Perhaps I'm in a mardy mood today, but the study on BMR changes with age seems to have been media-mobbed. It's logical that the body would reduce basal calorie usage in readiness for post-pubertal growth changes. My initial response was ... isn't evolution wonderful?
Yet it seems to be becoming a club (a caveman club, no doubt) to attack sugary drinks and high-calorie foods.
We still have a post-pubertal growth spurt, so it still makes sense for the body to do this, but why excuse and pander to a section of the community who can't be arsed to get off their fat arses occasionally? It's up to them. I forgive those unable to exercise, but the rest ...
I'm an old git now so my BMR will be lower anyway, so perhaps all fatty and sweet foods should be banned to protect me from my own weaknesses. People know that stuffing their faces with burgers and swilling down fizzy drinks isn't good for you. There may be the odd one around who doesn't, but they're a very small minority.
On the up-side, I also know that if I'd voted Remain, I'd have been disappointed to lose, but I'd also know that whingeing is counter-productive.
Perhaps a health warning is needed for the bitter Remainers?
''If the EU makes it easy for us to leave, it will set a precedent so it's in their interests to make it difficult for us "pour ne pas encourager les autres" if you like.''
Alternatively, the EU might ask why it is everybody wants to leave and instigate remedies that will make citizens happier.
The notion that democracies can be bullied, threatened and cajoled like Verhofstadt is suggesting is quite frankly crazy.
Yep, it was 10/1 a couple of days ago. A bit of a snip, I think.
Asked for £40 on that and got it - only requires Trump to lose Georgia and North Carolina (Which are both TCTC) and the rest of the states to "fall naturally"
Most likely Leave. EU will try and turn UKIP into a vehicle for its agenda, much like Momentum did with Labour and marginalise the Carswell tendency. As for May she will almost certainly do a compromise between soft and hard BREXIT i.e. limited migration for limited single market access and then aim to dominate the centre ground with Corbynite Labour and the LDs to her left and UKIP and the Tory hard BREXITeers to her right. That way she should ensure she is reelected with the main question at the next election being whether Labour or UKIP take second place in voteshare
I think describing the UK as a " supplicant " in the negotiations is far too strong. However as all of the other 27 know we took this decision ( a) by accident ( b) with no plan ( c) at the behest of 17.1m voters who where trying to achieve a myriad of contradictory outcomes. It's a deeply suboptimal starting point for our negotiations. It's why Cameron left A50 to his successor and why May immeadiately bought her self 6 months.
Mr. HYUFD, at this stage, I'd be astounded if UKIP came second in number of votes. If they did, surely a dozen or more northern/eastern seats would tumble to them?
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
May cannot ensure that, it is not under her control.
After A50 is invoked the clock ticks, and if no agreement at 2 years it is hard Brexit. It is the default outcome.
In terms of ordinary folk, we've kicked off a game of Pachinko.
I'm as happy to speculate as the next PBer, but it really is down to HMG (and the other parties if they can get their collective act together) to bring home (or not) the bacon.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
May cannot ensure that, it is not under her control.
After A50 is invoked the clock ticks, and if no agreement at 2 years it is hard Brexit. It is the default outcome.
A50 is completely in her control, therefore it is under her control.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
I think describing the UK as a " supplicant " in the negotiations is far too strong. However as all of the other 27 know we took this decision ( a) by accident ( b) with no plan ( c) at the behest of 17.1m voters who where trying to achieve a myriad of contradictory outcomes. It's a deeply suboptimal starting point for our negotiations. It's why Cameron left A50 to his successor and why May immeadiately bought her self 6 months.
I see the Australian trade minister also hates the UK ;-)
There is a firm division in the Australian Liberal Party between the wing of ousted PM Tony Abbott, which is firmly pro UK, monarchist and sympathetic to BREXIT and the wing of incumbent PM Malcolm Turnbull which is more internationalist, Republican and while not hostile to the UK not going to do it any special favours. For now the Turnbull wing is in the ascendancy but having only scraped a win in the recent general election in Australia and with the anti immigration One Nation on the rise the Abbott wing is ready to strike back if it gets the chance
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
I see the Australian trade minister also hates the UK ;-)
There is a firm division in the Australian Liberal Party between the wing of ousted PM Tony Abbott, which is firmly pro UK, monarchist and sympathetic to BREXIT and the wing of incumbent PM Malcolm Turnbull which is more internationalist, Republican and while not hostile to the UK not going to do it any special favours. For now the Turnbull wing is in the ascendancy but having only scraped a win in the recent general election in Australia and with the anti immigration One Nation on the rise the Abbott wing is ready to strike back if it gets the chance
Imagine trying to negotiate a trade deal with a Julia Gillard figure, or a pro-Chinese leader like Kevin Rudd. At the rate Australia goes through Prime Ministers we'd probably be negotiating with at least 2 different ones from each party before things were agreed. Quick and easy it won't be.
