Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
Looking back at the PB threads at the end of June the widespread thoughts seem to expect:
Immediate economic turmoil The government to go for single market membership to keep the City happy Only nominal changes on immigration
Now Hard Brexit seems to be expected and economic effects so far appear to be minimal. **
** Yes, I know there have been changes in the exchange rate but three months ago people were predicting weeping holidaymakers unable to afford a San Miguel.
Those predictions (not my ones) were based on A50 being invoked the next morning, rather than a delay by possibly as much as a year.
It is Schroedingers Brexit at present. It is only when we open the box that we find out if the kitty is alive.
This isn't true. A lot of the direst predictions were based merely on our voting LEAVE. It was claimed - not least by the Treasury - that the mere act of voting OUT would be so destabilising the FTSE would crash, interest rates soar, property prices drop 15-20% etc
Quite. It's an entirely dishonest argument anyway, A50 doesn't change anything either or let us see what is in pandora's box, its a starting gun for a couple of years of negotiation and posturing, at the end of which we will get some sort of offer which we may or may not accept. The idea that the day after A50 is declared we are suddenly going to know what everyone wants and be able to make decisions of the basis of it is laughable.
I think there will be some direct Lab to Con switchers, but in Scotland.
I think there are quite a lot of Ideally lab/Con/LD but will vote for whoever can beet the SNP in my constituency. in 2015 the only 4 seats in the UK where the LD vote went up with LD/SNP marginal, but for most scots this meant Lab, in 2020, it could well be Conservatives, at least if Roth Davidson, stays as leader.
How may seats will this affect? hard to say before the new boundaries are published, but maybe 5 - 10 seats.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I think that's a very pessimistic point of view. Leaving the EU doesn't even necessarily mean leaving the single market in itself - we could end up with passporting and an FTA on manufactured goods.
Unless the situation is handled very badly, there shouldn't be a significant economic impact. A great deal of what the EU actually does is not particularly economically beneficial to even the EZ. The impact of removing ourselves from that won't be economically detrimental either.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
I do wish you peddlers of lies when pushing people to vote Leave would make up your minds . You were saying we would have a soft Brexit , £ 350 million an hour for the NHS , countries tripping over themselves to do trade deals to buy our desirable exports and we would become a land of milk and honey back to the 1950s of supping warm beeer and watching cricket all day long . You lost reality then and have not found it now ,
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I think that's a very pessimistic point of view. Leaving the EU doesn't even necessarily mean leaving the single market in itself - we could end up with passporting and an FTA on manufactured goods.
Unless the situation is handled very badly, there shouldn't be a significant economic impact. A great deal of what the EU actually does is not particularly economically beneficial to even the EZ. The impact of removing ourselves from that won't be economically detrimental either.
Remoaners have to take a pessimistic view, if they admitted everything is going to be fine people would wonder what they are worried about. Euro-enthusiasts would look at a strongly growing economy in 10 years time with a bag full of trade deals signed and tell us with a mournful face that is isn't as well as we would have done in the EU, which is a safe position to take since no one has any way of knowing if its true.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
I do wish you peddlers of lies when pushing people to vote Leave would make up your minds . You were saying we would have a soft Brexit , £ 350 million an hour for the NHS , countries tripping over themselves to do trade deals to buy our desirable exports and we would become a land of milk and honey back to the 1950s of supping warm beeer and watching cricket all day long . You lost reality then and have not found it now ,
I think the ideal version of Brexit, for me personally, would be entering EFTA and remaining in the EEA. Signing a quick series of bilateral tariff elimination agreements with friendly nations such as Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, SK and possibly the US. Over the long term we should work on a trade agreement with the EU where both parties recognise each others goods standards (and since most of this comes from the WTO, it's not a massive stretch) eliminating most NTBs for goods and some kind of mutual recognition of each others financial services regulations as being near enough in step to allow European companies to operate in the UK and UK based companies to operate in Europe, neither requiring capitalised subsidiaries. That would be the ideal long term deal for both sides IMO.
