We don't yet know whether it's been a bad few days from Leave. We won't know till there's some serious polling, not just about how people feel about Obama (which Sean F says isn't positive?), but about how it's affected their voting intentions.
Amen. There's far too much counting of unhatched chickens
The media conversation is being dominated by macroeconomics. That sails over most people's heads.
Leave need to bring the conversation back to real individual cost with clear cut pledges through to the next election. They also need to concentrate on the social and cultural impacts domestically. Taxes, wages, prices, welfare costs, housing, healthcare.
Obama has basically acknowledged that Brexit are correct on a US trade deal:
""It's fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement...."
Why should they be denied ? They are welcome here to add to out brilliant diversity.
It is no accident that Britain started over-taking other European nations in the last 10 to 15 years precisely because new immigrants gave an added push to our economy.
This is precisely why the US has been the engine of the world. They always have had immigrants enhancing their economic growth potential.
Compare that with the stagnation of Japan. They are going backwards. As the population gets older and the working age people gets disproportionately smaller.
Watch Germany 5 years from now. No one will thank Angela Merkel then but they should.
The greatest European leader since the War bar Willy Brandt.
I say this as a socialist.
Our rate of economic growth over the past 10-15 years has been way below the post-war average. Those countries we've overtaken have simply performed worse (some of them, countries of high immigration).
Bollocks ! Which country had a higher rate of immigration in the last 10-15 years in Europe except Ireland ?
Germany had a huge influx in the 60s and 70s and they GREW. Did they not ? !!!! As they will again.
Italy has had net immigration of about 3.5 m since 2002, as well as a stagnant economy. I'm not arguing that mass immigration leads to low or no growth. I'm arguing that the common argument for mass immigration, that it produces high growth, is not well-founded.
Farage said today that the US negotiated a trade deal with Australia in ten months, I don't know if that's correct but Gove needs to come out and counter Obama's claims with facts and figures.
The referendum is becoming more important to me all the time, its time we sent a message to Cameron, Obama and their runners that we are sick and tired of being fed bullshit. Yes, this vote is about the EU but its becoming something bigger, about reminding our politicians that they are public servants, paid to represent us and not vice versa.
Oh, and who handed out the invitations to Obama's "town hall" meeting yesterday? The audience wasn't in any way representative of the electorate, it looked Obama had hand picked them personally.
It was strange of Theresa May to go on Marr when the whole staying in the background thing was working so well for her, with Osborne, Johnson, Javid all imploding. It also brings immigration back into focus which is not what the remain camp would have wanted.
Day 3 of the Obamadrama and the Leavers are still wailing like police sirens.
The overreaction seems far more likely to be damaging to the Leave cause than Barack Obama's actual comments.
Bit like unionists in Scotland, it seems to be the winners ( Remain) who are doing all the wailing. Seems they are still concerned the troughs may be removed.
The media conversation is being dominated by macroeconomics. That sails over most people's heads.
Leave need to bring the conversation back to real individual cost with clear cut pledges through to the next election. They also need to concentrate on the social and cultural impacts domestically. Taxes, wages, prices, welfare costs, housing, healthcare.
Obama has basically acknowledged that Brexit are correct on a US trade deal:
""It's fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement...."
Why should they be denied ? They are welcome here to add to out brilliant diversity.
It is no accident that Britain started over-taking other European nations in the last 10 to 15 years precisely because new immigrants gave an added push to our economy.
This is precisely why the US has been the engine of the world. They always have had immigrants enhancing their economic growth potential.
Compare that with the stagnation of Japan. They are going backwards. As the population gets older and the working age people gets disproportionately smaller.
Watch Germany 5 years from now. No one will thank Angela Merkel then but they should.
The greatest European leader since the War bar Willy Brandt.
I say this as a socialist.
Our rate of economic growth over the past 10-15 years has been way below the post-war average. Those countries we've overtaken have simply performed worse (some of them, countries of high immigration).
