Well I suspect Switzerland is rather the exception that proves the rule about these kinds of agglomerations, for various reasons. But I am glad you are now openly saying you support the UK being included in a European state. At least one person on the Remain side is being honest.
Belgium is also a clearly not a nation state. Canada, with its Quebecois minority is debateable. The US certainly wasn't in its early days, when it had Swedes in Minnesota, the French in Louisiana, etc.
I'd say there is a 30% chance that the Eurozone will follow the path of the US over the next 250 years and become a country. And a 70% chance it all falls apart.
Well I suspect Switzerland is rather the exception that proves the rule about these kinds of agglomerations, for various reasons. But I am glad you are now openly saying you support the UK being included in a European state. At least one person on the Remain side is being honest.
Belgium is also a clearly not a nation state. Canada, with its Quebecois minority is debateable. The US certainly wasn't in its early days, when it had Swedes in Minnesota, the French in Louisiana, etc.
I'd say there is a 30% chance that the Eurozone will follow the path of the US over the next 250 years and become a country. And a 70% chance it all falls apart.
Kennedy once said (read somewhere) that if he hadn't wanted the Presidency for himself he'd have got behind LBJ. Both were the victims of some incredibly naive advice on Vietnam, and, as others have said, there was the anti-Communist climate in the US. LBJ doesn't get the credit he deserves for Civil Rights..
There's a political theory somewhere that only the Left can change trade union etc legislation and only the Right the City. Or something like that. Which is why the Texan LBJ could carry the South on Civil Rights. For a while anyway!
Well I suspect Switzerland is rather the exception that proves the rule about these kinds of agglomerations, for various reasons. But I am glad you are now openly saying you support the UK being included in a European state. At least one person on the Remain side is being honest.
Belgium is also a clearly not a nation state. Canada, with its Quebecois minority is debateable. The US certainly wasn't in its early days, when it had Swedes in Minnesota, the French in Louisiana, etc.
I'd say there is a 30% chance that the Eurozone will follow the path of the US over the next 250 years and become a country. And a 70% chance it all falls apart.
Belgium is a failed state, I think we'd have to say now. Canada has come very close to breaking up, as we know. I think you maybe exaggerate how 'diverse' the US was in its early days and of course (like Switzerland) it was forged in opposition to the dominating tendencies of an outside power.
I think I would agree broadly with your % fail/succeed estimates for these kinds of agglomerations.
But a key point I would make is that 'failure' can take a long time to lead to break-up. Belgium isn't quite there yet after 180 years, for the Hapsburg and Ottoman states it took centuries and finally the pressure of total war to do it. The EU 'state' could hobble along for many decades even if it falls into the 70% bucket.
The USSR comparison is invalid for so many reasons, one being that it was knotted together through military conquest. The EU is so similar to the UK in this vague non-national but non-military statemaking process, and maybe that's why they look at each other in a funny light, because we are always weirded out by reflections of ourselves and the uncanny valley.
Hmmmm. I look at Hilary another way. 25 years of slur, innuendo, political right wing attacks- many just stupid, shock jock journalism, Fox news-all designed to wound the Clintons- Hilary has endured this for 25 years and she stands on the cusp of the Democratic nomination and being the first female President.
If she does win she is perhaps the most formidable politician of my lifetime.
It depends what you want in politicians. I tend to agree with you, in terms of sheer steeliness and professionalism - I can't remember her making a seriously damaging public comment in that whole time, including Bill's affairs and all the thousands of interviews she must have given. The self-discipline and cold focus are amazing.
What she offers, though, is cool managerialism. At a time when the alternatives are a mad egotist of no reliable views, a religious fanatic disliked by everyone who works with him, and an elderly chap vague on detail (much though I like Bernie), that seems jolly good. But it's not quite the dynamic change that people in most of the West would really like, and I'm not convinced that anything much will change if she wins, except for a slightly more liberal Supreme Court.
Do you think people in most of the West would like dynamic change? We've never had it so good.
That attitude is what drives people towards Trump and Sanders. A large constituency in the West has never had it so good, but just as many have never had it so sclerotic and grinding.
If you mean that (in modern times) things have never been worse for the losers in our societies, I don't think that's true. (But that may not be what you are saying.)
