They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.
If they did block it would surely be the end of them.
They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.
I guess their argument is that it would be illegal for May to issue the notice. I do agree that they couldn't physically block it, as it were...
There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty that parliaments will have to consent in the invocation of article 50.
It's ironic but those in Parliament who support the EU are hamstrung by the EU itself in doing anything about it.
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"
The argument is simply, what are our constitutional requirements? Opinions differ.
Yes, but it's the EU that judges. Once May notifies and the EU accepts the notification it's a done deal.
If it's done unconstitutionally, which can only be judged by the member state, then the EU won't be able to accept it without violating the treaty.
Unless there was something unconstitutional about the way the referendum was conducted or legislated for, it would be a brave judge that rules in favour of effectively overturning the will of the people expressed in a plebiscite.
Unless I'm misunderstanding/misreading something here, Americans polled via the internet give very different political opinions vs those polled via phones/cellphones.
I have just been catching up on bill Maher real time & one thing he keeps claiming (and heard this echoed else where) is that trump gets away with everything, as if the media aren't reporting on him honestly.
Actually I think it is the opposite, the media blast trump so much that people shut off to it. A bit like the claims the Tories cuts = back to Wigan pier stuff & brexit world war III.
They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.
If they did block it would surely be the end of them.
They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.
I guess their argument is that it would be illegal for May to issue the notice. I do agree that they couldn't physically block it, as it were...
There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty that parliaments will have to consent in the invocation of article 50.
It's ironic but those in Parliament who support the EU are hamstrung by the EU itself in doing anything about it.
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"
The argument is simply, what are our constitutional requirements? Opinions differ.
Yes, but it's the EU that judges. Once May notifies and the EU accepts the notification it's a done deal.
If it's done unconstitutionally, which can only be judged by the member state, then the EU won't be able to accept it without violating the treaty.
Unless there was something unconstitutional about the way the referendum was conducted or legislated for, it would be a brave judge that rules in favour of effectively overturning the will of the people expressed in a plebiscite.
If it requires the consent of parliament, then it requires the consent of parliament. I don't think judges should have to be brave when making judgments such as these.
Anyway, it'd be Parliament that would have to make the brave decision....
They can't block article 50, only the PM has the power to invoke it.
If they did block it would surely be the end of them.
They can't block it, they don't have the legal power from the Lisbon Treaty.
I guess their argument is that it would be illegal for May to issue the notice. I do agree that they couldn't physically block it, as it were...
There is no provision in the Lisbon Treaty that parliaments will have to consent in the invocation of article 50.
It's ironic but those in Parliament who support the EU are hamstrung by the EU itself in doing anything about it.
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements"
The argument is simply, what are our constitutional requirements? Opinions differ.
Yes, I'd say there IS provision in the Lisbon treaty for national parliaments to have to consent.
I'd say that the referendum was set up by our national parliament and thus that consent has already been granted.
Yeah, I also say that, but we'll have to wait and hear the court's verdict.
Oh, my comment was referring to the text of the treaty "... in accordance with its own constitutional requirements". This is provision for national parliaments having to consent, if it is required by their respective laws.
Unless I'm misunderstanding/misreading something here, Americans polled via the internet give very different political opinions vs those polled via phones/cellphones.
What explains the difference?
eg, in the 4th page from the end of that link ^
Internet opinion-givers go 66% clinton, 23% trump and 11% dk
Phone/cellphone opinion-givers split 46% clinton, 50% trump and 4% dk
That's massively different.
The overall figures for the poll appear to be weighted 80% phone/cell & 20% internet.
Looks like any state above 26% college grad is Hillary's.
Overall yes - but - one notable exception to that is Utah, another reason to think it might go to Libertarian Gary Johnson!
It would be good to see Johnson win a State, would upset the Establishment a little more than they are already by having Trump on the ballot. Johnson really needs to get a place in the debates if he's to break through though.
