To be clear, Black Lace, creators of the Agadoo, are now trolling the Labour leadership election.
How low can Labour go?
On current trends, I am quite prepared to accept that there will be a moment for Labour where the Corbyn years are seen as a golden era, even if I can't quite imagine what that might actually look like.
There's a Vaz in me kitchen what am I gonna do? There's a Vaz in me kitchen what am I gonna do? I'm gonna fix that Vaz dat's what am I gonna do I'm gonna fix that Vaz
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Or they have skewed it to reflect participation in the primaries.
Whatever, those numbers (28/32/40) look wrong. The 40 not so much, the other two definitely.
To be clear, Black Lace, creators of the Agadoo, are now trolling the Labour leadership election.
How low can Labour go?
On current trends, I am quite prepared to accept that there will be a moment for Labour where the Corbyn years are seen as a golden era, even if I can't quite imagine what that might actually look like.
It's a spoof. Looking at both twitter accounts, nothing like that exchange took place
Black lace would not risk their credibility on such fluff.
Spoof or not, the fact it's believable speaks volumes.
To be clear, Black Lace, creators of the Agadoo, are now trolling the Labour leadership election.
How low can Labour go?
On current trends, I am quite prepared to accept that there will be a moment for Labour where the Corbyn years are seen as a golden era, even if I can't quite imagine what that might actually look like.
And we all thought the fake Elvis was as bad as it could get....
A reshaped North Antrim with eastern parts of county Londonderry.
But Dalriada was a kingdom that included parts of western Scotland, seems a strange name to choose.
The Scots at that time (7th C) were Irish settlers moving into territory shared unpeacefully with Britons, Picts, Northumbrians and, later, Norwegians. They were the Gaelic speakers.
To be clear, Black Lace, creators of the Agadoo, are now trolling the Labour leadership election.
How low can Labour go?
On current trends, I am quite prepared to accept that there will be a moment for Labour where the Corbyn years are seen as a golden era, even if I can't quite imagine what that might actually look like.
I think you are probably right. One thing that I am certain of: when people say things cannot possibly get worse, they usually do!
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
appears to indicate that chairmen are elected separately and are not normal members, so resigning means you're no longer on the committee at all.
If there's a market on it, I'd make Chuka the favourite, even though Yvette is standing, because Chuka is currently a member already.
My impression is that there's a certain sympathy in the Commons for Vaz, since after a career with recurrent controversy he seemed to have found an effective niche: he was seen as one of the stronger committee chairs. In addition, if no law was broken, many MPs are generally aware of one or another embarrassing personal matter that they'd rather not see the light of day, so there's a "There but for the grace..." factor. It's clear that he couldn't chair the committee given its focus on the prostitution issue, but unless more comes to light I think MPs will now mostly be gentle with him.
Is offering to pay for a class A drug not an issue with his fellow MPs. Personally I'm in favour of relaxing drug laws somewhat... but the last Labour goverment was ostensibly very anti-drugs even to the point of seconding scientific opinion to be so.
Sorry but I can smell the hypocrisy from here.
Given his job, surely cocaine and hookers is research.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik-driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik-driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
I spent some considerable time arguing pre-referendum with a left wing Leave friend who was voting that way because they didn't like the capitalist TTIP and believed that outside the EU we wouldn't be signing up to any free trade arrangements like that.
He was an SNP supporter, so some of his obtuseness regarding any UK only-US deal being worse than TTIP may have been deliberate however.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.
The era of slow growth, collapsing commodity prices, and countries reneging on their debts is always a spur to populists of right and left. Trade wars next...
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
Is there any point in TPP without the TTIP? Part of why the Americans were so desperate for them was to stamp American goods standards on Europe and Asia, without one is the other feasible, since Asia won't want to give up competitiveness in the European markets by taking up US standards. As I see it both mega deals are dead and that's no bad thing. Product standards harmonisation is better set at WTO level on a sector by sector basis rather than by the US on a regional basis.
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.
Trade wars next...