"17.1m voters who were trying to achieve a myriad of contradictory outcomes" - couldn't agree more.
By the way is anybody else concerned that rich people can finance their own parties to achieve ends that affect us all. Maybe there should be a limit as to how much any individual, company or organisation (e.g trades union) can contribute to any political party each year.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
May cannot ensure that, it is not under her control.
After A50 is invoked the clock ticks, and if no agreement at 2 years it is hard Brexit. It is the default outcome.
A50 is completely in her control, therefore it is under her control.
The choice to not invoke A50 is Remain.
That is not under her control. We had a referendum.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
If all those things came to pass, I doubt if there would be a Transatlantic Deep State left.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
Yup. If we do not go into the negotiations with the will to walk away, then we are begging not negotiating and will just repeat the Cameron experience. TM would not survive that. The EU countries will probably misread the UK position again (some of them cannot understand how any country could walk away from the EU) so they will get the negotiations wrong, again. So called hard Brexit seems the favourite to me.
To be honest I would be quite relaxed about it. A lot of countries around the world sell to each other without having FTA, let alone freedom of movement and all the rest of the gubbins the EU demands. If we can sell to them and they to us inside the EU then I doubt there will actually be many problems for our mutual trade outside of it.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
May cannot ensure that, it is not under her control.
After A50 is invoked the clock ticks, and if no agreement at 2 years it is hard Brexit. It is the default outcome.
A50 is completely in her control, therefore it is under her control.
The choice to not invoke A50 is Remain.
That is not under her control. We had a referendum.
The choice of whether we are ready to invoke it is hers entirely. Brexit means Brexit does not mean Brexit tomorrow.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Some quality handwringingly awkward white man's guilt here.
What the EU do from here on in is their problem - if Frexit and Irexit happen well that is the EU's fault, not us Brits.
I see the Australian trade minister also hates the UK ;-)
There is a firm division in the Australian Liberal Party between the wing of ousted PM Tony Abbott, which is firmly pro UK, monarchist and sympathetic to BREXIT and the wing of incumbent PM Malcolm Turnbull which is more internationalist, Republican and while not hostile to the UK not going to do it any special favours. For now the Turnbull wing is in the ascendancy but having only scraped a win in the recent general election in Australia and with the anti immigration One Nation on the rise the Abbott wing is ready to strike back if it gets the chance
Imagine trying to negotiate a trade deal with a Julia Gillard figure, or a pro-Chinese leader like Kevin Rudd. At the rate Australia goes through Prime Ministers we'd probably be negotiating with at least 2 different ones from each party before things were agreed. Quick and easy it won't be.
Gillard is basically an Australian Hillary Clinton and Rudd wanted to shift Australia towards Asia, neither have a special affection for the UK beyond any other Western nation. In Australia as in the U.S. the most firmly pro BREXIT backing comes from the right i.e. the Trump and Cruz wing of the GOP and the Abbott wing of the Coalition. Brexiteers should thus be hoping Trump beats Hillary and a GOP Congress is reelected and also that Abbott topples Turnbull in yet another backroom coup
"17.1m voters who were trying to achieve a myriad of contradictory outcomes" - couldn't agree more.
By the way is anybody else concerned that rich people can finance their own parties to achieve ends that affect us all. Maybe there should be a limit as to how much any individual, company or organisation (e.g trades union) can contribute to any political party each year.
Didn't Tories propose a £10k limit but Labour regected it because they are bought for by the unions.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
Does the EU have a trade war with the USA, Japan, China, Australia, NZ and goodness knows how many other countries? Then why would it start one with a major market with which it has a trade surplus?