A deeper deal could even involve customs pre-clearance in each other's territories, but I'm not sure if that would be possible outside of a few specific industries (aerospace, auto and chemicals).
The main goal in the long term should be to detach ourselves from the political project while maintaining as much free trade as possible, even if that means compromising on free movement from the beginning. As we remove ourselves from the political project, the ties that bind us to continued open immigration will start to weaken and we will eventually be able to pull away. If the EU is not able to separate trade from immigration at all even in the future and the people desire to break away completely we will be in a much stronger position to do that in the future once we have opened up favourable trade across the world than to do it today when we'll be struggling with what exactly our WTO status us, untangling ourselves from the customs union, having to give out short term incentives to industry to offset tariffs etc...
I think it can be achieved and in 10 years we'll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, possibly having taken a few other non-EMU nations out to EFTA with us.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
I do wish you peddlers of lies when pushing people to vote Leave would make up your minds . You were saying we would have a soft Brexit , £ 350 million an hour for the NHS , countries tripping over themselves to do trade deals to buy our desirable exports and we would become a land of milk and honey back to the 1950s of supping warm beeer and watching cricket all day long . You lost reality then and have not found it now ,
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
I do wish you peddlers of lies when pushing people to vote Leave would make up your minds . You were saying we would have a soft Brexit , £ 350 million an hour for the NHS , countries tripping over themselves to do trade deals to buy our desirable exports and we would become a land of milk and honey back to the 1950s of supping warm beeer and watching cricket all day long . You lost reality then and have not found it now ,
Reading the speculation on hear about the LD made me re visit my spreadsheets from the last election the LD vote when down (almost) every where but not evenly:
In the 57 seats where there was a LD MP Down 30.0 % In the 239 Seats where LD was in second place Down 68.9% In the other seats where the LD weren't 1st or 2nd Down 78.4%
If the LD had gone down by 78.4% everywhere they would have lost a additional 935,000 votes.
All other thing being equal, this 2 forces are not going to be as strong next time, there are now only 8 MPs, and 62 Seats where LD came second. add this to the new seat boundaries, where there will now be a degree of uncertainty over who is in what position in each seat, so an implied reversion to the mean, i.e. LD in 4 place.
I'm not saying thissnipConservatize are better placed to get the lions share of these.
Good analysis. That would imply that not only is there going to be a first time incumbency bonus for the seats that were taken off the Lib Dems ... the LDs probably have a lot further to fall in those seats from the lost personal vote.
How many LD ex-MP’s are going to fight again for the seats they lost? Clearly David Laws isn’t as a new candidate has been adopted, and both Vince Cable and Sir Bob Russell have announced their retirement.
In 2015 Labour sought to get a number of ex-MP's re-elected hoping to maintain their old personal vote, c.f. Nick Palmer xMP. I believe the analysis was that it didn't work and the personal vote unwound even though it was the same people who used to hold the personal vote.
The Lib Dems need to keep their prominent Orange Bookers like David Laws and Vince Cable if they are to avoid being converted into Labour Lite by by Bairite defectors.
Vince said before the last electiopn that 2015 was going to be his last, and Bob R has since said much the same. He is 70 this year, so would be 75 at the next election, assuming etc. Yeovil LD’s appear to have a new candidate, Daisy Benson.
How old are Clinton and Trump or May and Corbyn?
75 is the new 60.
I am delighted that by Nov 9 POTUS and PMOTUK will both be a lot older than me when for the recent past they have both been younger.
Agre, but at 78 and after a life time of managing things, committees and so on I’m happy to sit back and whinge.... sorry, give wise advice, based on experience ... from the sidelines.
Labour could have been in a position to reap the electoral rewards of this, if your leader hadn't chosen the single most unpopular position of all, on Brexit: where he wants to be OUT of the single market but at the same time seeks no control of immigration, a stance which probably earns the agreement of about 4% of Britons.
So I think the Lib Dems and UKIP will benefit. We are, as OGH says, maybe seeing the first tentative signs of Lib Dem revival, already.