It would be good to see Johnson win the whole thing - the Establishment would be even more upset and he'd probably make a better POTUS than either of his opponents. I put a little money on him @ 250/1 - if ever a third party candidate were to break through it would be this year. Though if it actually happens I will literally eat my hat.
Simple question: Is Woolfe a candidate or not ? Is anybody a candidate ? Is Farage trying to stay on as Leader ?
Yes No Maybe I don't know Can you repeat the question?
I see, more answers than questions!
Good article BTW, might dip the little toe in the big open waters of US political betting soon!
Individual states might offer value, if some bookmakers would offer odds.
But I can't find any at the moment, although 25 UK bookies offer odds on the main race.
Surely, betting on states would be hardly any different from UK constituency betting?
I'm thinking the same as you on the States betting, but the big variable is the polling - I'm seeing lots of small sample sizes and variations such as the four Florida polls showing a huge spread.
There's also the same general polling problems as we've seen in the UK with regard to polling demographics (who can the pollsters find to speak to?) and voting demographics (evidence that Trump especially is bringing out non-voters for example) which messed up the UK polls before the last election and for the referendum.
I think I'll watch, listen, read and wait a few weeks longer before betting more than beer money. The value for the overall win has to be still with Trump at this point though.
I'm not sure.
Back in April I did an analysis and I found that Trump would be even with Electoral Votes even if he loses the popular vote by around 4%, due to him losing piles of votes in safe states even as he gains votes in the rest.
But the impact of the conventions state wise is unknown yet, so far there has been only a single state poll, from Arizona giving Trump an 8 point lead which is his highest in any poll for 8 months.
I have the suspicion that the conventions will limit any switchers, and hit 3rd parties hard.
PPP has Clinton up 5 today, Morning Consult has her up 3 and CBS has her up 2 in battleground states. Overall Clinton leads by 1.1% in the RCP poll average and RCP have been right in the last 3 presidential elections. As of today Clinton will win but it will be the closest presidential election since 2000. In a 4 way race it is tied but Johnson is on 7%, with Stein only on 2.8% Johnson could therefore cost Trump the presidency http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Johnson is taking votes form both candidates, and from 'did not vote last time' so I don't accept that he will 'cost Trump the presidency' unless yo mean Johnson will win and therefor cost both Trump and Clinton the presidency?
Looks like any state above 26% college grad is Hillary's.
Overall yes - but - one notable exception to that is Utah, another reason to think it might go to Libertarian Gary Johnson!
It would be good to see Johnson win a State, would upset the Establishment a little more than they are already by having Trump on the ballot. Johnson really needs to get a place in the debates if he's to break through though.
It would be good to see Johnson win the whole thing - the Establishment would be even more upset and he'd probably make a better POTUS than either of his opponents. I put a little money on him @ 250/1 - if ever a third party candidate were to break through it would be this year. Though if it actually happens I will literally eat my hat.
If he is pm, will they all have to wear special luminous tabards with SAS printed on them like glorified stewards at footy matches?
For the first time I'm thinking there might actually be a military coup if Corbyn ends up as PM. He clearly has no idea what they do or why they do it, nor does he care at all.
Slightly worrying for those of us Brits living abroad. There's a few Westerners that were working in Libya a couple of years ago who are very grateful to our special forces for getting them out of the desert when the war started - and long may they continue to do so, they're the best in the world at what they do.
Simple question: Is Woolfe a candidate or not ? Is anybody a candidate ? Is Farage trying to stay on as Leader ?
Yes No Maybe I don't know Can you repeat the question?
I see, more answers than questions!
Good article BTW, might dip the little toe in the big open waters of US political betting soon!
Individual states might offer value, if some bookmakers would offer odds.
But I can't find any at the moment, although 25 UK bookies offer odds on the main race.
Surely, betting on states would be hardly any different from UK constituency betting?
I'm thinking the same as you on the States betting, but the big variable is the polling - I'm seeing lots of small sample sizes and variations such as the four Florida polls showing a huge spread.