I see Gove is the Telegraph's new book reviewer. Why is it never enough for these people to 'just' be an MP and spend their days legislating and helping constituents?
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
Yup. If we do not go into the negotiations with the will to walk away, then we are begging not negotiating and will just repeat the Cameron experience. TM would not survive that. The EU countries will probably misread the UK position again (some of them cannot understand how any country could walk away from the EU) so they will get the negotiations wrong, again. So called hard Brexit seems the favourite to me.
To be honest I would be quite relaxed about it. A lot of countries around the world sell to each other without having FTA, let alone freedom of movement and all the rest of the gubbins the EU demands. If we can sell to them and they to us inside the EU then I doubt there will actually be many problems for our mutual trade outside of it.
Me too. And I think TM saying that the UK can become "the global leader in free trade" also points in that direction.
For Don Brind and some of our other soft left posters, the 8-1 Trump 179 EVs or less and 20-1 on Owen Smith winning the contest are absolute head/heart aligning boot filling time stonkers in the last couple of days.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
I don't think "it's clear" at all. I reflexively dislike apocalyptic language on almost any topic bar a full on strategic nuclear exchange. It's going to be diffcult, complex and moderately expensive. But we're a long way from trade wars and the like.
The EU gave made quite clear that if there is no free movement at all of EU citizens to the UK there will be restrictions placed on the access of all UK goods to the EU. So if it is a full, hard BREXIT a trade war of some form is almost certain
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Some quality handwringingly awkward white man's guilt here.
What the EU do from here on in is their problem - if Frexit and Irexit happen well that is the EU's fault, not us Brits.
That's a fair analysis of what I was doing. However as a country we specialise in White Man's Guilt. We invented White Man's Guilt. We peacekeep and sort out Ebola. We invade places. We have a submersible phallus symbol that meets the Moscow Criterion. We have a huge aid budget a Queen with 16 different legal personalities. We're always guilty. It's what we do. Or at least what we used to do.
"17.1m voters who were trying to achieve a myriad of contradictory outcomes" - couldn't agree more.
By the way is anybody else concerned that rich people can finance their own parties to achieve ends that affect us all. Maybe there should be a limit as to how much any individual, company or organisation (e.g trades union) can contribute to any political party each year.
Didn't Tories propose a £10k limit but Labour regected it because they are bought for by the unions.
I think it was more complex than that: Labour liked the £10K limit afaicr, but wanted to count the union's money as if it came from the individuals paying into the fund. Whereas the Conservatives wanted it to be treated as one lump sum and therefore liable to the £10k limit.
I can see both sides of the argument, but at the end of the day it came down to both just wanting what was in their best interests.
I see Gove is the Telegraph's new book reviewer. Why is it never enough for these people to 'just' be an MP and spend their days legislating and helping constituents?
What is Gove? Baby don't hurt me Don't hurt me No more
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Some quality handwringingly awkward white man's guilt here.
What the EU do from here on in is their problem - if Frexit and Irexit happen well that is the EU's fault, not us Brits.
That's a fair analysis of what I was doing. However as a country we specialise in White Man's Guilt. We invented White Man's Guilt. We peacekeep and sort out Ebola. We invade places. We have a submersible phallus symbol that meets the Moscow Criterion. We have a huge aid budget a Queen with 16 different legal personalities. We're always guilty. It's what we do. Or at least what we used to do.
So a great time to stop. The reaction to Brexit was indicative - far too many virtue signallers would rather shackle us to a corpse as cutting off the dragweight might look "inward looking".
The EU is a disaster for all but those who are net financial beneficiaries - mostly large land owners and corporations.
The can of man up which will be required over the next 4 years is long overdue.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
For Don Brind and some of our other soft left posters, the 8-1 Trump 179 EVs or less and 20-1 on Owen Smith winning the contest are absolute head/heart aligning boot filling time stonkers in the last couple of days.
I think not a trade war. At worst a skirmish caused by WTO terms.
I suspect that no tariff on physical goods, no freedom of movement, plenty of non-tariff barriers.
More than likely that a new party headed by Farage and funded by Banks would turn out to be a British version of AfD: Alternative for Britain or AfB, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
Does the EU have a trade war with the USA, Japan, China, Australia, NZ and goodness knows how many other countries? Then why would it start one with a major market with which it has a trade surplus?