Shrug, he's honest about his views. It's why 25% of the electorate think he's really refreshing, even when they disagree with him. The LibDem and UKIP positions are dishonest in different ways - a new referendum to reverse the decision is not going to happen, and a Hard Brexit will have consequences that voters won't like. I have no idea what the Tory position is, which I suppose is better than dishonesty, though it's a bit of a snag when they're supposed to be running the show.
Brexit was the most-discussed theme at the Labour conference fringe, and I suspect that party's position will evolve, especially if there's a peace deal with Hilary Benn in charge of the Brexit team, as now seems quite likely. But I agree that a popular/populist Labour position is hard to see, beyond the simplistic "enough dithering, get on with it", which has a certain appeal across the spectrum.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
I do wish you peddlers of lies when pushing people to vote Leave would make up your minds . You were saying we would have a soft Brexit , £ 350 million an hour for the NHS , countries tripping over themselves to do trade deals to buy our desirable exports and we would become a land of milk and honey back to the 1950s of supping warm beeer and watching cricket all day long . You lost reality then and have not found it now ,
£4300.
£2083.33, surely?
I am still awaiting with bated breathe an explanation for the units they used. 2030 pounds per 2015 household ?! Utterly meaningless.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
I do wish you peddlers of lies when pushing people to vote Leave would make up your minds . You were saying we would have a soft Brexit , £ 350 million an hour for the NHS , countries tripping over themselves to do trade deals to buy our desirable exports and we would become a land of milk and honey back to the 1950s of supping warm beeer and watching cricket all day long . You lost reality then and have not found it now ,
£4300.
Come on lemmings , those are not rocks at the bottom of the cliffs , they are inflatable cushions in the shape of rocks .
Antigonus, rarely (maybe uniquely) for a Successor had a really good relationship with his eldest son and co-ruler Demetrius, and let him do most of the work. Antigonus had to take the lead against Lysimachus (Demetrius was too far away) and let him escape, which may have been due to age slowing him down or making him indecisive.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
Agre, but at 78 and after a life time of managing things, committees and so on I’m happy to sit back and whinge.... sorry, give wise advice, based on experience ... from the sidelines.
Mr Cole. Are you one of those old people whose vote in the EU ref should not have counted as you were voting on young people's future, not your own?
Mr. Senior, I'm unconvinced that governing ourselves is comparable to killing ourselves.
You need to Learn2LD The EU is good, noble and absolute necessary despite any democratic deficit, irrespective of any economic turmoil or civil strife because "reasons".
Agre, but at 78 and after a life time of managing things, committees and so on I’m happy to sit back and whinge.... sorry, give wise advice, based on experience ... from the sidelines.
Mr Cole. Are you one of those old people whose vote in the EU ref should not have counted as you were voting on young people's future, not your own?
Depends on which way you look at it. I was, and Remain, a 100% Remainer. I was one of those who campaigned for Yes in 1975 and while there were some things I don’t like about the way things developed, I never changed my overall view.
Incidentally, I thought the 1975 Yes campaign was much better run that the 2016 Remain one.
Agre, but at 78 and after a life time of managing things, committees and so on I’m happy to sit back and whinge.... sorry, give wise advice, based on experience ... from the sidelines.
Mr Cole. Are you one of those old people whose vote in the EU ref should not have counted as you were voting on young people's future, not your own?
I am. Or rather, I made my mind up in the polling booth and plumped for remain largely because my youngest son, who was just too young to vote, was pro-remain. So I thought it was his shout more than mine, and he knows more about economics than I do.
Antigonus, rarely (maybe uniquely) for a Successor had a really good relationship with his eldest son and co-ruler Demetrius, and let him do most of the work. Antigonus had to take the lead against Lysimachus (Demetrius was too far away) and let him escape, which may have been due to age slowing him down or making him indecisive.
But that was a few years after your age.
I thought for a moment when your post appeared you were going to compare me with JackW!
Minnesota to allow insurers to increase premiums 50%-67% in order to prevent the system's collapse ...