Bollocks ! Which country had a higher rate of immigration in the last 10-15 years in Europe except Ireland ?
Germany had a huge influx in the 60s and 70s and they GREW. Did they not ? !!!! As they will again.
Italy has had net immigration of about 3.5 m since 2002, as well as a stagnant economy. I'm not arguing that mass immigration leads to low or no growth. I'm arguing that the common argument for mass immigration, that it produces high growth, is not well-founded.
More succinctly it is total bollox and only benefits those who are already rich with some cheap labour.
A narrow Remain vote would not be a vote for the UK to enter the Eurozone, if that were ever the question Leave would almost certainly win. The main consequence of a narrow Remain would be to boost UKIP, I could well see a result in 2020 something like Tories 34%, Labour 31%, UKIP 16% and a hung parliament with UKIP potentially having the balance of power
According to Electoral Calculus, your share predictions would give UKIP four seats and leave the Tories 18 short of a majority. The SNP would hold the balance of power.
If you add in the DUP and UUP to the UKIP total that would be more than Labour + SNP
Labour would also have support of SDLP, Plaid, Green and maybe Lady H.
The boundary changes could be key
The boundary changes have always been uncertain in terms of whether they are likely to be approved. It must be more likely now that alienated Brexit Tory MPs will find a way of sabotaging them - if only to spite Cameron.
They still provide a net benefit to the Tories, enough are likely to back them
It is pretty easy to imagine a good dozen failing to do so. As it was, four or five Welsh Tories were likely to oppose them as well as the MP for Shipley. Add in a couple of by-election reverses by late 2018 and the vote looks very problematic.
There will be a 3 line whip, it is not an issue there will be a mass rebellion on
You appear to have forgotten that there was a rebellion last time - opposition to the boundary changes was not confined to the LibDems! The EU fractures will almost add to the list of rebels - some of whom will no longer give a damn about a 3 line whip..
There was an opposition to Lords Reform which led the LDs to oppose boundary changes, it was not a Tory rebellion on the issue
There were four Tories who rebelled - Philip Davies - David Davis - Richard Shepherd - and John Baron. Others abstained. Moreover, that was without the EU fractures!
4 out of 306, Richard Shepherd is no longer an MP
But others abstained - eg Glyn Davies from Montgomery. By Autumn 2018 the Government's majority may only be in single figures. I suspect you are being very optimistic to believe the EU row will make no difference.
A narrow Remain vote would not be a vote for the UK to enter the Eurozone, if that were ever the question Leave would almost certainly win. The main consequence of a narrow Remain would be to boost UKIP, I could well see a result in 2020 something like Tories 34%, Labour 31%, UKIP 16% and a hung parliament with UKIP potentially having the balance of power
According to Electoral Calculus, your share predictions would give UKIP four seats and leave the Tories 18 short of a majority. The SNP would hold the balance of power.
If you add in the DUP and UUP to the UKIP total that would be more than Labour + SNP
Labour would also have support of SDLP, Plaid, Green and maybe Lady H.
The boundary changes could be key
The boundary changes have always been uncertain in terms of whether they are likely to be approved. It must be more likely now that alienated Brexit Tory MPs will find a way of sabotaging them - if only to spite Cameron.
They still provide a net benefit to the Tories, enough are likely to back them
It is pretty easy to imagine a good dozen failing to do so. As it was, four or five Welsh Tories were likely to oppose them as well as the MP for Shipley. Add in a couple of by-election reverses by late 2018 and the vote looks very problematic.
There will be a 3 line whip, it is not an issue there will be a mass rebellion on
You appear to have forgotten that there was a rebellion last time - opposition to the boundary changes was not confined to the LibDems! The EU fractures will almost add to the list of rebels - some of whom will no longer give a damn about a 3 line whip..
There was an opposition to Lords Reform which led the LDs to oppose boundary changes, it was not a Tory rebellion on the issue
There were four Tories who rebelled - Philip Davies - David Davis - Richard Shepherd - and John Baron. Others abstained. Moreover, that was without the EU fractures!