Well I suspect Switzerland is rather the exception that proves the rule about these kinds of agglomerations, for various reasons. But I am glad you are now openly saying you support the UK being included in a European state. At least one person on the Remain side is being honest.
Belgium is also a clearly not a nation state. Canada, with its Quebecois minority is debateable. The US certainly wasn't in its early days, when it had Swedes in Minnesota, the French in Louisiana, etc.
I'd say there is a 30% chance that the Eurozone will follow the path of the US over the next 250 years and become a country. And a 70% chance it all falls apart.
Belgium is a failed state, I think we'd have to say now. Canada has come very close to breaking up, as we know. I think you maybe exaggerate how 'diverse' the US was in its early days and of course (like Switzerland) it was forged in opposition to the dominating tendencies of an outside power.
I think I would agree broadly with your % fail/succeed estimates for these kinds of agglomerations.
But a key point I would make is that 'failure' can take a long time to lead to break-up. Belgium isn't quite there yet after 180 years, for the Hapsburg and Ottoman states it took centuries and finally the pressure of total war to do it. The EU 'state' could hobble along for many decades even if it falls into the 70% bucket.
When you look at a state like Belgium ,you want to wish the eurozone, and all who sail in her, all the best. It's actually a very good idea. Its just not for us.
Kennedy once said (read somewhere) that if he hadn't wanted the Presidency for himself he'd have got behind LBJ. Both were the victims of some incredibly naive advice on Vietnam, and, as others have said, there was the anti-Communist climate in the US. LBJ doesn't get the credit he deserves for Civil Rights..
There's a political theory somewhere that only the Left can change trade union etc legislation and only the Right the City. Or something like that. Which is why the Texan LBJ could carry the South on Civil Rights. For a while anyway!
Find that very hard to believe. The relations between the Kennedys and LBJ were absolutely appalling. They in fact underestimated him and regarded him as a corrupt hack who could twist the Senate but had few principles. He was offered VP as a gesture for party unity and in the confident expectation that he would say no. The Kennedys were horrified when he said yes.
And Bobby ran against him whilst he was a sitting President. I read that when Bobby was elected senator he used to receive correspondence from LBJ addressed Robert Kennedy, SOB. It was pretty mutual.
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The short version of this is that backbenchers should accept every daft idea their leadership comes up with because even their idiotic ideas are better that having Corbyn in. So why bother having MPs, might as well send them all home and let the cabinet make it up as they go along.
No - the short version is to recognise political reality. The Tories are not invincible. And how they - all - behave will have an effect on their chances of victory. If that is not a calculation Tory MPs have in their minds, what the hell are they doing being MPs in the first place?
Well I suspect Switzerland is rather the exception that proves the rule about these kinds of agglomerations, for various reasons. But I am glad you are now openly saying you support the UK being included in a European state. At least one person on the Remain side is being honest.
Belgium is also a clearly not a nation state. Canada, with its Quebecois minority is debateable. The US certainly wasn't in its early days, when it had Swedes in Minnesota, the French in Louisiana, etc.
I'd say there is a 30% chance that the Eurozone will follow the path of the US over the next 250 years and become a country. And a 70% chance it all falls apart.
Belgium is a failed state, I think we'd have to say now. Canada has come very close to breaking up, as we know. I think you maybe exaggerate how 'diverse' the US was in its early days and of course (like Switzerland) it was forged in opposition to the dominating tendencies of an outside power.
I think I would agree broadly with your % fail/succeed estimates for these kinds of agglomerations.
But a key point I would make is that 'failure' can take a long time to lead to break-up. Belgium isn't quite there yet after 180 years, for the Hapsburg and Ottoman states it took centuries and finally the pressure of total war to do it. The EU 'state' could hobble along for many decades even if it falls into the 70% bucket.
Belgium is hardly a failed state. The quality of life for the average citizen is well above that in all bar perhaps 20 countries. If you are born Belgian, you have done well and part of that fortune is provided by the state. Was the United Kingdom a failed state in the 70s? Of course not.
Isn't it a cop-out from argument to say that "Belgium's a failed state, but by the time this statement can be disproved, our great-grandchildren will be dead"?
Well I suspect Switzerland is rather the exception that proves the rule about these kinds of agglomerations, for various reasons. But I am glad you are now openly saying you support the UK being included in a European state. At least one person on the Remain side is being honest.