There's also the same general polling problems as we've seen in the UK with regard to polling demographics (who can the pollsters find to speak to?) and voting demographics (evidence that Trump especially is bringing out non-voters for example) which messed up the UK polls before the last election and for the referendum.
I think I'll watch, listen, read and wait a few weeks longer before betting more than beer money. The value for the overall win has to be still with Trump at this point though.
I'm not sure.
Back in April I did an analysis and I found that Trump would be even with Electoral Votes even if he loses the popular vote by around 4%, due to him losing piles of votes in safe states even as he gains votes in the rest.
But the impact of the conventions state wise is unknown yet, so far there has been only a single state poll, from Arizona giving Trump an 8 point lead which is his highest in any poll for 8 months.
I have the suspicion that the conventions will limit any switchers, and hit 3rd parties hard.
PPP has Clinton up 5 today, Morning Consult has her up 3 and CBS has her up 2 in battleground states. Overall /
Johnson is taking votes form both candidates, and from 'did not vote last time' so I don't accept that he will 'cost Trump the presidency' unless yo mean Johnson will win and therefor cost both Trump and Clinton the presidency?
He will pick up some Democrats too but the majority of his support will be from Republicans who can't stomach Trump
Looks like any state above 26% college grad is Hillary's.
Overall yes - but - one notable exception to that is Utah, another reason to think it might go to Libertarian Gary Johnson!
It would be good to see Johnson win a State, would upset the Establishment a little more than they are already by having Trump on the ballot. Johnson really needs to get a place in the debates if he's to break through though.
It would be good to see Johnson win the whole thing - the Establishment would be even more upset and he'd probably make a better POTUS than either of his opponents. I put a little money on him @ 250/1 - if ever a third party candidate were to break through it would be this year. Though if it actually happens I will literally eat my hat.
Agree with all of that, might find a fiver for a 250/1 bet if it's still available
If he is pm, will they all have to wear special luminous tabards with SAS printed on them like glorified stewards at footy matches?
For the first time I'm thinking there might actually be a military coup if Corbyn ends up as PM. He clearly has no idea what they do or why they do it, nor does he care at all.
Slightly worrying for those of us Brits living abroad. There's a few Westerners that were working in Libya a couple of years ago who are very grateful to our special forces for getting them out of the desert when the war started - and long may they continue to do so, they're the best in the world at what they do.
Not a big fan of Hague, but the abuse he wrongly got from the press over that (and they never apologied) was disgraceful. When the full story came out, itwas revealed he handled his position extremely well, lots of forward planning / decisive action & of course the lads in the luminous tabards did the business required of them.
Incredibly insensitive from Trump. But I reckon he's hit a nerve.
This is starting to look like the Brexit vote. The liberal media really don't understand how anyone might not think like they do. And *really* don't understand why calling the guy (and by extension his supporters) racist only makes him more popular among his target demographics.
Incredibly insensitive from Trump. But I reckon he's hit a nerve.
Insulting the family of a dead soldier is pretty bad with his core demographic of white men.
Possibly. Alternatively others will look at the parents and say "he knew what he was signing up for." My parents were very hostile to the grandstanding of families of servicemen who died in Iraq around the time of the Chilcot Report. As much as my parents might disagree with our foreign interventions in the last 15 years, they think that service personnel know what they are signing up for.
Incredibly insensitive from Trump. But I reckon he's hit a nerve.
Insulting the family of a dead soldier is pretty bad with his core demographic of white men.
Trump doesn't have a filter for bad taste, otherwise he would have been hounded out of the race long ago. Ultimately it's the Democrats who've used this family as political pawns which is ethically questionable to begin with.
If he is pm, will they all have to wear special luminous tabards with SAS printed on them like glorified stewards at footy matches?
For the first time I'm thinking there might actually be a military coup if Corbyn ends up as PM. He clearly has no idea what they do or why they do it, nor does he care at all.
Slightly worrying for those of us Brits living abroad. There's a few Westerners that were working in Libya a couple of years ago who are very grateful to our special forces for getting them out of the desert when the war started - and long may they continue to do so, they're the best in the world at what they do.