4 out of 306, Richard Shepherd is no longer an MP
Another 6 more out of the 141 backing Brexit, and that's the governments working majority gone.
A narrow Remain vote would not be a vote for the UK to enter the Eurozone, if that were ever the question Leave would almost certainly win. The main consequence of a narrow Remain would be to boost UKIP, I could well see a result in 2020 something like Tories 34%, Labour 31%, UKIP 16% and a hung parliament with UKIP potentially having the balance of power
According to Electoral Calculus, your share predictions would give UKIP four seats and leave the Tories 18 short of a majority. The SNP would hold the balance of power.
If you add in the DUP and UUP to the UKIP total that would be more than Labour + SNP
But not more than Lab + SNP +LD + Green + PC + SDLP. It would be very close. It would be truly hung.
Indeed and another election would probably not be too far off, you would also need to consider what impact the boundary changes would have too
If they are passed!
The boundary changes go through in 2018 automatically, without any vote, no?
Farage said today that the US negotiated a trade deal with Australia in ten months, I don't know if that's correct but Gove needs to come out and counter Obama's claims with facts and figures.
The referendum is becoming more important to me all the time, its time we sent a message to Cameron, Obama and their runners that we are sick and tired of being fed bullshit. Yes, this vote is about the EU but its becoming something bigger, about reminding our politicians that they are public servants, paid to represent us and not vice versa.
Oh, and who handed out the invitations to Obama's "town hall" meeting yesterday? The audience wasn't in any way representative of the electorate, it looked Obama had hand picked them personally.
Farage said today that the US negotiated a trade deal with Australia in ten months, I don't know if that's correct but Gove needs to come out and counter Obama's claims with facts and figures.
It's not: U.S. first proposed a free trade agreement with Australia as far back as 1945. In more recent times, the prospect of an Australia-U.S. FTA was raised in the 1980s by the Hawke Government, and in 1992 U.S. president George H. W. Bush offered to begin FTA negotiations with Australia, but was turned down by Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Paul Keating.[1]
It was not until early 2001, after the election of George W. Bush in the U.S. and with John Howard in power in Australia, that an Australia-U.S. FTA finally began to take shape. In April 2001, President Bush signalled his interest in pursuing an FTA with Australia provided "everything is on the table". Following this, in 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned a private consultancy – the Centre for International Economics (CIE) – to model the economic impacts of such an agreement. Negotiations for the FTA began in April 2003 and after five rounds of negotiations held in Canberra, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., the text was finally agreed to in February 2004, and signed off on by Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in Washington in May 2004.
We don't yet know whether it's been a bad few days from Leave. We won't know till there's some serious polling, not just about how people feel about Obama (which Sean F says isn't positive?), but about how it's affected their voting intentions.
Amen. There's far too much counting of unhatched chickens
Up until 10 pm, on polling day, the general consensus was that the the Tories had run a poor general election campaign. Then, the consensus shifted.
I don't find Boris Johnson's ad hominem criticisms edifying, but I'm not his target audience (I'm no great fan of his). But, lots of people do like him and listen to him, and he gets away with things that would hurt other politicians. And plainly *some* of Leave's attack lines (on immigration, lack of self-government) are getting through to the voters.
Farage said today that the US negotiated a trade deal with Australia in ten months, I don't know if that's correct but Gove needs to come out and counter Obama's claims with facts and figures.
It's not: U.S. first proposed a free trade agreement with Australia as far back as 1945. In more recent times, the prospect of an Australia-U.S. FTA was raised in the 1980s by the Hawke Government, and in 1992 U.S. president George H. W. Bush offered to begin FTA negotiations with Australia, but was turned down by Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Paul Keating.[1]
It was not until early 2001, after the election of George W. Bush in the U.S. and with John Howard in power in Australia, that an Australia-U.S. FTA finally began to take shape. In April 2001, President Bush signalled his interest in pursuing an FTA with Australia provided "everything is on the table". Following this, in 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned a private consultancy – the Centre for International Economics (CIE) – to model the economic impacts of such an agreement. Negotiations for the FTA began in April 2003 and after five rounds of negotiations held in Canberra, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., the text was finally agreed to in February 2004, and signed off on by Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in Washington in May 2004.