Belgium is also a clearly not a nation state. Canada, with its Quebecois minority is debateable. The US certainly wasn't in its early days, when it had Swedes in Minnesota, the French in Louisiana, etc.
I'd say there is a 30% chance that the Eurozone will follow the path of the US over the next 250 years and become a country. And a 70% chance it all falls apart.
Belgium is a failed state, I think we'd have to say now. Canada has come very close to breaking up, as we know. I think you maybe exaggerate how 'diverse' the US was in its early days and of course (like Switzerland) it was forged in opposition to the dominating tendencies of an outside power.
I think I would agree broadly with your % fail/succeed estimates for these kinds of agglomerations.
But a key point I would make is that 'failure' can take a long time to lead to break-up. Belgium isn't quite there yet after 180 years, for the Hapsburg and Ottoman states it took centuries and finally the pressure of total war to do it. The EU 'state' could hobble along for many decades even if it falls into the 70% bucket.
Belgium is not a failed state in terms of bombings, rebellion, and the like. (Occasional Islamic terrorism does not make one a failed state.)
Of course, it is the very existence of the EU that makes small states viable. By pooling sovereignty, you make the 2m person country viable, in a way it was not previously.
I've assumed people in general are equally likely to sign a petition, or not.
Therefore I think the petition map will correlate reasonably with eurosceptism by constituency.
I've also assumed turnout will roughly be equally spread around.
I've also used the following figures:
UK voting potential Population 44722000 Welsh voting potential population 2181800
So you might expect if Wales is voting as a bellwether to the rest of the UK 4.9% of signatures to be from Wales.
Totting up at the point there were 123041 signatures on the map, I came up with 5001 signatures in Wales. Which is just over 4% (So we might assume Wales is less eurosceptic than the UK generally)
If we assume 2-1 generally is correct (The Betfair price) then a difference of just 3% (9-4) is too low for Wales, hence
4-9 Wales to REMAIN in the EU @ Paddy Power is the recommendation.
The USSR comparison is invalid for so many reasons, one being that it was knotted together through military conquest. The EU is so similar to the UK in this vague non-national but non-military statemaking process, and maybe that's why they look at each other in a funny light, because we are always weirded out by reflections of ourselves and the uncanny valley.
Well I suspect Switzerland is rather the exception that proves the rule about these kinds of agglomerations, for various reasons. But I am glad you are now openly saying you support the UK being included in a European state. At least one person on the Remain side is being honest.
Belgium is also a clearly not a nation state. Canada, with its Quebecois minority is debateable. The US certainly wasn't in its early days, when it had Swedes in Minnesota, the French in Louisiana, etc.
I'd say there is a 30% chance that the Eurozone will follow the path of the US over the next 250 years and become a country. And a 70% chance it all falls apart.
Belgium is a failed state, I think we'd have to say now. Canada has come very close to breaking up, as we know. I think you maybe exaggerate how 'diverse' the US was in its early days and of course (like Switzerland) it was forged in opposition to the dominating tendencies of an outside power.
I think I would agree broadly with your % fail/succeed estimates for these kinds of agglomerations.
But a key point I would make is that 'failure' can take a long time to lead to break-up. Belgium isn't quite there yet after 180 years, for the Hapsburg and Ottoman states it took centuries and finally the pressure of total war to do it. The EU 'state' could hobble along for many decades even if it falls into the 70% bucket.
When you look at a state like Belgium ,you want to wish the eurozone, and all who sail in her, all the best. It's actually a very good idea. Its just not for us.
I agree. In fact one of the more sensible reasons for us leaving the EU is that we can get out of the way and let the EZ organise their affairs to their own purposes and needs. At the moment we are a serious brake on the development of the EU (because we want a different path) and this is doing both sides real harm.
If we could have rejigged our relationship inside that would probably have been fine but we have found that impossible. We need to take a step back without walking away and that is what the EEA provides.
The USSR comparison is invalid for so many reasons, one being that it was knotted together through military conquest. The EU is so similar to the UK in this vague non-national but non-military statemaking process, and maybe that's why they look at each other in a funny light, because we are always weirded out by reflections of ourselves and the uncanny valley.