Not a big fan of Hague, but the abuse he wrongly got from the press over that (and they never apologied) was disgraceful. When the full story came out, itwas revealed he handled his position extremely well, lots of forward planning / decisive action & of course the lads in the luminous tabards did the business required of them.
I guessed what they were probably doing at the time, with a 'diplomatic' flight of large male diplomats with big green 'diplomatic' bags, but the press took the necessary vacuum of information to mean nothing was happening.
I'm sure Hague was an experienced enough politician to take one for the team, so to speak, on that occasion. He fronted the cover story with a pretty good idea of what the reaction of the media would be, even if our lovely press somewhat over-reacted.
Incredibly insensitive from Trump. But I reckon he's hit a nerve.
Insulting the family of a dead soldier is pretty bad with his core demographic of white men.
Possibly. Alternatively others will look at the parents and say "he knew what he was signing up for." My parents were very hostile to the grandstanding of families of servicemen who died in Iraq around the time of the Chilcot Report. As much as my parents might disagree with our foreign interventions in the last 15 years, they think that service personnel know what they are signing up for.
Of course servicemen and women know their lives are on the line. That goes with the territory, it is having their patriotism and loyalty questioned that is the insult. There are lots of black and hispanic service personnel too.
Though aside from his big mouth Trump has made some remarks suggesting that overseas troops will be brought back. Backing out of Afghanistan is one thing, but out of Korea or Japan is another.
If he is pm, will they all have to wear special luminous tabards with SAS printed on them like glorified stewards at footy matches?
For the first time I'm thinking there might actually be a military coup if Corbyn ends up as PM. He clearly has no idea what they do or why they do it, nor does he care at all.
Slightly worrying for those of us Brits living abroad. There's a few Westerners that were working in Libya a couple of years ago who are very grateful to our special forces for getting them out of the desert when the war started - and long may they continue to do so, they're the best in the world at what they do.
Don't worry, there's zero chance of Corbyn becoming PM now that Theresa May is in Downing Street. There might have been a tiny chance with someone like Osborne or Gove.
Looks like any state above 26% college grad is Hillary's.
Overall yes - but - one notable exception to that is Utah, another reason to think it might go to Libertarian Gary Johnson!
It would be good to see Johnson win a State, would upset the Establishment a little more than they are already by having Trump on the ballot. Johnson really needs to get a place in the debates if he's to break through though.
It would be good to see Johnson win the whole thing - the Establishment would be even more upset and he'd probably make a better POTUS than either of his opponents. I put a little money on him @ 250/1 - if ever a third party candidate were to break through it would be this year. Though if it actually happens I will literally eat my hat.
Agree with all of that, might find a fiver for a 250/1 bet if it's still available
According to Oddschecker, you can get 300/1 at SportingBet, which is where I placed my bet. I guess conference boosts for ClinTrump lengthened his odds and this is probably the best time to back him.
That said after I placed my initial bet a friend on Twitter pointed out I could have got better odds on BetFair. D'oh!
I have just been catching up on bill Maher real time & one thing he keeps claiming (and heard this echoed else where) is that trump gets away with everything, as if the media aren't reporting on him honestly.
Actually I think it is the opposite, the media blast trump so much that people shut off to it. A bit like the claims the Tories cuts = back to Wigan pier stuff & brexit world war III.
Very sensible post, except what on earth are you doing watching Bill Maher? Pompous left-wing bloviater.
Incredibly insensitive from Trump. But I reckon he's hit a nerve.
Insulting the family of a dead soldier is pretty bad with his core demographic of white men.
Trump doesn't have a filter for bad taste, otherwise he would have been hounded out of the race long ago. Ultimately it's the Democrats who've used this family as political pawns which is ethically questionable to begin with.
I hate the practice of bringing in people affected by tragedy into the political arena. They're not media trained, are very unprepared for the spotlight and quickly forgotten about by the politicians involved -while their opponents and the media harass them. It's bad in the UK, much worse in the US - especially so this year.