The reality is that the only way to achieve universal healthcare is through taxation, which the authors knew but knew was politically unachievable in 2009.
Agre, but at 78 and after a life time of managing things, committees and so on I’m happy to sit back and whinge.... sorry, give wise advice, based on experience ... from the sidelines.
Mr Cole. Are you one of those old people whose vote in the EU ref should not have counted as you were voting on young people's future, not your own?
Depends on which way you look at it. I was, and Remain, a 100% Remainer. I was one of those who campaigned for Yes in 1975 and while there were some things I don’t like about the way things developed, I never changed my overall view.
Incidentally, I thought the 1975 Yes campaign was much better run that the 2016 Remain one.
and also notable that Wilson stayed above the fray. Ensuring he could stay on whatever.
The reality is that the only way to achieve universal healthcare is through taxation, which the authors knew but knew was politically unachievable in 2009.
Do you believe it is any more politically achievable now ? Leaving aside the arithmetic in the next congress, is the US population in its current mindset going to see any attempt to move it to general taxation as more legislative overreach by the establishment ?
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
Mr. Senior, I'm unconvinced that governing ourselves is comparable to killing ourselves.
You need to Learn2LD The EU is good, noble and absolute necessary despite any democratic deficit, irrespective of any economic turmoil or civil strife because "reasons".
True Lib Dems believe that the EU is benevolent and not the reason for so much suffering across Southern Europe.
Agre, but at 78 and after a life time of managing things, committees and so on I’m happy to sit back and whinge.... sorry, give wise advice, based on experience ... from the sidelines.
Mr Cole. Are you one of those old people whose vote in the EU ref should not have counted as you were voting on young people's future, not your own?
Depends on which way you look at it. I was, and Remain, a 100% Remainer. I was one of those who campaigned for Yes in 1975 and while there were some things I don’t like about the way things developed, I never changed my overall view.
Incidentally, I thought the 1975 Yes campaign was much better run that the 2016 Remain one.
I'd agree with you on the last point. Both campaigns this time were crap, and despite all the passion and airtime, for me most of the core issues were addressed either inadequately or not at all. And, to be clear, I'll happily admit many considerations did argue for Remain - there are good arguments for both sides so a decision is simply a judgment call on the balance.
For the record, I was for IN in 1975 and for Brexit this time, in part because I think the EU has moved beyond reaping the economies of scale and is now at about the stage the dinosaurs were with tiny mammals scurrying around their feet just before the meteorite hit. And I am an optimist.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
I do wish you peddlers of lies when pushing people to vote Leave would make up your minds . You were saying we would have a soft Brexit , £ 350 million an hour for the NHS , countries tripping over themselves to do trade deals to buy our desirable exports and we would become a land of milk and honey back to the 1950s of supping warm beeer and watching cricket all day long . You lost reality then and have not found it now ,
£4300.
£2083.33, surely?
I am still awaiting with bated breathe an explanation for the units they used. 2030 pounds per 2015 household ?! Utterly meaningless.
What surprised me the most about this was a whole government department went along with it. This wasn't George Osborne quoting some Remain literature. He got it published as a Treasury document.
I know all government publications are biased to some degree, but when you erroneously mix dates to fix the numbers I would really hope there's something in the civil service code that stops it being published.
Not sure whether this comment on CapX was intentionally funny, but made me laugh:
"I was most struck, however, by his ideas on immigration. Corbyn, almost uniquely in British politics, does not see excessive migration as a problem: his idiosyncratic vision for Brexit appears to be free movement without the free markets."
Looks like the Hungarian government is being "un-European" again. He is expected to get 80% backing in the referendum, and is pushing for a 50% turnout which makes the referendum binding on the government under their rules. A cunning move because he then cannot back down from it and his opponents will know it.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What was it Keynes said. Something like, when the facts change I change my minbd. It’s not just the trade issues though, is it? There’s the Erasmus programme, there’s the standardisation of pharmaceutical products, all sorts of interchanges. It’ll take a while before we see the full effects. Although I have to say I’m pleased that so far we haven’t seen the apocalypse some expected.