The formation of the UK wasn't non-military.
OK, agreed. I should have said that the union between England and Scotland was not implemented immediately after military occupation and conquest. That's the example I was thinking about, and I was completely forgetting about the other parts of the UK.
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The short version of this is that backbenchers should accept every daft idea their leadership comes up with because even their idiotic ideas are better that having Corbyn in. So why bother having MPs, might as well send them all home and let the cabinet make it up as they go along.
No - the short version is to recognise political reality. The Tories are not invincible. And how they - all - behave will have an effect on their chances of victory. If that is not a calculation Tory MPs have in their minds, what the hell are they doing being MPs in the first place?
and yet your prescription for this is for them to stop fighting for things the believe in, and in many cases have waited 40 years for, only to see their leadership take every unfair advantage it can find, and they are supposed not to reply in kind. Sound like DC breaking faith with his backbenchers (see my quote from Hansard below) fine, backbenchers returning it, bad.
If some terrorism makes Belgium a failed state, what would we say about the United Kingdom, where in one constituent country, 0.1 per cent of the population were killed by terrorism, in living memory of most British adults? So I can't accept that line of argument.
The USSR comparison is invalid for so many reasons, one being that it was knotted together through military conquest. The EU is so similar to the UK in this vague non-national but non-military statemaking process, and maybe that's why they look at each other in a funny light, because we are always weirded out by reflections of ourselves and the uncanny valley.
That's intriguing phrasing. You should write a thread header sometime - I always read your posts and as this time wish you'd made them a bit longer.
Marginally less so than the UK in general, but basically "Yes"
UK Wide: FY15/16
' The internet was accessed every day, or almost every day, by 78% of adults (39.3 million) in Great Britain in 2015, compared with 35% (16.2 million) in 2006, when directly comparable records began
Almost all adults aged 16 to 24 (96%) accessed the internet “on the go”, compared with only 29% of those aged 65 years and over '
Wales:
Internet access and use 78% of households had access to the internet. (75% FY 13/14) 81% of people said they personally used the internet. FY14/15.
Well I suspect Switzerland is rather the exception that proves the rule about these kinds of agglomerations, for various reasons. But I am glad you are now openly saying you support the UK being included in a European state. At least one person on the Remain side is being honest.
Belgium is also a clearly not a nation state. Canada, with its Quebecois minority is debateable. The US certainly wasn't in its early days, when it had Swedes in Minnesota, the French in Louisiana, etc.
I'd say there is a 30% chance that the Eurozone will follow the path of the US over the next 250 years and become a country. And a 70% chance it all falls apart.
Belgium is a failed state, I think we'd have to say now. Canada has come very close to breaking up, as we know. I think you maybe exaggerate how 'diverse' the US was in its early days and of course (like Switzerland) it was forged in opposition to the dominating tendencies of an outside power.
I think I would agree broadly with your % fail/succeed estimates for these kinds of agglomerations.
But a key point I would make is that 'failure' can take a long time to lead to break-up. Belgium isn't quite there yet after 180 years, for the Hapsburg and Ottoman states it took centuries and finally the pressure of total war to do it. The EU 'state' could hobble along for many decades even if it falls into the 70% bucket.
Belgium is not a failed state in terms of bombings, rebellion, and the like. (Occasional Islamic terrorism does not make one a failed state.)
Of course, it is the very existence of the EU that makes small states viable. By pooling sovereignty, you make the 2m person country viable, in a way it was not previously.
The first time the term "failed state" entered my consciousness was when Jack Straw (iirc) referred to "the failed Taliban state" in Afghanistan. Since then it has come to mean any country where something goes wrong.
Any 'Conservative' MP doing that should be ashamed of themselves. All it does is help Labour.
Such Euroloons (and their supporters on here) are doing all they can to hurt the country and usher in a Labour, Corbynite government. They're worse than bastards.
Or you could just say it's bad party management.
No, it's them being bastards. There're a heck of a lot of other issues facing the country outside the EU, and legislation needs to be passed. Blocking legislation for reasons other than the legislation's merits does no-one any good.
They're loons who think the EU is more important than good governance. Well, if that's their vision of good governance then perhaps we'd be better off being fully run from Brussels ...