The Italian trade minister said on Monday the more free movement is restricted the more access of UK goods to the EU will be restricted too, the appointment of Verhofstadt today too shows the EU will play hardball if needed. None of the nations you mention have ever been in the EU, the EU will want to send a message that any nation which leaves the block and then abandons its core rules and principles will have to face consequences. The UK would respond with trading restrictions on EU goods, thus a trade war of some form is almost certain in the event of hard BREXIT
For Don Brind and some of our other soft left posters, the 8-1 Trump 179 EVs or less and 20-1 on Owen Smith winning the contest are absolute head/heart aligning boot filling time stonkers in the last couple of days.
I think not a trade war. At worst a skirmish caused by WTO terms.
I suspect that no tariff on physical goods, no freedom of movement, plenty of non-tariff barriers.
For Don Brind and some of our other soft left posters, the 8-1 Trump 179 EVs or less and 20-1 on Owen Smith winning the contest are absolute head/heart aligning boot filling time stonkers in the last couple of days.
I think not a trade war. At worst a skirmish caused by WTO terms.
I suspect that no tariff on physical goods, no freedom of movement, plenty of non-tariff barriers.
More than likely that a new party headed by Farage and funded by Banks would turn out to be a British version of AfD: Alternative for Britain or AfB, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
Farage and Banks would be idiots if they create a separate political party, if it's only a pressure group like Momentum is to help Farage keep control of UKIP ok, but a separate political party splitting UKIP would be suicide.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Indeed, with the flamin' galahs that are the Aussies prioritising the EU over us, brace yourselves.
They're telling the EU that they're prioritising them over us.
That ain't the same thing at all.
Who anyone is 'prioritising' is entirely beside the point, unless they only have one negotiator and one phone line. It's whether the two parties can reach agreement that dictates the speed of a deal.
"17.1m voters who were trying to achieve a myriad of contradictory outcomes" - couldn't agree more.
By the way is anybody else concerned that rich people can finance their own parties to achieve ends that affect us all. Maybe there should be a limit as to how much any individual, company or organisation (e.g trades union) can contribute to any political party each year.
Didn't Tories propose a £10k limit but Labour regected it because they are bought for by the unions.
The Tories have a majority are they going to implement it ;-)
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
Does the EU have a trade war with the USA, Japan, China, Australia, NZ and goodness knows how many other countries? Then why would it start one with a major market with which it has a trade surplus?
The Italian trade minister said on Monday the more free movement is restricted the more access of UK goods to the EU will be restricted too, the appointment of Verhofstadt today too shows the EU will play hardball if needed. None of the nations you mention have ever been in the EU, the EU will want to send a message that any nation which leaves the block and then abandons its core rules and principles will have to face consequences. The UK would respond with trading restrictions on EU goods, thus a trade war of some form is almost certain in the event of hard BREXIT
That's unlikely. We'll agree to the unequal and slightly crap trade deal that we get from the EU because it is better for both parties than not having it.
Verhofstadt's also right. The equilibrium point in all of this is for there to be a durable Brexit deal because it's everyone's interests. That deal will not be generous or quick as it's not in 27 of the 28 participants interests for it to be. As this is politics events or dynamics may mean we don't reach the natural equilibrium point at the first go. It's why we can all bet on it.
Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
If the Australians don't think it worth talking until after Brexit, why should anyone else?
Best get on with it.
It will not be hard BREXIT, May will ensure that. Hard Brexit it is now clear would lead to a trade war with the EU and she is not going to let that happen. Australia have said they will do a trade deal with the UK asap after Brexit as have New Zealand but obviously the terms of Brexit must be agreed first
Does the EU have a trade war with the USA, Japan, China, Australia, NZ and goodness knows how many other countries? Then why would it start one with a major market with which it has a trade surplus?
The Italian trade minister said on Monday the more free movement is restricted the more access of UK goods to the EU will be restricted too, the appointment of Verhofstadt today too shows the EU will play hardball if needed. None of the nations you mention have ever been in the EU, the EU will want to send a message that any nation which leaves the block and then abandons its core rules and principles will have to face consequences. The UK would respond with trading restrictions on EU goods, thus a trade war of some form is almost certain in the event of hard BREXIT
The jumped up leaders of these feeble EU offices may wish to "send a message" - but the board of directors of BMW certainly don't - they want to sell cars in the Uk and if a few Latvians can't pick turnips in Norfolk without a work permit then that will be a price worth paying for them.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
The neologism itself is jarring. It's infantile.