"Approximately 50,000 British holidaymakers currently in Florida should avoid unprotected sex for the rest of the summer holidays because of the risk from Zika virus, according to government advice."
1. Corbyn won't get power 2. If he looked like getting power and posed that much of a threat, he'd be shut down
The question to ask regarding the US election is the possibility of differential turnout. My gut tells me one of the two candidates is going to suffer badly.
Off topic. That suicide bomber in Ansbach, I was right when I said that this guy didn't arrive in Germany clean and subsequent reports confirm he hadn't. The German authorities knew something of that history.
I also noted that it was no surprise that the Germans wanted to deport him. He was a very busy boy when in Germany and the authorities knew plenty about it and him. And there lies the risk in liberal democracies. This guy was a reasonably known quantity and yet when his application for asylum was finally rejected he was allowed to have free movement.
I have just been catching up on bill Maher real time & one thing he keeps claiming (and heard this echoed else where) is that trump gets away with everything, as if the media aren't reporting on him honestly.
Actually I think it is the opposite, the media blast trump so much that people shut off to it. A bit like the claims the Tories cuts = back to Wigan pier stuff & brexit world war III.
Very sensible post, except what on earth are you doing watching Bill Maher? Pompous left-wing bloviater.
Lol...I like to watch a range of stuff, not only things I agree with. On the scale of pompous left wingery the young Turks are far worse.
Incredibly insensitive from Trump. But I reckon he's hit a nerve.
Insulting the family of a dead soldier is pretty bad with his core demographic of white men.
Trump doesn't have a filter for bad taste, otherwise he would have been hounded out of the race long ago. Ultimately it's the Democrats who've used this family as political pawns which is ethically questionable to begin with.
People, including me, thought going after McCain's war record would be the death of Trump. They, and I, were wrong.
I tend to think at this stage that Trump is immune to the negatives associated with his outrageous comments. Those who will be outraged enough not to vote for him are already lost to him. Those who aren't outraged by previous 'gaffes' won't be outraged by new ones. And some who find the comments per se nasty but are so against the PC censoring of non-liberal thoughts will be pleased Trump is not bowing to PC pressures, even while disagreeing with him on the subject matter.
Incredibly insensitive from Trump. But I reckon he's hit a nerve.
Insulting the family of a dead soldier is pretty bad with his core demographic of white men.
Trump doesn't have a filter for bad taste, otherwise he would have been hounded out of the race long ago. Ultimately it's the Democrats who've used this family as political pawns which is ethically questionable to begin with.
I hate the practice of bringing in people affected by tragedy into the political arena. They're not media trained, are very unprepared for the spotlight and quickly forgotten about by the politicians involved -while their opponents and the media harass them. It's bad in the UK, much worse in the US - especially so this year.
Entialey agree. While this incident has reminded me again, as if I needed it, why hate Trump. I cant get away form the feeling that the Democrats that organised this where hoping that something like this was going to happen, caring more about getting Trump some 'negatives news coverage for another 24 hours, than the feelings or anguish and unset that these 2 grieving parents must be going though right now.
Incredibly insensitive from Trump. But I reckon he's hit a nerve.
Insulting the family of a dead soldier is pretty bad with his core demographic of white men.
Trump doesn't have a filter for bad taste, otherwise he would have been hounded out of the race long ago. Ultimately it's the Democrats who've used this family as political pawns which is ethically questionable to begin with.
People, including me, thought going after McCain's war record would be the death of Trump. They, and I, were wrong.
I tend to think at this stage that Trump is immune to the negatives associated with his outrageous comments. Those who will be outraged enough not to vote for him are already lost to him. Those who aren't outraged by previous 'gaffes' won't be outraged by new ones. And some who find the comments per se nasty but are so against the PC censoring of non-liberal thoughts will be pleased Trump is not bowing to PC pressures, even while disagreeing with him on the subject matter.
This is right. However, strategically this situates the debate about Muslims, which is potentially a strong attacking card that Trump holds, especially if there's more Islam-related terrorism between now and the election.
