie, is making a book and keeping a nice slice for himself. His odds against the other GOP candidates for the nomination are not bigger than Betfair's. But his overround is.
Betfair's prices are the sum of all market opinion flowing into Betfair. Betfair rates Trump's chances of being the nominee at 1.84-1.86. Anyone who thinks Betfair has got this wrong has the opportunity of making plenty of money backing their opinion on Betfair.
Personally, I think he underestimates Trump's chances. If he arrives at the Convention as the clear leader albeit short of an absolute majority, having won the most votes and the most States it seems to me that the Republicans would be committing electoral suicide to deny him the nomination. Cruz, who is not exactly Mr popular in the party anyway, has to show himself the winner in some category, either by States or votes or Republican voting states or something and he has to be close. I don't think he will be.
However, it is not his fault Plaid were unable to oust Labour as the SNP did, and had to support them instead. Either a fair electoral system or a moment of sanity by the LDs would have sufficed in 2007.
The chance was squandered and Wales has paid. Any admirers of Corbyn please remember that Welsh Labour is to the right of him, and has far more experience of governing (indeed, more talent too). Public services in a Britain led by Corbyn would look like a much worse version of those in Wales.
Change will come to Labour dominance in Wales, but not yet. The poor national performance of the Tories over the last few months in general, and over Port Talbot in particular are going to hit them. Having a few Kipper AMs should add to the gaity of the nation, if Mr Coburn MEP is anything to judge by. Mostly an incoherent protest vote than any indicator for Brexit.
I am hopeful for a modest LD revival. Wales needs at least one sensible party!
I do think the pause between primaries is a problem for Trump and that is noteworthy in itself. He doesn't seem able to just sit still and be the front-runner. He needs a constant diet of controversy and victory. Without primaries to win he just has the controversy.
One thing that the last week has persuaded me of is that Trump definitely wouldn't win the general. The only threats to Hillary are the FBI, Sanders, and the GOP picking an electable candidate at a contested convention.
Labour is jot likely to get much benefit if UKIP do badly, with Plaid being the main beneficiaries. My guess at the moment is that Labour gets 27 seats.
The Tories are having a bad press down here over the steel. This may make a marginal, but not significant difference to their chances. I think Labour is doing ok, Plaid are getting a lot of attention, but UKIP are nowhere on it and the charge that we could impose tariffs if we are outside the EU is not really making any impact.
Did I mention the Liberals? Who are they? Don't think they will get even the 5 seats they had last time. They are the main losers to any UKIP gains.
Ps Port Talbot is presently a dump. God knows what it will be like if the plant closes. Unlike Ken Clarke, I do visit there and not just pass by on the m4!
Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz 9h9 hours ago
One week ago, Donald Trump had a 71% chance of winning the GOP nomination.