But saying "British exit from the European Union" all the time would make posts unbearably long!
Turns out that in his appearance before the Commons this week David Davis committed the UK to signing up to the Unified Patent Court agreement. This would, for the first time, give foreign courts the right to decide on whether patents are valid and infringed in the UK. It also has the CJEU as its final court of appeal.
This is a major transfer of sovereignty, just a couple of months after the Brexit vote. Or Davis really does not have the first idea of what he is talking about.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
I only ask because it isn't an acronym, unless the PB brain trust can come up with a good one for BREXIT?
Turns out that in his appearance before the Commons this week David Davis committed the UK to signing up to the Unified Patent Court agreement. This would, for the first time, give foreign courts the right to decide on whether patents are valid and infringed in the UK. It also has the CJEU as its final court of appeal.
This is a major transfer of sovereignty, just a couple of months after the Brexit vote. Or Davis really does not have the first idea of what he is talking about.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
The neologism itself is jarring. It's infantile.
But saying "British exit from the European Union" all the time would make posts unbearably long!
I'd just use withdrawal. I think it can be assumed that we're talking about Britain. I am aware I'm being very grumpy about it.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
The neologism itself is jarring. It's infantile.
But saying "British exit from the European Union" all the time would make posts unbearably long!
I'd just use withdrawal. I think it can be assumed that we're talking about Britain. I am aware I'm being very grumpy about it.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Unlike the UK, the German Liberals and Greens are politically poles apart. A "Jamaica" coalition was mooted after the 2005 elections, when I lived in Germany, but the Greens refused to work with the CDU, and the FDP wanted nothing to do with the Greens. I can't see it happening unless attitudes have softened considerably since then (which may be the case with the advent of the AfD - I'm a bit out of touch these days).
Indeed, with the flamin' galahs that are the Aussies prioritising the EU over us, brace yourselves.
They're telling the EU that they're prioritising them over us.
That ain't the same thing at all.
Who anyone is 'prioritising' is entirely beside the point, unless they only have one negotiator and one phone line. It's whether the two parties can reach agreement that dictates the speed of a deal.
Two parties in the case of Australia and the UK. Effectively twenty-eight with Australia and rEU.
Even with a two year headstart there's a good chance an Australia-EU deal will be completed later, if at all.
Turns out that in his appearance before the Commons this week David Davis committed the UK to signing up to the Unified Patent Court agreement. This would, for the first time, give foreign courts the right to decide on whether patents are valid and infringed in the UK. It also has the CJEU as its final court of appeal.
This is a major transfer of sovereignty, just a couple of months after the Brexit vote. Or Davis really does not have the first idea of what he is talking about.
According to the Wikipedia article this got Royal Assent in March, ie before the referendum, so a done deal. I guess it could be unwound as part of the A50 negotiations.
One thing about Gary Johnson making a fool of himself on TV about Aleppo.
Johnson is the candidate for smart decent people who are students and are on the internet. If Johnson is proven to be an idiot those people will go for Hillary, because although she is a crook she is deemed as smart.
The reason why Trump is losing college educated people, especially younger ones, is that he answers every question like an idiot (and racism too), and that makes the know-all internet crowd furious (see Johnson and Aleppo).
The lesson from this is that after G.W.Bush the american people will not vote for someone who sounds like an idiot for President, that's another problem for Trump, he needs to sound smart on TV.
I see Gove is the Telegraph's new book reviewer. Why is it never enough for these people to 'just' be an MP and spend their days legislating and helping constituents?
His staff budget is the same as just an MP as it was when he was a minister. As such he now has a lot of spare time as a lot of his MP work has been delegated for years to people who know what they are doing...
The lesson from this is that after G.W.Bush the american people will not vote for someone who sounds like an idiot for President, that's another problem for Trump, he needs to sound smart on TV.
Yet they did it twice, so I'm not sure what you are basing that on.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
The neologism itself is jarring. It's infantile.
But saying "British exit from the European Union" all the time would make posts unbearably long!
Isn't it a play on Grexit, during the Greek Crisis?