The reality is that the only way to achieve universal healthcare is through taxation, which the authors knew but knew was politically unachievable in 2009.
Do you believe it is any more politically achievable now ? Leaving aside the arithmetic in the next congress, is the US population in its current mindset going to see any attempt to move it to general taxation as more legislative overreach by the establishment ?
I honestly don't know where the debate will head. However, I do think sooner rather than later Obamacare simply becomes unsustainable financially, and that the old system is now so dismantled we simply cannot revert to as we were. So something new has to be put in Obamacare's place.
My guess is that some of the positives and negatives of Obamacare have moved the debate on. People like having insurance for prior and non-actuarial conditions. Those who have had insurance for the first time have, in large numbers, availed themselves of expensive treatments and surgeries to correct chronic problems. Young people who didn't buy insurance but have since got used to doing so or paying the fine are probably less opposed to a taxation system now, as their contribution would actually decrease in a means-tested tax.
So I don't know. But neither what is nor what was are options.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
I do wish you peddlers of lies when pushing people to vote Leave would make up your minds . You were saying we would have a soft Brexit , £ 350 million an hour for the NHS , countries tripping over themselves to do trade deals to buy our desirable exports and we would become a land of milk and honey back to the 1950s of supping warm beeer and watching cricket all day long . You lost reality then and have not found it now ,
£4300.
£2083.33, surely?
I am still awaiting with bated breathe an explanation for the units they used. 2030 pounds per 2015 household ?! Utterly meaningless.
What surprised me the most about this was a whole government department went along with it. This wasn't George Osborne quoting some Remain literature. He got it published as a Treasury document.
I know all government publications are biased to some degree, but when you erroneously mix dates to fix the numbers I would really hope there's something in the civil service code that stops it being published.
The Civil Service code goes out of the window when it's something they care about. The regular circular email that I get has been saying what a tough time it's been for the Civil Service and how well they've been handling the traumatic experience.
Agre, but at 78 and after a life time of managing things, committees and so on I’m happy to sit back and whinge.... sorry, give wise advice, based on experience ... from the sidelines.
Mr Cole. Are you one of those old people whose vote in the EU ref should not have counted as you were voting on young people's future, not your own?
Depends on which way you look at it. I was, and Remain, a 100% Remainer. I was one of those who campaigned for Yes in 1975 and while there were some things I don’t like about the way things developed, I never changed my overall view.
Incidentally, I thought the 1975 Yes campaign was much better run that the 2016 Remain one.
I'd agree with you on the last point. Both campaigns this time were crap, and despite all the passion and airtime, for me most of the core issues were addressed either inadequately or not at all. And, to be clear, I'll happily admit many considerations did argue for Remain - there are good arguments for both sides so a decision is simply a judgment call on the balance.
For the record, I was for IN in 1975 and for Brexit this time, in part because I think the EU has moved beyond reaping the economies of scale and is now at about the stage the dinosaurs were with tiny mammals scurrying around their feet just before the meteorite hit. And I am an optimist.
IMHO the big, big mistake was to allow the entry of Eastern European countries as fiull members. There are significant cultural and experential differences with Western Europe and, generally, they haven’t been overcome.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
I think ten years isn't enough really. For a start it looks like it is going to take the best part of a decade to actually leave the EU and fully unentangle all our relationships.
Has the French Revolution worked? Too early to say, as the famous quote goes.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What was it Keynes said. Something like, when the facts change I change my minbd. It’s not just the trade issues though, is it? There’s the Erasmus programme, there’s the standardisation of pharmaceutical products, all sorts of interchanges. It’ll take a while before we see the full effects. Although I have to say I’m pleased that so far we haven’t seen the apocalypse some expected.
Why do we continually hear about the Erasmus Programme ? Macedonia, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Turkey are all members and none of them are members of the EU.
Isn't EU pharma regulations basically a rubber stamped version of international standards from organisations like ISO, ASTM and International Pharmacopoeia ?