Incredibly insensitive from Trump. But I reckon he's hit a nerve.
Insulting the family of a dead soldier is pretty bad with his core demographic of white men.
Trump doesn't have a filter for bad taste, otherwise he would have been hounded out of the race long ago. Ultimately it's the Democrats who've used this family as political pawns which is ethically questionable to begin with.
People, including me, thought going after McCain's war record would be the death of Trump. They, and I, were wrong.
I tend to think at this stage that Trump is immune to the negatives associated with his outrageous comments. Those who will be outraged enough not to vote for him are already lost to him. Those who aren't outraged by previous 'gaffes' won't be outraged by new ones. And some who find the comments per se nasty but are so against the PC censoring of non-liberal thoughts will be pleased Trump is not bowing to PC pressures, even while disagreeing with him on the subject matter.
This is right. However, strategically this situates the debate about Muslims, which is potentially a strong attacking card that Trump holds, especially if there's more Islam-related terrorism between now and the election.
"Approximately 50,000 British holidaymakers currently in Florida should avoid unprotected sex for the rest of the summer holidays because of the risk from Zika virus, according to government advice."
I have just been catching up on bill Maher real time & one thing he keeps claiming (and heard this echoed else where) is that trump gets away with everything, as if the media aren't reporting on him honestly.
Actually I think it is the opposite, the media blast trump so much that people shut off to it. A bit like the claims the Tories cuts = back to Wigan pier stuff & brexit world war III.
Very sensible post, except what on earth are you doing watching Bill Maher? Pompous left-wing bloviater.
Lol...I like to watch a range of stuff, not only things I agree with. On the scale of pompous left wingery the young Turks are far worse.
I love Cenk and Ana. When it comes to political entertainment it's attitude that counts. He's past his best now, but PJ O'Rourke was a great spokesman for the Right. Ditto, Michael Moore on the Left. Colbert now. Too many people on the right and left are too patronising: O'Reilly, Coulter, Beck, Maher, Olbermann, Maddow. I'm surprised in a way that any of them is popular, but I guess you're never going to go broke mirroring people's self-pity and prejudice.
In the poll by PPP, respondents were asked to choose between Clinton, Trump and “In-dependent Harambe.” This is the ape who had to be killed a few months ago when a toddler fell into his pit at the Cincinnati zoo. He got 5%.
In the poll by PPP, respondents were asked to choose between Clinton, Trump and “In-dependent Harambe.” This is the ape who had to be killed a few months ago when a toddler fell into his pit at the Cincinnati zoo. He got 5%.
This is where we are.
To be fair, if he was still alive he might do a better job than either of the other two named candidates.
If he is pm, will they all have to wear special luminous tabards with SAS printed on them like glorified stewards at footy matches?
For the first time I'm thinking there might actually be a military coup if Corbyn ends up as PM. He clearly has no idea what they do or why they do it, nor does he care at all.
Slightly worrying for those of us Brits living abroad. There's a few Westerners that were working in Libya a couple of years ago who are very grateful to our special forces for getting them out of the desert when the war started - and long may they continue to do so, they're the best in the world at what they do.
Don't worry, there's zero chance of Corbyn becoming PM now that Theresa May is in Downing Street. There might have been a tiny chance with someone like Osborne or Gove.
Small, maybe, but not zero. Like all governments, May's is to a great extent tied to the economy, more so given the conscious choice the Tories foisted upon us, and most of them supported, around Brexit. There is a low but non-zero probability scenario where the voters turn to him after some sort of renewed economic crisis. It's basically what has happened in Greece and Spain, after all.
Perhaps we should be grateful to Corbyn, he has been around a while and would be less of a risk than a mass turning to UKIP. And if he looked like succeeding he would probably carry more of the MPs with him.
In the poll by PPP, respondents were asked to choose between Clinton, Trump and “In-dependent Harambe.” This is the ape who had to be killed a few months ago when a toddler fell into his pit at the Cincinnati zoo. He got 5%.