Surely the PB received wisdom, that Dave's successor will have to be a Leaver, has taken a pounding. Gove has made too many unforced errors and Boris has confirmed some dark suspicions. Many Tory MPs will conclude that this Leave lark really isn't worth the bother - why jeopardise your reputation and prospects by being associated with jokers. This has been a dark week for Tory euroscepticism. Meanwhille Osborne is firmly back in the frame.
It was strange of Theresa May to go on Marr when the whole staying in the background thing was working so well for her, with Osborne, Johnson, Javid all imploding. It also brings immigration back into focus which is not what the remain camp would have wanted.
There was an article in the paper last week about Cam wanting to push her forward as the "secret weapon". More likely he doesn't want her sitting at home keeping her powder dry and not offending anyone while his prefered candidate (Osborne) is busy pissing off half the electorate in the name of the cause.
Surely the PB received wisdom, that Dave's successor will have to be a Leaver, has taken a pounding. Gove has made too many unforced errors and Boris has confirmed some dark suspicions. Many Tory MPs will conclude that this Leave lark really isn't worth the bother - why jeopardise your reputation and prospects by being associated with jokers. This has been a dark week for Tory euroscepticism. Meanwhille Osborne is firmly back in the frame.
The invisible man who has not been seen since his disaster of a budget
Surely the PB received wisdom, that Dave's successor will have to be a Leaver, has taken a pounding. Gove has made too many unforced errors and Boris has confirmed some dark suspicions. Many Tory MPs will conclude that this Leave lark really isn't worth the bother - why jeopardise your reputation and prospects by being associated with jokers. This has been a dark week for Tory euroscepticism. Meanwhille Osborne is firmly back in the frame.
Osborne, the election liability. Good luck with him.
A narrow Remain vote would not be a vote for the UK to enter the Eurozone, if that were ever the question Leave would almost certainly win. The main consequence of a narrow Remain would be to boost UKIP, I could well see a result in 2020 something like Tories 34%, Labour 31%, UKIP 16% and a hung parliament with UKIP potentially having the balance of power
According to Electoral Calculus, your share predictions would give UKIP four seats and leave the Tories 18 short of a majority. The SNP would hold the balance of power.
If you add in the DUP and UUP to the UKIP total that would be more than Labour + SNP
But not more than Lab + SNP +LD + Green + PC + SDLP. It would be very close. It would be truly hung.
Indeed and another election would probably not be too far off, you would also need to consider what impact the boundary changes would have too
If they are passed!
The boundary changes go through in 2018 automatically, without any vote, no?
I thought it was a Statutory Instrument laid before parliament. Which if I recall have to be explicitly voted down, rather than approved, so tend to go through on the nod, which might be a rather courageous assumption this time.
We don't yet know whether it's been a bad few days from Leave. We won't know till there's some serious polling, not just about how people feel about Obama (which Sean F says isn't positive?), but about how it's affected their voting intentions.
Amen. There's far too much counting of unhatched chickens
Up until 10 pm, on polling day, the general consensus was that the the Tories had run a poor general election campaign. Then, the consensus shifted.
I don't find Boris Johnson's ad hominem criticisms edifying, but I'm not his target audience (I'm no great fan of his). But, lots of people do like him and listen to him, and he gets away with things that would hurt other politicians. And plainly *some* of Leave's attack lines (on immigration, lack of self-government) are getting through to the voters.
Boris is flawed but then most politicians are. I prefer his flaws to those on the EU gravy train like the Kinnocks and just on the gravy train like Blair.