...I am - as PB'ers know - currently inclined to vote leave but the behaviour of some of these Tory MPs and the prospect of a Corbyn government because the Tories can't behave like fucking grown-ups is more likely to shift me to Remain. There are problems with the EU but they are as nothing compared to the problems of incompetent government and terrorist sympathizers in charge of it.
...I am - as PB'ers know - currently inclined to vote leave but the behaviour of some of these Tory MPs and the prospect of a Corbyn government because the Tories can't behave like fucking grown-ups is more likely to shift me to Remain. There are problems with the EU but they are as nothing compared to the problems of incompetent government and terrorist sympathizers in charge of it.
The problem comes with the "abuse" and vote rigging that the people at the top of the party are doing. They are goading the LEAVER MPs by effectively saying "oh look we can go back on earlier implied promises and spend £9m of tax payer money and what can you do about that as we are in charge". If the LEAVER MPs do not retaliate then it will be seen by Cameron/Osborne etc is a form of weakness which can then invite further abuses and unfairness. Or do they respond in a form of ever widening Mutually Assured Destruction actions that will eventually break the party? Cameron/Osborne are playing with the ties that bind the party together. Is delaying or breaking Govt legislation right? No of course. But there has to be some pain suffered by Cameron/Osborne, to stop future abuses and it needs to hurt Cameron/Osborne. I have no idea what that should be - may be you do?
If some terrorism makes Belgium a failed state, what would we say about the United Kingdom, where in one constituent country, 0.1 per cent of the population were killed by terrorism, in living memory of most British adults? So I can't accept that line of argument.
I wasn't referring to terrorism, but rather the increasingly irreconcilable differences between the two main language communities.
As for the formation of the UK being 'non-military', that is obviously nonsense as even a cursory glance at the history of these islands shows.
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The short version of this is that backbenchers should accept every daft idea their leadership comes up with because even their idiotic ideas are better that having Corbyn in. So why bother having MPs, might as well send them all home and let the cabinet make it up as they go along.
Hey who wants democracy when you can have a red baw faced despot instead.
That's a rather ungallant thing to write about Nicola.......
(which party is best known for unthinking obedience 'discipline'?)
Another consequence of the Panama papers will be to impact the forthcoming consultation on the taxation of offshore trusts and other structures due imminently. This has been delayed already, as it is in the tax / politically difficult category. The changes are due to the new deemed domicile rules coming into play from April 2017 for those individuals who have been resident in the UK for more than 15 years out of the last 20.
The current political furore on offshore structures will make it more likely a tougher regime will be introduced.
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The short version of this is that backbenchers should accept every daft idea their leadership comes up with because even their idiotic ideas are better that having Corbyn in. So why bother having MPs, might as well send them all home and let the cabinet make it up as they go along.
No - the short version is to recognise political reality. The Tories are not invincible. And how they - all - behave will have an effect on their chances of victory. If that is not a calculation Tory MPs have in their minds, what the hell are they doing being MPs in the first place?
This then relies on the back bench being loyal to the party whilst Cameron/Osborne are not. Which is of course one of the main reasons why we have this growing split.
If some terrorism makes Belgium a failed state, what would we say about the United Kingdom, where in one constituent country, 0.1 per cent of the population were killed by terrorism, in living memory of most British adults? So I can't accept that line of argument.
I wasn't referring to terrorism, but rather the increasingly irreconcilable differences between the two main language communities.
A state within the EU acquiring territory is an even bigger taboo than separatism, otherwise you could envision a scenario in which Belgium were divided between France and the Netherlands. It would also have the benefit of narrowing the gap between Germany and France in relative weight.
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The short version of this is that backbenchers should accept every daft idea their leadership comes up with because even their idiotic ideas are better that having Corbyn in. So why bother having MPs, might as well send them all home and let the cabinet make it up as they go along.
No - the short version is to recognise political reality. The Tories are not invincible. And how they - all - behave will have an effect on their chances of victory. If that is not a calculation Tory MPs have in their minds, what the hell are they doing being MPs in the first place?
and yet your prescription for this is for them to stop fighting for things the believe in, and in many cases have waited 40 years for, only to see their leadership take every unfair advantage it can find, and they are supposed not to reply in kind. Sound like DC breaking faith with his backbenchers (see my quote from Hansard below) fine, backbenchers returning it, bad.