The perfect opportunity for that titan, Liam Fox to show his true mettle.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
Doesn't mean we have to take it. If the country's not happy to be part of a trading bloc where it has a say in the setting of the rules, why would it sign up to a deal where the country's laws are outsourced to another country entirely - and one whose congressional politicians tend to take a particularly parochial view of their legislation?
TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.
There is still a reasonable chance that Obama and the lame duck congress push it through before year end.
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
Is there any point in TPP without the TTIP? Part of why the Americans were so desperate for them was to stamp American goods standards on Europe and Asia, without one is the other feasible, since Asia won't want to give up competitiveness in the European markets by taking up US standards. As I see it both mega deals are dead and that's no bad thing. Product standards harmonisation is better set at WTO level on a sector by sector basis rather than by the US on a regional basis.
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
We could join EFTA (without the EEA part) and become a co-signatory to the EFTA-Canada deal in a few months.
To be clear, Black Lace, creators of the Agadoo, are now trolling the Labour leadership election.
How low can Labour go?
On current trends, I am quite prepared to accept that there will be a moment for Labour where the Corbyn years are seen as a golden era, even if I can't quite imagine what that might actually look like.
It's a spoof. Looking at both twitter accounts, nothing like that exchange took place
Black lace would not risk their credibility on such fluff.
Spoof or not, the fact it's believable speaks volumes.
Could be worse. Given that they recorded 'Gang Bang' and 'Have a Screw' (used in Rita, Sue and Bob Too), they could be trolling Keith Vaz.
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.
When I was in Ottowa (admittedly about four or five months ago), people I met with seemed pretty confident that it would (eventually) end up being concluded. (Ironically, of course, the issue holding it up about dispute resolution, and ISDS versus other options, and the preferred EU method is rather less sovereignty denuding than TTIP, etc.)
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'. Even if it was a mistake to vote Leave, that vote was made and the consequences have to follow. The current government has been formed on that basis and it would probably become rapidly untenable given its small majority were it to go back on that commitment.
In any case, it's not as if the UK will necessarily be cutting all ties with the continent. I would expect May, Boris, Fox and Davis to aim for a Three-Plus Freedoms deal, maintaining many aspects of membership of the Single Market. That may not be on offer but if that's the case, I'd still expect the UK to be looking for as close a deal as is consistent with restrictions on migration and being outside the competence of the EU institutions.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
Doesn't mean we have to take it. If the country's not happy to be part of a trading bloc where it has a say in the setting of the rules, why would it sign up to a deal where the country's laws are outsourced to another country entirely - and one whose congressional politicians tend to take a particularly parochial view of their legislation?
Because the interests of middle ranking countries like Britain in a globalised world are better served by being part of a rules based system than taking on the big boys directly. It raises the question of why we are leaving the EU. It's fair to say fed up UKIP sympathising voters didn't spend a lot of thought on the dynamics of trade diplomacy before crossing the Leave box on the voting slip.
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'.
Not necessarily. Remember Boris Johnson's much-mocked position when he first came out for Leave which was characterised as wanting to renew your wedding vows by filing for divorce? With some subtle diplomacy we could end up conducting a rerun of Cameron's renegotiation which leads to a second referendum, or manifesto commitment, on something quite different.
Hi all, new to this but been reading for a long time.
Has anyone noticed this little alleged government bill that's popped into the HoL? Maybe an election might happen before 2020 after all despite TM's insistence (e.g "Circumstances have changed" "The government needs a mandate for this deal" instead of a referendum etc).
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'. Even if it was a mistake to vote Leave, that vote was made and the consequences have to follow. The current government has been formed on that basis and it would probably become rapidly untenable given its small majority were it to go back on that commitment.
In any case, it's not as if the UK will necessarily be cutting all ties with the continent. I would expect May, Boris, Fox and Davis to aim for a Three-Plus Freedoms deal, maintaining many aspects of membership of the Single Market. That may not be on offer but if that's the case, I'd still expect the UK to be looking for as close a deal as is consistent with restrictions on migration and being outside the competence of the EU institutions.
The "Three Plus" deal - assuming something could be agreed on immigration - would almost certainly fail the "no fees" and the "no ECJ rulings" conditions. (Of course, basically all international agreements involve agreeing to binding arbitration that has the ability to over-rule national parliaments, ISDS etc., so the second conditional is always likely to be missed to some degree.)