A narrow Remain vote would not be a vote for the UK to enter the Eurozone, if that were ever the question Leave would almost certainly win. The main consequence of a narrow Remain would be to boost UKIP, I could well see a result in 2020 something like Tories 34%, Labour 31%, UKIP 16% and a hung parliament with UKIP potentially having the balance of power
According to Electoral Calculus, your share predictions would give UKIP four seats and leave the Tories 18 short of a majority. The SNP would hold the balance of power.
If you add in the DUP and UUP to the UKIP total that would be more than Labour + SNP
Labour would also have support of SDLP, Plaid, Green and maybe Lady H.
The boundary changes could be key
The boundary changes have always been uncertain in terms of whether they are likely to be approved. It must be more likely now that alienated Brexit Tory MPs will find a way of sabotaging them - if only to spite Cameron.
They still provide a net benefit to the Tories, enough are likely to back them
It is pretty easy to imagine a good dozen failing to do so. As it was, four or five Welsh Tories were likely to oppose them as well as the MP for Shipley. Add in a couple of by-election reverses by late 2018 and the vote looks very problematic.
There will be a 3 line whip, it is not an issue there will be a mass rebellion on
You appear to have forgotten that there was a rebellion last time - opposition to the boundary changes was not confined to the LibDems! The EU fractures will almost add to the list of rebels - some of whom will no longer give a damn about a 3 line whip..
There was an opposition to Lords Reform which led the LDs to oppose boundary changes, it was not a Tory rebellion on the issue
There were four Tories who rebelled - Philip Davies - David Davis - Richard Shepherd - and John Baron. Others abstained. Moreover, that was without the EU fractures!
4 out of 306, Richard Shepherd is no longer an MP
Another 6 more out of the 141 backing Brexit, and that's the governments working majority gone.
Surely the PB received wisdom, that Dave's successor will have to be a Leaver, has taken a pounding. Gove has made too many unforced errors and Boris has confirmed some dark suspicions. Many Tory MPs will conclude that this Leave lark really isn't worth the bother - why jeopardise your reputation and prospects by being associated with jokers. This has been a dark week for Tory euroscepticism. Meanwhille Osborne is firmly back in the frame.
Osborne loses to Corbyn, apart from that, a flawless plan.
Farage said today that the US negotiated a trade deal with Australia in ten months, I don't know if that's correct but Gove needs to come out and counter Obama's claims with facts and figures.
It's not: U.S. first proposed a free trade agreement with Australia as far back as 1945. In more recent times, the prospect of an Australia-U.S. FTA was raised in the 1980s by the Hawke Government, and in 1992 U.S. president George H. W. Bush offered to begin FTA negotiations with Australia, but was turned down by Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Paul Keating.[1]
It was not until early 2001, after the election of George W. Bush in the U.S. and with John Howard in power in Australia, that an Australia-U.S. FTA finally began to take shape. In April 2001, President Bush signalled his interest in pursuing an FTA with Australia provided "everything is on the table". Following this, in 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned a private consultancy – the Centre for International Economics (CIE) – to model the economic impacts of such an agreement. Negotiations for the FTA began in April 2003 and after five rounds of negotiations held in Canberra, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., the text was finally agreed to in February 2004, and signed off on by Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in Washington in May 2004.
Negotiations for the FTA began in April 2003 and after five rounds of negotiations held in Canberra, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., the text was finally agreed to in February 2004,
Negotiations for the FTA began in April 2003 and after five rounds of negotiations held in Canberra, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., the text was finally agreed to in February 2004,
This is my point, Cameron/Obama conspired to scare people, in the immediate aftermath it appeared to have worked but it was nothing more than bollox.
I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that I can never believe anything you tell me in the future.
Cameron (along with several irrelevant pbers) is rapidly gaining a reputation as being thoroughly dishonest, even among his supporters. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Cameron (along with several irrelevant pbers) is rapidly gaining a reputation as being thoroughly dishonest, even among his supporters. Don't say I didn't warn you.