JFK was drawing down US forces in Vietnam, LBJ escalated. Anyway LBJ is a subject unique to himself from Billie Sol Estes, to the Bobby Baker scandal, to Mac Wallace, to the USS Liberty. His 'escapades' have been well documented. LBJ's great society was a comprehensive disaster, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed.
Hillary is a dreadful politician, who even now is conspiring to lose a race against Bernie Sanders, an elderly wild eyed socialist. She also has an absolutely dreadful record in government, and that is ignoring her awesome record of corruption that looks like it will end with her in prison.
My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life.
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The short version of this is that backbenchers should accept every daft idea their leadership comes up with because even their idiotic ideas are better that having Corbyn in. So why bother having MPs, might as well send them all home and let the cabinet make it up as they go along.
No - the short version is to recognise political reality. The Tories are not invincible. And how they - all - behave will have an effect on their chances of victory. If that is not a calculation Tory MPs have in their minds, what the hell are they doing being MPs in the first place?
and yet your prescription for this is for them to stop fighting for things the believe in, and in many cases have waited 40 years for, only to see their leadership take every unfair advantage it can find, and they are supposed not to reply in kind. Sound like DC breaking faith with his backbenchers (see my quote from Hansard below) fine, backbenchers returning it, bad.
No - my prescription is, as I said below, for those in favour of Leave to make their case to the voters coherently and sensibly.
At the moment, they are not and are (a) arguing amongst themselves; and (b) arguing about process in a way guaranteed to turn off those voters they need to persuade to their cause. Every day they spend moaning about the £9 million (however right they may be) is a day lost for actually making their case to voters.
Sometimes when trying to win a case, you have a choice of arguments. To maximise your chances of winning you have to focus and choose the best one or two. Making the most noise about the weakest argument you have is not the best route to success. This is politics not a primary school playground, for heaven's sake. Crying "It's not fair" is pathetic and naïve of them. Why didn't anyone in the Leave campaign think about raising money to send out their own leaflets ahead of the formal campaign? It's hardly rocket science, is it.
And they should make their decision on other government legislation on its merits not hold it hostage. Of course they can choose to do this but a cursory glance at the history of their own party (Mastricht?) should tell even the dimmest ones where this is likely to lead.
Another consequence of the Panama papers will be to impact the forthcoming consultation on the taxation of offshore trusts and other structures due imminently. This has been delayed already, as it is in the tax / politically difficult category. The changes are due to the new deemed domicile rules coming into play from April 2017 for those individuals who have been resident in the UK for more than 15 years out of the last 20.
The current political furore on offshore structures will make it more likely a tougher regime will be introduced.
Maybe. But since one of the biggest players in the offshore shell company game is the USA, it might not get as far as we might hope. Even now the IRS will tell external tax authorities basically nothing that happens inside the borders of the US, they take the view that taxation within the USA is their business and no one else's. Other big players like Singapore are not interested in any sort of investigation unless its is of a criminal nature and accompanied by a warrant, civil law investigations into tax liabilities don't get far.
Another consequence of the Panama papers will be to impact the forthcoming consultation on the taxation of offshore trusts and other structures due imminently. This has been delayed already, as it is in the tax / politically difficult category. The changes are due to the new deemed domicile rules coming into play from April 2017 for those individuals who have been resident in the UK for more than 15 years out of the last 20.
The current political furore on offshore structures will make it more likely a tougher regime will be introduced.
But since one of the biggest players in the offshore shell company game is the USA, it might not get as far as we might hope.
It's going to get nowhere. You run slap bang into 'States' rights' and as long as Delaware is a state, nothing very much, if anything will happen.
Meanwhile, in the name of 'Something Must Be Done we'll have driven business away from London.
The USSR comparison is invalid for so many reasons, one being that it was knotted together through military conquest. The EU is so similar to the UK in this vague non-national but non-military statemaking process, and maybe that's why they look at each other in a funny light, because we are always weirded out by reflections of ourselves and the uncanny valley.
The difference between the UK and the EU is that nation membership of the UK is not voluntary, it is enforced. The EU is more of a voluntary members club where you pay your dues and follow the rules if you want to enjoy the benefits. But you can leave at any time.