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'. Even if it was a mistake to vote Leave, that vote was made and the consequences have to follow. The current government has been formed on that basis and it would probably become rapidly untenable given its small majority were it to go back on that commitment.
In any case, it's not as if the UK will necessarily be cutting all ties with the continent. I would expect May, Boris, Fox and Davis to aim for a Three-Plus Freedoms deal, maintaining many aspects of membership of the Single Market. That may not be on offer but if that's the case, I'd still expect the UK to be looking for as close a deal as is consistent with restrictions on migration and being outside the competence of the EU institutions.
Who cares about the narrative? If it's a bad, expensive idea, the government thinks it's a bad, expensive idea, and the voters also think it's a bad, expensive idea, don't do it! Democracy means you do what the majority wants, not that the majority has to slap itself in the face for no reason.
PS The flaw in the second referendum idea is that the voters have not in fact decided that Brexit is a bad idea.
Hi all, new to this but been reading for a long time.
Has anyone noticed this little alleged government bill that's popped into the HoL? Maybe an election might happen before 2020 after all despite TM's insistence (e.g "Circumstances have changed" "The government needs a mandate for this deal" instead of a referendum etc).
TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.
There is still a reasonable chance that Obama and the lame duck congress push it through before year end.
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
The era of populist politics of left and right is not one conducive to free trade.
In theory free trade brings benefits to consumers even unilaterally. A mooted deal with Australasia would make for cheap wheat, meat and dairy for the British table. It may do no favours to our farmers and countryside though. We might be back to the agricultural depression of late Victorian times, but at least it would be a decent barbie.
As an eighties child, it scares me somewhat that there are people using 1990s usernames - but welcome RH1992.
I tipped a 2016 election a few months back. Don't think it likely now, but just after triggering Article 50 with a manifesto with the plans for the future seems like a sensible way of securing a 100 Tory majority.
TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.
There is still a reasonable chance that Obama and the lame duck congress push it through before year end.
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
The era of populist politics of left and right is not one conducive to free trade.
In theory free trade brings benefits to consumers even unilaterally. A mooted deal with Australasia would make for cheap wheat, meat and dairy for the British table. It may do no favours to our farmers and countryside though. We might be back to the agricultural depression of late Victorian times, but at least it would be a decent barbie.
I think that has a high risk of happening in the WTO negotiations regardless of what else .happens. farmers corrupt see their gate prices fall by a half
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.
Yeah, there are questions as to whether the prerogative can be restored. It may only be restorable on a statutory basis.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
Doesn't mean we have to take it. If the country's not happy to be part of a trading bloc where it has a say in the setting of the rules, why would it sign up to a deal where the country's laws are outsourced to another country entirely - and one whose congressional politicians tend to take a particularly parochial view of their legislation?
Because the interests of middle ranking countries like Britain in a globalised world are better served by being part of a rules based system than taking on the big boys directly. It raises the question of why we are leaving the EU. It's fair to say fed up UKIP sympathising voters didn't spend a lot of thought on the dynamics of trade diplomacy before crossing the Leave box on the voting slip.
Yes, well, I've always said that there are two types of nations: superpowers and the rest. It was one of my main reasons for supporting Remain. However, I'd prefer a more restricted deal based on equality than a freer lop-sided one against our interests.
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'.
Not necessarily. Remember Boris Johnson's much-mocked position when he first came out for Leave which was characterised as wanting to renew your wedding vows by filing for divorce? With some subtle diplomacy we could end up conducting a rerun of Cameron's renegotiation which leads to a second referendum, or manifesto commitment, on something quite different.
There won't be a second referendum because there won't be any negotiation without A50 and once A50 is signed then the clock is ticking on exit. At that point, there is no Remain option. A referendum would be a choice between accepting the deal and accepting a chaotic exit. I don't think that's a fair question to put to the British people. In any case, if the question of EU membership or not was one marked by far too much scaremongering and dodgy projection, goodness knows what a referendum based on the minutiae of trade negotiations would be like. Dealing with that sort of thing is what parliament is for.