Turns out that in his appearance before the Commons this week David Davis committed the UK to signing up to the Unified Patent Court agreement. This would, for the first time, give foreign courts the right to decide on whether patents are valid and infringed in the UK. It also has the CJEU as its final court of appeal.
This is a major transfer of sovereignty, just a couple of months after the Brexit vote. Or Davis really does not have the first idea of what he is talking about.
According to the Wikipedia article this got Royal Assent in March, ie before the referendum, so a done deal. I guess it could be unwound as part of the A50 negotiations.
No - we still need to ratify it and are under no obligation to do so. I am pretty sure we won't. Davis has just shown how utterly clueless he is. Again.
Indeed, with the flamin' galahs that are the Aussies prioritising the EU over us, brace yourselves.
They're telling the EU that they're prioritising them over us.
That ain't the same thing at all.
Who anyone is 'prioritising' is entirely beside the point, unless they only have one negotiator and one phone line. It's whether the two parties can reach agreement that dictates the speed of a deal.
Two parties in the case of Australia and the UK. Effectively twenty-eight with Australia and rEU.
Even with a two year headstart there's a good chance an Australia-EU deal will be completed later, if at all.
Exactly. So who cares what this little scrote has been saying to the EU parliament?
Turns out that in his appearance before the Commons this week David Davis committed the UK to signing up to the Unified Patent Court agreement. This would, for the first time, give foreign courts the right to decide on whether patents are valid and infringed in the UK. It also has the CJEU as its final court of appeal.
This is a major transfer of sovereignty, just a couple of months after the Brexit vote. Or Davis really does not have the first idea of what he is talking about.
According to the Wikipedia article this got Royal Assent in March, ie before the referendum, so a done deal. I guess it could be unwound as part of the A50 negotiations.
No - we still need to ratify it and are under no obligation to do so. I am pretty sure we won't. Davis has just shown how utterly clueless he is. Again.
Yes, but I don't think he committed the government to ratifying it in his response.
This has James Goldsmith's Referendum Party written all over it. Mind you, it lasted 3 years.
If it is like Momentum, then it will attract fringe elements, including people who have been thrown out of the main, existing party, for views that are, how shall we say, distasteful.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
I only ask because it isn't an acronym, unless the PB brain trust can come up with a good one for BREXIT?
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
I don't think the CSU will play ball for the Greens to enter the coalition. Merkel's biggest problem is that the CDU-CSU coalition is under severe strain and may snap.
The main sticking point is that the CSU think it's their turn to name their own guy for chancellor instead of Merkel.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Unlike the UK, the German Liberals and Greens are politically poles apart. A "Jamaica" coalition was mooted after the 2005 elections, when I lived in Germany, but the Greens refused to work with the CDU, and the FDP wanted nothing to do with the Greens. I can't see it happening unless attitudes have softened considerably since then (which may be the case with the advent of the AfD - I'm a bit out of touch these days).
Theoretically, you could have FDP + Die Linke + Green, but that's well short of 50%.
Of course, Germany could do a Spain and end up in a permanent cycle of elections, with each as inconclusive as the last.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Unlike the UK, the German Liberals and Greens are politically poles apart. A "Jamaica" coalition was mooted after the 2005 elections, when I lived in Germany, but the Greens refused to work with the CDU, and the FDP wanted nothing to do with the Greens. I can't see it happening unless attitudes have softened considerably since then (which may be the case with the advent of the AfD - I'm a bit out of touch these days).
Theoretically, you could have FDP + Die Linke + Green, but that's well short of 50%.
Of course, Germany could do a Spain and end up in a permanent cycle of elections, with each as inconclusive as the last.
We know that anarchy in southern europe is a plus for southern europe, but I don't think anarchy in Germany is a plus for them, though a weak Germany is certainly a plus for Britain.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Unlike the UK, the German Liberals and Greens are politically poles apart. A "Jamaica" coalition was mooted after the 2005 elections, when I lived in Germany, but the Greens refused to work with the CDU, and the FDP wanted nothing to do with the Greens. I can't see it happening unless attitudes have softened considerably since then (which may be the case with the advent of the AfD - I'm a bit out of touch these days).
Theoretically, you could have FDP + Die Linke + Green, but that's well short of 50%.
Of course, Germany could do a Spain and end up in a permanent cycle of elections, with each as inconclusive as the last.