This is not true of the nation states of the UK. Any referendum on independence is a concession by the UK government. Unlike the EU, the UK has armed forces, police and prisons to enforce its will in extremis. It is not a members club.
JFK was drawing down US forces in Vietnam, LBJ escalated. Anyway LBJ is a subject unique to himself from Billie Sol Estes, to the Bobby Baker scandal, to Mac Wallace, to the USS Liberty. His 'escapades' have been well documented. LBJ's great society was a comprehensive disaster, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed.
Hillary is a dreadful politician, who even now is conspiring to lose a race against Bernie Sanders, an elderly wild eyed socialist. She also has an absolutely dreadful record in government, and that is ignoring her awesome record of corruption that looks like it will end with her in prison.
My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life.
1. Cameron is by far the best asset the Tory party has. 2. The Tories do not have a large majority. 3. It would not take the loss of many votes for them to lose their majority. 4. When Cameron goes they are not over-endowed with talent to replace him. 5. They are being far too complacent in assuming that Labour - even under Corbyn - cannot be elected into government. 6. A Labour government - whether led by Corbyn or some replacement such as McDonnell or other from that wing of the party - would be an utter fucking disaster for Britain.
The short version of this is that backbenchers should accept every daft idea their leadership comes up with because even their idiotic ideas are better that having Corbyn in. So why bother having MPs, might as well send them all home and let the cabinet make it up as they go along.
No - the short version is to recognise political reality. The Tories are not invincible. And how they - all - behave will have an effect on their chances of victory. If that is not a calculation Tory MPs have in their minds, what the hell are they doing being MPs in the first place?
This then relies on the back bench being loyal to the party whilst Cameron/Osborne are not. Which is of course one of the main reasons why we have this growing split.
Oh for crying out loud! Cameron won an absolute majority when pretty much everyone thought he could not do it. Many of those backbenchers wouldn't be MPs were it not for him. Some of them would be ex-MPs now.
I'm no Cameron cheerleader - and don't think much (to put it mildly) of how he has handled the EU renegotiations (as my previous posts will show) - but there is a lot of self-indulgent nonsense floating around. You'd have thought that Cameron and Osborne had suddenly announced they'd joined the SWP the way some are going on.
LBJ said that once he passed the Civil Rights laws, the Democrats would lose the south for a generation. And so it proved to be. It is difficult to imagine a US where California and the east were GOP strongholds, and the south was the bedrock of the Democrats. And then came LBJ
Kennedy once said (read somewhere) that if he hadn't wanted the Presidency for himself he'd have got behind LBJ. Both were the victims of some incredibly naive advice on Vietnam, and, as others have said, there was the anti-Communist climate in the US. LBJ doesn't get the credit he deserves for Civil Rights..
There's a political theory somewhere that only the Left can change trade union etc legislation and only the Right the City. Or something like that. Which is why the Texan LBJ could carry the South on Civil Rights. For a while anyway!
On Cameron- he really is growing into someone I admire. Considering his background he could easily been just another Bullingdon, fox hunting, wealthy, elitist, money grabbing, little England Tory. I couldn't see beyond Cameron's background during those early years.
He clearly though has rejected his background somewhere along the way and is a thoroughly decent man. His commitment to overseas aid, and I think to the NHS are real. His championing of the EU referendum is something to behold for Europhiles like myself. Also, if it hadn't been for the banking crisis, he would have maintained Labour's broadly social democratic commitment to public spending. His approach to the migrant crisis is based on common sense rather than anything more sinister.
The stuff that has come out this week with his dad just proves to me even more how far Cameron has grown away from his background.
He's obviously not a control freak either- which has got him into trouble with like of Lansley and now Hunt who have managed to score some own goals with the NHS.
The Tory party is probably going to struggle to recover after the EU referendum; and the Labour party faultlines with Corbyn as leader are just unsustainable.
Something tells me that British politics is going to go through some kind of major sea change this year- and I for one hope that Cameron remains on the scene for many more years.
I agree with all of that. I suspect we might be aging in a too predictable way
Worth noting that Guido seems to be dropping some pretty big hints that there's more to come, implying that there's another trust out there, that possibly owns the family home. Given Guido's passionate Euroscepticism, he won't hold back on Cameron this side of the referendum.