We have known about Cast Iron Dave and his flexible attitude to the truth for a long time, and to be honest we shouldn't be that surprised when a group of politically engaged lawyers have a certain intellectual suppleness when it comes to supporting their man Then there are the cut and pasters who will ramp any old bollocks because they think its what a loyal party person would do and they don't have the wit to see how idiotic it looks.
Surely the PB received wisdom, that Dave's successor will have to be a Leaver, has taken a pounding. Gove has made too many unforced errors and Boris has confirmed some dark suspicions. Many Tory MPs will conclude that this Leave lark really isn't worth the bother - why jeopardise your reputation and prospects by being associated with jokers. This has been a dark week for Tory euroscepticism. Meanwhille Osborne is firmly back in the frame.
Osborne loses to Corbyn, apart from that, a flawless plan.
My prediction.
Remain will win. Cameron will continue as PM until the next GE with his successor ready to take over after the election. Cameron will invite Gove back into the fold but Boris will be left out in the cold. Boris and perhaps up to 30 Tory MPs will switch to UKIP where Boris will be elected leader. Osborne will continue as Chancellor. The next recession will hit in 2017/18 but by 2020 UK economy will be growing strongly with tax cuts. Osborne's star will rise again and he will be elected Tory leader against May. Corbyn will continue as Labour leader. The result of the next GE will be Tory 32%, Lab 33%, UKIP 17%, LibDem 9% leading to a Labour minority Government lead by Corbyn.
Surely the PB received wisdom, that Dave's successor will have to be a Leaver, has taken a pounding. Gove has made too many unforced errors and Boris has confirmed some dark suspicions. Many Tory MPs will conclude that this Leave lark really isn't worth the bother - why jeopardise your reputation and prospects by being associated with jokers. This has been a dark week for Tory euroscepticism. Meanwhille Osborne is firmly back in the frame.
Your reputation for humourless posting is very unfair - this is hilarious.
Farage said today that the US negotiated a trade deal with Australia in ten months, I don't know if that's correct but Gove needs to come out and counter Obama's claims with facts and figures.
It's not: U.S. first proposed a free trade agreement with Australia as far back as 1945. In more recent times, the prospect of an Australia-U.S. FTA was raised in the 1980s by the Hawke Government, and in 1992 U.S. president George H. W. Bush offered to begin FTA negotiations with Australia, but was turned down by Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Paul Keating.[1]
It was not until early 2001, after the election of George W. Bush in the U.S. and with John Howard in power in Australia, that an Australia-U.S. FTA finally began to take shape. In April 2001, President Bush signalled his interest in pursuing an FTA with Australia provided "everything is on the table". Following this, in 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned a private consultancy – the Centre for International Economics (CIE) – to model the economic impacts of such an agreement. Negotiations for the FTA began in April 2003 and after five rounds of negotiations held in Canberra, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., the text was finally agreed to in February 2004, and signed off on by Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in Washington in May 2004.
It all depends on the political will - since the UK will be the supplicant it might go very quickly: "Sign here" - but were unlikey to get a better deal than the EU - "who to piss off, a 64 million market or a 444 million market?" Difficult.
Face it, HMS Anglosphere is holed below the waterline and going down by the bow....
Farage said today that the US negotiated a trade deal with Australia in ten months, I don't know if that's correct but Gove needs to come out and counter Obama's claims with facts and figures.
It's not: U.S. first proposed a free trade agreement with Australia as far back as 1945. In more recent times, the prospect of an Australia-U.S. FTA was raised in the 1980s by the Hawke Government, and in 1992 U.S. president George H. W. Bush offered to begin FTA negotiations with Australia, but was turned down by Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Paul Keating.[1]
It was not until early 2001, after the election of George W. Bush in the U.S. and with John Howard in power in Australia, that an Australia-U.S. FTA finally began to take shape. In April 2001, President Bush signalled his interest in pursuing an FTA with Australia provided "everything is on the table". Following this, in 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned a private consultancy – the Centre for International Economics (CIE) – to model the economic impacts of such an agreement. Negotiations for the FTA began in April 2003 and after five rounds of negotiations held in Canberra, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., the text was finally agreed to in February 2004, and signed off on by Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in Washington in May 2004.