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'. Even if it was a mistake to vote Leave, that vote was made and the consequences have to follow. The current government has been formed on that basis and it would probably become rapidly untenable given its small majority were it to go back on that commitment.
In any case, it's not as if the UK will necessarily be cutting all ties with the continent. I would expect May, Boris, Fox and Davis to aim for a Three-Plus Freedoms deal, maintaining many aspects of membership of the Single Market. That may not be on offer but if that's the case, I'd still expect the UK to be looking for as close a deal as is consistent with restrictions on migration and being outside the competence of the EU institutions.
The "Three Plus" deal - assuming something could be agreed on immigration - would almost certainly fail the "no fees" and the "no ECJ rulings" conditions. (Of course, basically all international agreements involve agreeing to binding arbitration that has the ability to over-rule national parliaments, ISDS etc., so the second conditional is always likely to be missed to some degree.)
'No fees' I think the UK could live with. It's a straightforward quid-pro-quo for access and is saleable as such as long as the price isn't too high. The ECJ is a different matter. If it's only about regulating goods and services sold within the EU then I suspect that again, the British people could accept that. Their countries: their rules. If, on the other hand, it were to continue to regulate things *within* the UK then that would probably cross a line.
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world. .
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'. Even if it was a mistake to vote Leave, that vote was made and the consequences have to follow. The current government has been formed on that basis and it would probably become rapidly untenable given its small majority were it to go back on that commitment.
In any case, it's not as if the UK will necessarily be cutting all ties with the continent. I would expect May, Boris, Fox and Davis to aim for a Three-Plus Freedoms deal, maintaining many aspects of membership of the Single Market. That may not be on offer but if that's the case, I'd still expect the UK to be looking for as close a deal as is consistent with restrictions on migration and being outside the competence of the EU institutions.
Who cares about the narrative? If it's a bad, expensive idea, the government thinks it's a bad, expensive idea, and the voters also think it's a bad, expensive idea, don't do it! Democracy means you do what the majority wants, not that the majority has to slap itself in the face for no reason.
PS The flaw in the second referendum idea is that the voters have not in fact decided that Brexit is a bad idea.
But that's the point. A second referendum now - when the public's position hasn't changed since the referendum - would be to appear to disregard a democratic decision for no good reason. And if the public does come to that conclusion, it'll almost certainly be after A50 has been invoked so at that point, there'd be no way back.
(Actually, there would be a way back in theory. While A50 sets an end-date for the country's membership, there is a provision for the Council, acting unanimously, to extend that exit period. It would be possible for an exiting state that changed its mind to extend that date to, say, 2116, and use a future treaty change to nullify the process. I wouldn't bank on it being practical though, never mind likely)
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik-driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
Naught but REMOANER propaganda
Brexit is a mistake but somehow voting for Trump isn't. *head in hands*
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'.
Not necessarily. Remember Boris Johnson's much-mocked position when he first came out for Leave which was characterised as wanting to renew your wedding vows by filing for divorce? With some subtle diplomacy we could end up conducting a rerun of Cameron's renegotiation which leads to a second referendum, or manifesto commitment, on something quite different.
I'm someone who can accept a rerun as legitimate, particular in light of a circumstance change, if likely pointless. But the main reason your scenario seems improbable is it woukd be madness for the eu to offer us a new deal to stay in. It would show everyone if you want to get a good deal from the eu vote to leave and they'll bend over to keep you. It'd be open season on securing concessions.
They wanted us to remain, but having voted out they want us gone and quickly too, and I suspect if we made hints of changing our minds they'd take actions designed to encourage us not to, particularly since having had one referendum it seems unlikely anyone would dare stop Brexit without running another to counter the first.
There are technically possible paths to second referendums or remaining. But for our politicians, Tory and labour, and the eu, other factors make it near impossible. Unless the most apocalyptic scenario occurs, and or the eu changes its offer, the public won't change its mind, and neither of those will happen prior to declaring article 50, and if may tried to hold off until they did, she'd face a challenge.
" However, despite the support of some MPs, senior figures in the Labour Party on Tuesday began casting doubt on Mr Vaz’s future.