Comments
There's a political theory somewhere that only the Left can change trade union etc legislation and only the Right the City. Or something like that. Which is why the Texan LBJ could carry the South on Civil Rights. For a while anyway!
I think I would agree broadly with your % fail/succeed estimates for these kinds of agglomerations.
But a key point I would make is that 'failure' can take a long time to lead to break-up. Belgium isn't quite there yet after 180 years, for the Hapsburg and Ottoman states it took centuries and finally the pressure of total war to do it. The EU 'state' could hobble along for many decades even if it falls into the 70% bucket.
The USSR comparison is invalid for so many reasons, one being that it was knotted together through military conquest. The EU is so similar to the UK in this vague non-national but non-military statemaking process, and maybe that's why they look at each other in a funny light, because we are always weirded out by reflections of ourselves and the uncanny valley.
And Bobby ran against him whilst he was a sitting President. I read that when Bobby was elected senator he used to receive correspondence from LBJ addressed Robert Kennedy, SOB. It was pretty mutual.
Isn't it a cop-out from argument to say that "Belgium's a failed state, but by the time this statement can be disproved, our great-grandchildren will be dead"?
Of course, it is the very existence of the EU that makes small states viable. By pooling sovereignty, you make the 2m person country viable, in a way it was not previously.
If we could have rejigged our relationship inside that would probably have been fine but we have found that impossible. We need to take a step back without walking away and that is what the EEA provides.
I should have said that the union between England and Scotland was not implemented immediately after military occupation and conquest. That's the example I was thinking about, and I was completely forgetting about the other parts of the UK.
Marginally less so than the UK in general, but basically "Yes"
UK Wide: FY15/16
' The internet was accessed every day, or almost every day, by 78% of adults (39.3 million) in Great Britain in 2015, compared with 35% (16.2 million) in 2006, when directly comparable records began
Almost all adults aged 16 to 24 (96%) accessed the internet “on the go”, compared with only 29% of those aged 65 years and over '
Wales:
Internet access and use 78% of households had access to the internet. (75% FY 13/14)
81% of people said they personally used the internet. FY14/15.
As for the formation of the UK being 'non-military', that is obviously nonsense as even a cursory glance at the history of these islands shows.
(which party is best known for unthinking obedience 'discipline'?)
The current political furore on offshore structures will make it more likely a tougher regime will be introduced.
Hillary is a dreadful politician, who even now is conspiring to lose a race against Bernie Sanders, an elderly wild eyed socialist. She also has an absolutely dreadful record in government, and that is ignoring her awesome record of corruption that looks like it will end with her in prison.
My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life.
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001600.html
At the moment, they are not and are (a) arguing amongst themselves; and (b) arguing about process in a way guaranteed to turn off those voters they need to persuade to their cause. Every day they spend moaning about the £9 million (however right they may be) is a day lost for actually making their case to voters.
Sometimes when trying to win a case, you have a choice of arguments. To maximise your chances of winning you have to focus and choose the best one or two. Making the most noise about the weakest argument you have is not the best route to success. This is politics not a primary school playground, for heaven's sake. Crying "It's not fair" is pathetic and naïve of them. Why didn't anyone in the Leave campaign think about raising money to send out their own leaflets ahead of the formal campaign? It's hardly rocket science, is it.
And they should make their decision on other government legislation on its merits not hold it hostage. Of course they can choose to do this but a cursory glance at the history of their own party (Mastricht?) should tell even the dimmest ones where this is likely to lead.
It is fun the lengths the UK papers are going to to avoid tripping themselves up on pronouns......
Won;t take long for you to work it out on twitter I suspect
Fortunately for Hillary it isn't ;p
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Meanwhile, in the name of 'Something Must Be Done we'll have driven business away from London.
This is not true of the nation states of the UK. Any referendum on independence is a concession by the UK government. Unlike the EU, the UK has armed forces, police and prisons to enforce its will in extremis. It is not a members club.
This message brought to you by Trolls for Trump.
I'm no Cameron cheerleader - and don't think much (to put it mildly) of how he has handled the EU renegotiations (as my previous posts will show) - but there is a lot of self-indulgent nonsense floating around. You'd have thought that Cameron and Osborne had suddenly announced they'd joined the SWP the way some are going on.