In the 2005 election when Merkel first came to power, Schroeder tried to stay on as Chancellor despite losing the election but Merkel was able to out negotiate him and bring about the first grand coalition.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Unlike the UK, the German Liberals and Greens are politically poles apart. A "Jamaica" coalition was mooted after the 2005 elections, when I lived in Germany, but the Greens refused to work with the CDU, and the FDP wanted nothing to do with the Greens. I can't see it happening unless attitudes have softened considerably since then (which may be the case with the advent of the AfD - I'm a bit out of touch these days).
Theoretically, you could have FDP + Die Linke + Green, but that's well short of 50%.
Of course, Germany could do a Spain and end up in a permanent cycle of elections, with each as inconclusive as the last.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Unlike the UK, the German Liberals and Greens are politically poles apart. A "Jamaica" coalition was mooted after the 2005 elections, when I lived in Germany, but the Greens refused to work with the CDU, and the FDP wanted nothing to do with the Greens. I can't see it happening unless attitudes have softened considerably since then (which may be the case with the advent of the AfD - I'm a bit out of touch these days).
Theoretically, you could have FDP + Die Linke + Green, but that's well short of 50%.
Of course, Germany could do a Spain and end up in a permanent cycle of elections, with each as inconclusive as the last.
We know that anarchy in southern europe is a plus for southern europe, but I don't think anarchy in Germany is a plus for them, though a weak Germany is certainly a plus for Britain.
Assuming the CSU/CDU is 12% ahead of the second placed party, I just don't see how they aren't in power; the only question is who their coalition partners are.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Unlike the UK, the German Liberals and Greens are politically poles apart. A "Jamaica" coalition was mooted after the 2005 elections, when I lived in Germany, but the Greens refused to work with the CDU, and the FDP wanted nothing to do with the Greens. I can't see it happening unless attitudes have softened considerably since then (which may be the case with the advent of the AfD - I'm a bit out of touch these days).
Theoretically, you could have FDP + Die Linke + Green, but that's well short of 50%.
Of course, Germany could do a Spain and end up in a permanent cycle of elections, with each as inconclusive as the last.
Very theoretically! The day the FDP govern Germany together with Die Linke and the Greens is the day pigs fly over a blue moon in a frozen hell. SDP + Die Linke + Green would be somewhat more probable.
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
I've wondered, any reason for the capitalisation of Brexit? It's quite jarring.
Well it will dominate our politics until the general election but I will stick to lower case if required
I only ask because it isn't an acronym, unless the PB brain trust can come up with a good one for BREXIT?
The other issue is we don't know if there is contagion yet. If Clinton wins and the European centre holds throughout 2017 then we can be accommodated. If Trump wins, Ukraine is partitioned, Merkel falls and the Ottoman Empire is reborn the Transatlantic ' Deep State ' has every reason to have us kneecapped. That's certainly not a prediction. Systemic meltdowns are very rare. I just make the point we shouldn't confuse a Brexit in general with the particular Brexit we're pursuing in this particular way. Frankly our timing is rather inconsiderate.
Quite the reverse, the best result in pure realpolitik terms for the UK would be a Trump and Le Pen win and the AfD with the balance of power in Germany. That way we would have a pro BREXIT U.S. president and the EU may collapse anyway
What are the vote shares in Germany that would give the AfD the balance of power?
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
Unlike the UK, the German Liberals and Greens are politically poles apart. A "Jamaica" coalition was mooted after the 2005 elections, when I lived in Germany, but the Greens refused to work with the CDU, and the FDP wanted nothing to do with the Greens. I can't see it happening unless attitudes have softened considerably since then (which may be the case with the advent of the AfD - I'm a bit out of touch these days).
Theoretically, you could have FDP + Die Linke + Green, but that's well short of 50%.
Of course, Germany could do a Spain and end up in a permanent cycle of elections, with each as inconclusive as the last.
Very theoretically! The day the FDP govern Germany together with Die Linke and the Greens is the day pigs fly over a blue moon in a frozen hell. SDP + Die Linke + Green would be somewhat more probable.
Comments
Yet it seems to be becoming a club (a caveman club, no doubt) to attack sugary drinks and high-calorie foods.