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
Here is a blog from a man who was born and brought up in Witney, regards himself generally as a conservative voter, is a passionate remainer and will be campaigning for Liz Leffman during the next few weeks:
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What was it Keynes said. Something like, when the facts change I change my minbd. It’s not just the trade issues though, is it? There’s the Erasmus programme, there’s the standardisation of pharmaceutical products, all sorts of interchanges. It’ll take a while before we see the full effects. Although I have to say I’m pleased that so far we haven’t seen the apocalypse some expected.
Why do we continually hear about the Erasmus Programme ? Macedonia, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Turkey are all members and none of them are members of the EU.
Isn't EU pharma regulations basically a rubber stamped version of international standards from organisations like ISO, ASTM and International Pharmacopoeia ?
You’re right about Erasmus. Funding is largely EU, though. I think, although I’m by no means certain that it’s primarily aimed at bring people from outseide to European learning institutipons.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What was it Keynes said. Something like, when the facts change I change my minbd. It’s not just the trade issues though, is it? There’s the Erasmus programme, there’s the standardisation of pharmaceutical products, all sorts of interchanges. It’ll take a while before we see the full effects. Although I have to say I’m pleased that so far we haven’t seen the apocalypse some expected.
Why do we continually hear about the Erasmus Programme ? Macedonia, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Turkey are all members and none of them are members of the EU.
Isn't EU pharma regulations basically a rubber stamped version of international standards from organisations like ISO, ASTM and International Pharmacopoeia ?
Also some context on Erasmus. About ~15k UK students per year make use of it out of a total student body of over 2 million students.
Agre, but at 78 and after a life time of managing things, committees and so on I’m happy to sit back and whinge.... sorry, give wise advice, based on experience ... from the sidelines.
Mr Cole. Are you one of those old people whose vote in the EU ref should not have counted as you were voting on young people's future, not your own?
Depends on which way you look at it. I was, and Remain, a 100% Remainer. I was one of those who campaigned for Yes in 1975 and while there were some things I don’t like about the way things developed, I never changed my overall view.
Incidentally, I thought the 1975 Yes campaign was much better run that the 2016 Remain one.
I'd agree with you on the last point. Both campaigns this time were crap, and despite all the passion and airtime, for me most of the core issues were addressed either inadequately or not at all. And, to be clear, I'll happily admit many considerations did argue for Remain - there are good arguments for both sides so a decision is simply a judgment call on the balance.
For the record, I was for IN in 1975 and for Brexit this time, in part because I think the EU has moved beyond reaping the economies of scale and is now at about the stage the dinosaurs were with tiny mammals scurrying around their feet just before the meteorite hit. And I am an optimist.
IMHO the big, big mistake was to allow the entry of Eastern European countries as fiull members. There are significant cultural and experential differences with Western Europe and, generally, they haven’t been overcome.
If I were an anglophobe French conspiracy-theorist political philosopher (apologies for the tautologies), I might be tempted to believe that this was all a fiendish long-game British strategy for power in Europe: 1. find yourself isolated and less relevant/powerful as the EEC becomes successful 2. join the club, ostensibly as the sick man of Europe seeking nurse's attentions and discipline 3. use your insider position to expand the EU eastwards, ostensibly to tie in former communist regimes into Western liberalism and so further prevent future European wars, while in reality inoculating the EU with the seeds of its own destruction 4. leave before said destruction occurs.
Also some context on Erasmus. About ~15k UK students per year make use of it out of a total student body of over 2 million students.
I think imposing overseas fees rules is much more important than anything to do with Erasmus. We can't go on educating Europe's students and not being able to collect fees or loan repayments. Our universities are significantly better than theirs and not being able to charge money up front puts us at a huge disadvantage.
Also some context on Erasmus. About ~15k UK students per year make use of it out of a total student body of over 2 million students.
I think imposing overseas fees rules is much more important than anything to do with Erasmus. We can't go on educating Europe's students and not being able to collect fees or loan repayments. Our universities are significantly better than theirs and not being able to charge money up front puts us at a huge disadvantage.