This is where we are.
4% of Hilary Clinton supporters think she should be in jail.
5% is the misheard/misunderstood the question figure.
Comments
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_7302016.pdf
(The last 5 pages have phone/internet breakdowns)
Unless I'm misunderstanding/misreading something here, Americans polled via the internet give very different political opinions vs those polled via phones/cellphones.
What explains the difference?
Actually I think it is the opposite, the media blast trump so much that people shut off to it. A bit like the claims the Tories cuts = back to Wigan pier stuff & brexit world war III.
Anyway, it'd be Parliament that would have to make the brave decision....
Oh, my comment was referring to the text of the treaty "... in accordance with its own constitutional requirements". This is provision for national parliaments having to consent, if it is required by their respective laws.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3716412/Now-Corbyn-wants-new-laws-curb-raids-SAS-Labour-leader-calls-loophole-allows-special-forces-deployed-secret-missions-shut-down.html
Internet opinion-givers go 66% clinton, 23% trump and 11% dk
Phone/cellphone opinion-givers split 46% clinton, 50% trump and 4% dk
That's massively different.
The overall figures for the poll appear to be weighted 80% phone/cell & 20% internet.
All this looks quite odd to me.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/759741672725110784
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/27/marvin-bush-voting-gary-johnson/
Slightly worrying for those of us Brits living abroad. There's a few Westerners that were working in Libya a couple of years ago who are very grateful to our special forces for getting them out of the desert when the war started - and long may they continue to do so, they're the best in the world at what they do.
I do think that if the exit is blocked by the courts/House of Lords/ or even MPs, then there will be a backlash and surge in support for UKIP!
I'm sure Hague was an experienced enough politician to take one for the team, so to speak, on that occasion. He fronted the cover story with a pretty good idea of what the reaction of the media would be, even if our lovely press somewhat over-reacted.
Though aside from his big mouth Trump has made some remarks suggesting that overseas troops will be brought back. Backing out of Afghanistan is one thing, but out of Korea or Japan is another.
That said after I placed my initial bet a friend on Twitter pointed out I could have got better odds on BetFair. D'oh!
"Approximately 50,000 British holidaymakers currently in Florida should avoid unprotected sex for the rest of the summer holidays because of the risk from Zika virus, according to government advice."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/30/sex-ban-recommended-for-british-tourists-in-florida-after-zika-o/
2. If he looked like getting power and posed that much of a threat, he'd be shut down
The question to ask regarding the US election is the possibility of differential turnout. My gut tells me one of the two candidates is going to suffer badly.
Off topic. That suicide bomber in Ansbach, I was right when I said that this guy didn't arrive in Germany clean and subsequent reports confirm he hadn't. The German authorities knew something of that history.
I also noted that it was no surprise that the Germans wanted to deport him. He was a very busy boy when in Germany and the authorities knew plenty about it and him. And there lies the risk in liberal democracies. This guy was a reasonably known quantity and yet when his application for asylum was finally rejected he was allowed to have free movement.
I tend to think at this stage that Trump is immune to the negatives associated with his outrageous comments. Those who will be outraged enough not to vote for him are already lost to him. Those who aren't outraged by previous 'gaffes' won't be outraged by new ones. And some who find the comments per se nasty but are so against the PC censoring of non-liberal thoughts will be pleased Trump is not bowing to PC pressures, even while disagreeing with him on the subject matter.
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/americas-mirror/index.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/31/economic-advisers-jeremy-corbyn-cant-win-next-election-owen-smith
In the poll by PPP, respondents were asked to choose between Clinton, Trump and “In-dependent Harambe.” This is the ape who had to be killed a few months ago when a toddler fell into his pit at the Cincinnati zoo. He got 5%.
This is where we are.
Perhaps we should be grateful to Corbyn, he has been around a while and would be less of a risk than a mass turning to UKIP. And if he looked like succeeding he would probably carry more of the MPs with him.
5% is the misheard/misunderstood the question figure.