It all depends on the political will - since the UK will be the supplicant it might go very quickly: "Sign here" - but were unlikey to get a better deal than the EU - "who to piss off, a 64 million market or a 444 million market?" Difficult.
Face it, HMS Anglosphere is holed below the waterline and going down by the bow....
Negotiations started in April 2003, the thing was signed in May 2004 = 13 months.
Comments
The referendum is becoming more important to me all the time, its time we sent a message to Cameron, Obama and their runners that we are sick and tired of being fed bullshit. Yes, this vote is about the EU but its becoming something bigger, about reminding our politicians that they are public servants, paid to represent us and not vice versa.
Oh, and who handed out the invitations to Obama's "town hall" meeting yesterday? The audience wasn't in any way representative of the electorate, it looked Obama had hand picked them personally.
Lucy Powell giving me a headache. She seems to be on every week. Where is Alan Johnson?
U.S. first proposed a free trade agreement with Australia as far back as 1945. In more recent times, the prospect of an Australia-U.S. FTA was raised in the 1980s by the Hawke Government, and in 1992 U.S. president George H. W. Bush offered to begin FTA negotiations with Australia, but was turned down by Australian Labor Party Prime Minister Paul Keating.[1]
It was not until early 2001, after the election of George W. Bush in the U.S. and with John Howard in power in Australia, that an Australia-U.S. FTA finally began to take shape. In April 2001, President Bush signalled his interest in pursuing an FTA with Australia provided "everything is on the table". Following this, in 2004, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned a private consultancy – the Centre for International Economics (CIE) – to model the economic impacts of such an agreement. Negotiations for the FTA began in April 2003 and after five rounds of negotiations held in Canberra, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., the text was finally agreed to in February 2004, and signed off on by Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in Washington in May 2004.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement
I don't find Boris Johnson's ad hominem criticisms edifying, but I'm not his target audience (I'm no great fan of his). But, lots of people do like him and listen to him, and he gets away with things that would hurt other politicians. And plainly *some* of Leave's attack lines (on immigration, lack of self-government) are getting through to the voters.
"Purple Reign: Was Prince a secret Kipper?"
I'm dismayed that people are so readily prepared to support this utter bullshit.
I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that I can never believe anything you tell me in the future.
Cameron (along with several irrelevant pbers) is rapidly gaining a reputation as being thoroughly dishonest, even among his supporters. Don't say I didn't warn you.
We have known about Cast Iron Dave and his flexible attitude to the truth for a long time, and to be honest we shouldn't be that surprised when a group of politically engaged lawyers have a certain intellectual suppleness when it comes to supporting their man
Remain will win.
Cameron will continue as PM until the next GE with his successor ready to take over after the election.
Cameron will invite Gove back into the fold but Boris will be left out in the cold.
Boris and perhaps up to 30 Tory MPs will switch to UKIP where Boris will be elected leader.
Osborne will continue as Chancellor.
The next recession will hit in 2017/18 but by 2020 UK economy will be growing strongly with tax cuts.
Osborne's star will rise again and he will be elected Tory leader against May.
Corbyn will continue as Labour leader.
The result of the next GE will be Tory 32%, Lab 33%, UKIP 17%, LibDem 9% leading to a Labour minority Government lead by Corbyn.
New Thread
It all depends on the political will - since the UK will be the supplicant it might go very quickly: "Sign here" - but were unlikey to get a better deal than the EU - "who to piss off, a 64 million market or a 444 million market?" Difficult.
Face it, HMS Anglosphere is holed below the waterline and going down by the bow....
Chortle. Such is irony in the Last 100Days of Dodgy Dave.