The loan repayments is a big issue. It is so fundamentally flawed as it presumes UK educated students will remain in the UK. If you don't, they have little power to really recoup the money or work out if you are making the correct level of repayments.
Why do we continually hear about the Erasmus Programme ? Macedonia, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Turkey are all members and none of them are members of the EU.
Isn't EU pharma regulations basically a rubber stamped version of international standards from organisations like ISO, ASTM and International Pharmacopoeia ?
You’re right about Erasmus. Funding is largely EU, though. I think, although I’m by no means certain that it’s primarily aimed at bring people from outseide to European learning institutipons.
I may be wrong, but I think Erasmus is intra-EU and Erasmus Mundus is the EU's global outreach for its academic institutions.
Correction - not intra-EU but intra-European. Just seen that Switzerland was/is being expelled from Erasmus because of its position on freedom of movement.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Agre, but at 78 and after a life time of managing things, committees and so on I’m happy to sit back and whinge.... sorry, give wise advice, based on experience ... from the sidelines.
Mr Cole. Are you one of those old people whose vote in the EU ref should not have counted as you were voting on young people's future, not your own?
Depends on which way you look at it. I was, and Remain, a 100% Remainer. I was one of those who campaigned for Yes in 1975 and while there were some things I don’t like about the way things developed, I never changed my overall view.
Incidentally, I thought the 1975 Yes campaign was much better run that the 2016 Remain one.
I'd agree with you on the last point. Both campaigns this time were crap, and despite all the passion and airtime, for me most of the core issues were addressed either inadequately or not at all. And, to be clear, I'll happily admit many considerations did argue for Remain - there are good arguments for both sides so a decision is simply a judgment call on the balance.
For the record, I was for IN in 1975 and for Brexit this time, in part because I think the EU has moved beyond reaping the economies of scale and is now at about the stage the dinosaurs were with tiny mammals scurrying around their feet just before the meteorite hit. And I am an optimist.
IMHO the big, big mistake was to allow the entry of Eastern European countries as fiull members. There are significant cultural and experential differences with Western Europe and, generally, they haven’t been overcome.
If I were an anglophobe French conspiracy-theorist political philosopher (apologies for the tautologies), I might be tempted to believe that this was all a fiendish long-game British strategy for power in Europe: 1. find yourself isolated and less relevant/powerful as the EEC becomes successful 2. join the club, ostensibly as the sick man of Europe seeking nurse's attentions and discipline 3. use your insider position to expand the EU eastwards, ostensibly to tie in former communist regimes into Western liberalism and so further prevent future European wars, while in reality inoculating the EU with the seeds of its own destruction 4. leave before said destruction occurs.
Mr. Senior, I'm unconvinced that governing ourselves is comparable to killing ourselves.
You need to Learn2LD The EU is good, noble and absolute necessary despite any democratic deficit, irrespective of any economic turmoil or civil strife because "reasons".
True Lib Dems believe that the EU is benevolent and not the reason for so much suffering across Southern Europe.
The EU has been very positive for Southern Europe. Better governance than the Italians can provide for themselves. Helped Spain and Portugal transition from fascist dictatorship and Greece from military-backed rule.
The issue for Southern Europe is the Euro, not the EU.
Agre, but at 78 and after a life time of managing things, committees and so on I’m happy to sit back and whinge.... sorry, give wise advice, based on experience ... from the sidelines.
Mr Cole. Are you one of those old people whose vote in the EU ref should not have counted as you were voting on young people's future, not your own?
Depends on which way you look at it. I was, and Remain, a 100% Remainer. I was one of those who campaigned for Yes in 1975 and while there were some things I don’t like about the way things developed, I never changed my overall view.
Incidentally, I thought the 1975 Yes campaign was much better run that the 2016 Remain one.
I'd agree with you on the last point. Both campaigns this time were crap, and despite all the passion and airtime, for me most of the core issues were addressed either inadequately or not at all. And, to be clear, I'll happily admit many considerations did argue for Remain - there are good arguments for both sides so a decision is simply a judgment call on the balance.