Mr Corbyn said he would not suspend Mr Vaz but added that the NEC would be discussing Mr Vaz’s situation next week.
He said: “The NEC will be discussing that next week when they meet. Keith will be there, as I understand it, as an elected member of the NEC, and whatever decision is made about his future will partly be made by him.” "
does this mean that the NEC will lose a blairite and gain a menshevik?
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik-driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
Naught but REMOANER propaganda
Brexit is a mistake but somehow voting for Trump isn't. *head in hands*
presuming Sunil doesn't have a vote to cast for Trump..? except in the next series of I'm a celeb. get me out of here?
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.
The question of the prerogative is one that's not entirely settled as there's no meaningful precedent. However, if it's not resurrected then, rather ironically, the effect of the repealing Act would be to strengthen the FTPA! That's because the previous Act/s which set the length of the parliament at 5 years would apply but without *any* provision for an early election. If anyone was serious about repealing the FTPA, I'd expect a clause within the Bill to explicitly restore / reaffirm the previous royal prerogative regarding dissolution.
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.
The question of the prerogative is one that's not entirely settled as there's no meaningful precedent. However, if it's not resurrected then, rather ironically, the effect of the repealing Act would be to strengthen the FTPA! That's because the previous Act/s which set the length of the parliament at 5 years would apply but without *any* provision for an early election. If anyone was serious about repealing the FTPA, I'd expect a clause within the Bill to explicitly restore / reaffirm the previous royal prerogative regarding dissolution.
What Act now defines the length of a Parliament? The Septennial Act 1715 has now been repealed entirely, and the Parliament Act 1911 only amended the Septennial Act to change seven to five.
Duh, it's in the FTPA! If it's repealed entirely there would be no upper limit on the length of a Parliament!
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.
The question of the prerogative is one that's not entirely settled as there's no meaningful precedent. However, if it's not resurrected then, rather ironically, the effect of the repealing Act would be to strengthen the FTPA! That's because the previous Act/s which set the length of the parliament at 5 years would apply but without *any* provision for an early election. If anyone was serious about repealing the FTPA, I'd expect a clause within the Bill to explicitly restore / reaffirm the previous royal prerogative regarding dissolution.
What Act now defines the length of a Parliament? The Septennial Act 1715 has now been repealed entirely, and the Parliament Act 1911 only amended the Septennial Act to change seven to five.
The FTPA does:
"The polling day for each subsequent parliamentary general election is to be the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell." (Note that there are some circumstances that change that provision).
I'm not a constitutional lawyer but does repealing an Act in entirety also repeal the repeals within that Act i.e. the previous legislation then becomes active again? If not, then that'd be another aspect that would need amending.
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.
The question of the prerogative is one that's not entirely settled as there's no meaningful precedent. However, if it's not resurrected then, rather ironically, the effect of the repealing Act would be to strengthen the FTPA! That's because the previous Act/s which set the length of the parliament at 5 years would apply but without *any* provision for an early election. If anyone was serious about repealing the FTPA, I'd expect a clause within the Bill to explicitly restore / reaffirm the previous royal prerogative regarding dissolution.
What Act now defines the length of a Parliament? The Septennial Act 1715 has now been repealed entirely, and the Parliament Act 1911 only amended the Septennial Act to change seven to five.
The FTPA does:
"The polling day for each subsequent parliamentary general election is to be the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell." (Note that there are some circumstances that change that provision).
I'm not a constitutional lawyer but does repealing an Act in entirety also repeal the repeals within that Act i.e. the previous legislation then becomes active again? If not, then that'd be another aspect that would need amending.
Repealing an act that repeals another doesn't restore the repealed part, at least according to the Interpretation Act 1978. Has Lord Desai tabled a bill enabling TSE's benign dictatorship?
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik-driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
Naught but REMOANER propaganda
Brexit is a mistake but somehow voting for Trump isn't. *head in hands*
Assuming that's aimed at me, Trump isn't running to be Prime Minister of the UK.