We still have a post-pubertal growth spurt, so it still makes sense for the body to do this, but why excuse and pander to a section of the community who can't be arsed to get off their fat arses occasionally? It's up to them. I forgive those unable to exercise, but the rest ...
I'm an old git now so my BMR will be lower anyway, so perhaps all fatty and sweet foods should be banned to protect me from my own weaknesses. People know that stuffing their faces with burgers and swilling down fizzy drinks isn't good for you. There may be the odd one around who doesn't, but they're a very small minority.
On the up-side, I also know that if I'd voted Remain, I'd have been disappointed to lose, but I'd also know that whingeing is counter-productive.
Perhaps a health warning is needed for the bitter Remainers?
Alternatively, the EU might ask why it is everybody wants to leave and instigate remedies that will make citizens happier.
The notion that democracies can be bullied, threatened and cajoled like Verhofstadt is suggesting is quite frankly crazy.
After A50 is invoked the clock ticks, and if no agreement at 2 years it is hard Brexit. It is the default outcome.
I'm as happy to speculate as the next PBer, but it really is down to HMG (and the other parties if they can get their collective act together) to bring home (or not) the bacon.
Boxer David Davis needs Nigel to wind them up. No holds barred!
By the way is anybody else concerned that rich people can finance their own parties to achieve ends that affect us all. Maybe there should be a limit as to how much any individual, company or organisation (e.g trades union) can contribute to any political party each year.
That is not under her control. We had a referendum.
To be honest I would be quite relaxed about it. A lot of countries around the world sell to each other without having FTA, let alone freedom of movement and all the rest of the gubbins the EU demands. If we can sell to them and they to us inside the EU then I doubt there will actually be many problems for our mutual trade outside of it.
Outrage over Japan's 'owl cafés'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/08/outrage-over-japans-owl-cafs/
What the EU do from here on in is their problem - if Frexit and Irexit happen well that is the EU's fault, not us Brits.
I can see both sides of the argument, but at the end of the day it came down to both just wanting what was in their best interests.
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
The EU is a disaster for all but those who are net financial beneficiaries - mostly large land owners and corporations.
The can of man up which will be required over the next 4 years is long overdue.
I suspect that no tariff on physical goods, no freedom of movement, plenty of non-tariff barriers.
That ain't the same thing at all.
CDU + SPD + FDP + Greens is north of 75% in almost all scenarios, which makes it pretty hard for AfD to exercise real power.
Personally, I think the SPD is desperate to return to opposition; it feels that it's been hammered by being in coalition with the CDU. For that reason, I reckon CDU + Greens + FDP is the most likely outcome next year.
http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/does-david-davis-want-to-ratify-upc.html?_sm_au_=iVVqt3gZZNNPBq3s
This is a major transfer of sovereignty, just a couple of months after the Brexit vote. Or Davis really does not have the first idea of what he is talking about.
@BBCPhilipSim 24m24 minutes ago
SNP, Labour and Green MSPs sign up to a motion from @ChristinaSNP "strongly condemning" the 'Great Wall of Calais'
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cr11vGXWcAANnHa.jpg
Even with a two year headstart there's a good chance an Australia-EU deal will be completed later, if at all.
Johnson is the candidate for smart decent people who are students and are on the internet.
If Johnson is proven to be an idiot those people will go for Hillary, because although she is a crook she is deemed as smart.
The reason why Trump is losing college educated people, especially younger ones, is that he answers every question like an idiot (and racism too), and that makes the know-all internet crowd furious (see Johnson and Aleppo).
The lesson from this is that after G.W.Bush the american people will not vote for someone who sounds like an idiot for President, that's another problem for Trump, he needs to sound smart on TV.
This has James Goldsmith's Referendum Party written all over it. Mind you, it lasted 3 years.
Promises to be another popcorn-tastic hoot.
Merkel's biggest problem is that the CDU-CSU coalition is under severe strain and may snap.
The main sticking point is that the CSU think it's their turn to name their own guy for chancellor instead of Merkel.
Of course, Germany could do a Spain and end up in a permanent cycle of elections, with each as inconclusive as the last.
And they say there would be no hard border at Carlisle if Sindy happened ?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-08/gary-johnson-crushes-libertarian-hopes-3-little-words
A right wing Momentum has Monday Club written all over it.
But I hate that sort of thing. I am shortly launching a Campaign Against Fecking Contrived Acronyms.