Hey man, I made two maps to visualise your predictions http://prntscr.com/cf1dtj http://prntscr.com/cf1dke Also, I calculated seat totals WITH UNIONIST PACT Democratic Unionist Party 8-10 Sinn Féin 3 Social Democratic and Labour Party 2 Ulster Unionist Party 1-3 Independents 1 TOTAL UNIONISTS 11 NATIONALISTS 6 The ranges for DUP are based on which unionists get Glenshane and Upper Bann and Blackwater WITHOUT UNIONIST PACT (assuming all marginals go against unionists) Sinn Féin 7 Democratic Unionist Party 6 Social Democratic and Labour Party 2 Alliance Party of Northern Ireland 1 Independents 1 TOTAL NATIONALISTS 9 UNIONISTS 7 OTHERS 1 That leaves these ranges DUP 6-10 med. 8 SF 3-7 med. 5 SDLP 2 UUP 0-3 med. 1.5 IND 1 APNI 0-1med. 0.5 UNIONISTS 7-11 NATIONALISTS 6-9 OTHERS 0-1 which shows you what the pact does
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.
When I was in Ottowa (admittedly about four or five months ago), people I met with seemed pretty confident that it would (eventually) end up being concluded. (Ironically, of course, the issue holding it up about dispute resolution, and ISDS versus other options, and the preferred EU method is rather less sovereignty denuding than TTIP, etc.)
Indeed, the EU is getting ready for an exemption to implement it before the ratification process is complete, and in readiness for its signature in the summit with Canada at the end of October. That does not sound dead to me.
Well, well, well… Nicola Sturgeon’s devolved government in Scotland will not – after all – introduce a bill for a second referendum on Scottish independence. .....
To satisfy her supporters who want another immediate shot at it, the First Minister had to try to make it look as though she is not doing what she is doing, which is shelving the referendum because of the likelihood that she would lose. After a summer of giving the same speech, threatening independence imminently in the wake of the Brexit vote, she now says:
“We will consult on a draft referendum bill so that it is ready for immediate introduction if we conclude that independence is the best or only way to protect Scotland’s interests.”
That is quite funny. Consulting on a draft is the government equivalent of a cash-strapped would-be tourist ordering a bunch of glossy holiday brochures and saying “we might go for St Tropez this year.”
On topic - fascinating history, Mr Hayfield - thank you! Are any of the parties likely to contest the changes, or this being Northern Ireland, is that 'all of them?'
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.
But that's the point. A second referendum now - when the public's position hasn't changed since the referendum - would be to appear to disregard a democratic decision for no good reason. And if the public does come to that conclusion, it'll almost certainly be after A50 has been invoked so at that point, there'd be no way back.
(Actually, there would be a way back in theory. While A50 sets an end-date for the country's membership, there is a provision for the Council, acting unanimously, to extend that exit period. It would be possible for an exiting state that changed its mind to extend that date to, say, 2116, and use a future treaty change to nullify the process. I wouldn't bank on it being practical though, never mind likely)
IANAL but there also doesn't seem to be a clear no-takesies-backsies provision in Article 50. If the British changed their mind in the meantime it's not obvious that anyone would win a court case to force Britain to leave. And it's even less likely that anyone would bring one: The EU exists to create lot of win-win relationships, and everyone's voters get screwed if they're ended.
So if the British looked at what was involved and said, "on second thoughts we're good" they probably could, and it would be a weird take on democracy to say they weren't allowed to. They're the voters, after all.
I don't think they will, though, and I also don't think the government will ask them.
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.
"As the Commonwealth grew, Britain and the pre-1945 dominions became informally known as the Old Commonwealth", to whit Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.
"As the Commonwealth grew, Britain and the pre-1945 dominions became informally known as the Old Commonwealth", to whit Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.
"As the Commonwealth grew, Britain and the pre-1945 dominions became informally known as the Old Commonwealth", to whit Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.
"As the Commonwealth grew, Britain and the pre-1945 dominions became informally known as the Old Commonwealth", to whit Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.
"As the Commonwealth grew, Britain and the pre-1945 dominions became informally known as the Old Commonwealth", to whit Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'.
Not necessarily. Remember Boris Johnson's much-mocked position when he first came out for Leave which was characterised as wanting to renew your wedding vows by filing for divorce? With some subtle diplomacy we could end up conducting a rerun of Cameron's renegotiation which leads to a second referendum, or manifesto commitment, on something quite different.
There won't be a second referendum because there won't be any negotiation without A50 and once A50 is signed then the clock is ticking on exit. At that point, there is no Remain option. A referendum would be a choice between accepting the deal and accepting a chaotic exit. I don't think that's a fair question to put to the British people. In any case, if the question of EU membership or not was one marked by far too much scaremongering and dodgy projection, goodness knows what a referendum based on the minutiae of trade negotiations would be like. Dealing with that sort of thing is what parliament is for.
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour. Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.
Well, well, well… Nicola Sturgeon’s devolved government in Scotland will not – after all – introduce a bill for a second referendum on Scottish independence. .....
To satisfy her supporters who want another immediate shot at it, the First Minister had to try to make it look as though she is not doing what she is doing, which is shelving the referendum because of the likelihood that she would lose. After a summer of giving the same speech, threatening independence imminently in the wake of the Brexit vote, she now says:
“We will consult on a draft referendum bill so that it is ready for immediate introduction if we conclude that independence is the best or only way to protect Scotland’s interests.”
That is quite funny. Consulting on a draft is the government equivalent of a cash-strapped would-be tourist ordering a bunch of glossy holiday brochures and saying “we might go for St Tropez this year.”
LOL, your usual twisted and bent view on the topic. She has never at any time said she was calling a referendum, she said she was considering options in Scotland's interests due to it being dragged out of EU against its will. Not quite how you portray it. It is there if required.
Comments
There's a Vaz in me kitchen what am I gonna do?
I'm gonna fix that Vaz dat's what am I gonna do
I'm gonna fix that Vaz
Whatever, those numbers (28/32/40) look wrong. The 40 not so much, the other two definitely.
Spoof or not, the fact it's believable speaks volumes.
I expect that Jezza likes Burden of Shame, or possibly One in Ten, but my favourite is Madam Medusa, a raw look at Thatchers Britain.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/maps/map12.htm
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
I spent some considerable time arguing pre-referendum with a left wing Leave friend who was voting that way because they didn't like the capitalist TTIP and believed that outside the EU we wouldn't be signing up to any free trade arrangements like that.
He was an SNP supporter, so some of his obtuseness regarding any UK only-US deal being worse than TTIP may have been deliberate however.
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
1) an acceptable term to be used in a PB thread header
or
2) A horrible tautology
When I was in Ottowa (admittedly about four or five months ago), people I met with seemed pretty confident that it would (eventually) end up being concluded. (Ironically, of course, the issue holding it up about dispute resolution, and ISDS versus other options, and the preferred EU method is rather less sovereignty denuding than TTIP, etc.)
In any case, it's not as if the UK will necessarily be cutting all ties with the continent. I would expect May, Boris, Fox and Davis to aim for a Three-Plus Freedoms deal, maintaining many aspects of membership of the Single Market. That may not be on offer but if that's the case, I'd still expect the UK to be looking for as close a deal as is consistent with restrictions on migration and being outside the competence of the EU institutions.
The final paragraph of the morning thread will have you reaching for the mind bleach.
Has anyone noticed this little alleged government bill that's popped into the HoL? Maybe an election might happen before 2020 after all despite TM's insistence (e.g "Circumstances have changed" "The government needs a mandate for this deal" instead of a referendum etc).
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2016-2017/0059/lbill_2016-20170059_en_1.htm
From https://twitter.com/StuartLong01/status/773279557373788164
PS The flaw in the second referendum idea is that the voters have not in fact decided that Brexit is a bad idea.
Of course, you could have just entered into a position on a UK election before 2020 and are now just ramping your position...
In theory free trade brings benefits to consumers even unilaterally. A mooted deal with Australasia would make for cheap wheat, meat and dairy for the British table. It may do no favours to our farmers and countryside though. We might be back to the agricultural depression of late Victorian times, but at least it would be a decent barbie.
I tipped a 2016 election a few months back. Don't think it likely now, but just after triggering Article 50 with a manifesto with the plans for the future seems like a sensible way of securing a 100 Tory majority.
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.
(Actually, there would be a way back in theory. While A50 sets an end-date for the country's membership, there is a provision for the Council, acting unanimously, to extend that exit period. It would be possible for an exiting state that changed its mind to extend that date to, say, 2116, and use a future treaty change to nullify the process. I wouldn't bank on it being practical though, never mind likely)
They wanted us to remain, but having voted out they want us gone and quickly too, and I suspect if we made hints of changing our minds they'd take actions designed to encourage us not to, particularly since having had one referendum it seems unlikely anyone would dare stop Brexit without running another to counter the first.
There are technically possible paths to second referendums or remaining. But for our politicians, Tory and labour, and the eu, other factors make it near impossible. Unless the most apocalyptic scenario occurs, and or the eu changes its offer, the public won't change its mind, and neither of those will happen prior to declaring article 50, and if may tried to hold off until they did, she'd face a challenge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/06/labour-backbenchers-turn-on-keith-vaz-as-scandal-hit-mps-seat-on/
"
However, despite the support of some MPs, senior figures in the Labour Party on Tuesday began casting doubt on Mr Vaz’s future.
Mr Corbyn said he would not suspend Mr Vaz but added that the NEC would be discussing Mr Vaz’s situation next week.
He said: “The NEC will be discussing that next week when they meet. Keith will be there, as I understand it, as an elected member of the NEC, and whatever decision is made about his future will partly be made by him.”
"
does this mean that the NEC will lose a blairite and gain a menshevik?
Duh, it's in the FTPA! If it's repealed entirely there would be no upper limit on the length of a Parliament!
"The polling day for each subsequent parliamentary general election is to be the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell." (Note that there are some circumstances that change that provision).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/section/1/enacted
I'm not a constitutional lawyer but does repealing an Act in entirety also repeal the repeals within that Act i.e. the previous legislation then becomes active again? If not, then that'd be another aspect that would need amending.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/15
http://prntscr.com/cf1dtj
http://prntscr.com/cf1dke
Also, I calculated seat totals
WITH UNIONIST PACT
Democratic Unionist Party 8-10
Sinn Féin 3
Social Democratic and Labour Party 2
Ulster Unionist Party 1-3
Independents 1
TOTAL
UNIONISTS 11
NATIONALISTS 6
The ranges for DUP are based on which unionists get Glenshane and Upper Bann and Blackwater
WITHOUT UNIONIST PACT (assuming all marginals go against unionists)
Sinn Féin 7
Democratic Unionist Party 6
Social Democratic and Labour Party 2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland 1
Independents 1
TOTAL
NATIONALISTS 9
UNIONISTS 7
OTHERS 1
That leaves these ranges
DUP 6-10 med. 8
SF 3-7 med. 5
SDLP 2
UUP 0-3 med. 1.5
IND 1
APNI 0-1med. 0.5
UNIONISTS 7-11
NATIONALISTS 6-9
OTHERS 0-1
which shows you what the pact does
To satisfy her supporters who want another immediate shot at it, the First Minister had to try to make it look as though she is not doing what she is doing, which is shelving the referendum because of the likelihood that she would lose. After a summer of giving the same speech, threatening independence imminently in the wake of the Brexit vote, she now says:
“We will consult on a draft referendum bill so that it is ready for immediate introduction if we conclude that independence is the best or only way to protect Scotland’s interests.”
That is quite funny. Consulting on a draft is the government equivalent of a cash-strapped would-be tourist ordering a bunch of glossy holiday brochures and saying “we might go for St Tropez this year.”
http://reaction.life/nicola-sturgeon-sensibly-runs-away-second-scottish-independence-referendum/?ts
So if the British looked at what was involved and said, "on second thoughts we're good" they probably could, and it would be a weird take on democracy to say they weren't allowed to. They're the voters, after all.
I don't think they will, though, and I also don't think the government will ask them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Dominions
Interesting. I had always assumed Newfoundland was always part of canada... (after Leif Ericsson of course)
And ranges UNIONISTS 7-12 (med. 9.5) NATIONALISTS 5-9 (med.7) OTHERS 0-1 (med 0.5)
Early voting starts soon in many states.