For the record, I was for IN in 1975 and for Brexit this time, in part because I think the EU has moved beyond reaping the economies of scale and is now at about the stage the dinosaurs were with tiny mammals scurrying around their feet just before the meteorite hit. And I am an optimist.
IMHO the big, big mistake was to allow the entry of Eastern European countries as fiull members. There are significant cultural and experential differences with Western Europe and, generally, they haven’t been overcome.
If I were an anglophobe French conspiracy-theorist political philosopher (apologies for the tautologies), I might be tempted to believe that this was all a fiendish long-game British strategy for power in Europe: 1. find yourself isolated and less relevant/powerful as the EEC becomes successful 2. join the club, ostensibly as the sick man of Europe seeking nurse's attentions and discipline 3. use your insider position to expand the EU eastwards, ostensibly to tie in former communist regimes into Western liberalism and so further prevent future European wars, while in reality inoculating the EU with the seeds of its own destruction 4. leave before said destruction occurs.
So, there are two of us!
I say that Britain did everything it could to make the EU as disfunctional and unstable as possible to such a degree that British voters balked at remaining a member of such a disfunctional place.
Agre, but at 78 and after a life time of managing things, committees and so on I’m happy to sit back and whinge.... sorry, give wise advice, based on experience ... from the sidelines.
Depends on which way you look at it. I was, and Remain, a 100% Remainer. I was one of those who campaigned for Yes in 1975 and while there were some things I don’t like about the way things developed, I never changed my overall view.
Incidentally, I thought the 1975 Yes campaign was much better run that the 2016 Remain one.
I'd agree with you on the last point. Both campaigns this time were crap, and despite all the passion and airtime, for me most of the core issues were addressed either inadequately or not at all. And, to be clear, I'll happily admit many considerations did argue for Remain - there are good arguments for both sides so a decision is simply a judgment call on the balance.
For the record, I was for IN in 1975 and for Brexit this time, in part because I think the EU has moved beyond reaping the economies of scale and is now at about the stage the dinosaurs were with tiny mammals scurrying around their feet just before the meteorite hit. And I am an optimist.
IMHO the big, big mistake was to allow the entry of Eastern European countries as fiull members. There are significant cultural and experential differences with Western Europe and, generally, they haven’t been overcome.
If I were an anglophobe French conspiracy-theorist political philosopher (apologies for the tautologies), I might be tempted to believe that this was all a fiendish long-game British strategy for power in Europe: 1. find yourself isolated and less relevant/powerful as the EEC becomes successful 2. join the club, ostensibly as the sick man of Europe seeking nurse's attentions and discipline 3. use your insider position to expand the EU eastwards, ostensibly to tie in former communist regimes into Western liberalism and so further prevent future European wars, while in reality inoculating the EU with the seeds of its own destruction 4. leave before said destruction occurs.
So, there are two of us!
I say that Britain did everything it could to make the EU as disfunctional and unstable as possible to such a degree that British voters balked at remaining a member of such a disfunctional place.
Three. We certainly elected some unpleasant and desructive characters to it’s Parliament.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
I have been no Trump fan from the outset. But I have to say, regardless of all the other boneheaded things he has done (some of which have undoubtedly helped him win the nomination), getting suck(er)ed into a Twitter spat at this stage in the process of selecting the next President of the USA shows such remarkable inability to prioritize and focus that it completely disqualifies him for the job - more so than his egregious positions on specific issues.
I am now resigned to that awful outcome, President HR Clinton.
Mr. Senior, I'm unconvinced that governing ourselves is comparable to killing ourselves.
You need to Learn2LD The EU is good, noble and absolute necessary despite any democratic deficit, irrespective of any economic turmoil or civil strife because "reasons".
True Lib Dems believe that the EU is benevolent and not the reason for so much suffering across Southern Europe.
The EU has been very positive for Southern Europe. Better governance than the Italians can provide for themselves. Helped Spain and Portugal transition from fascist dictatorship and Greece from military-backed rule.
The issue for Southern Europe is the Euro, not the EU.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
Always seems crazy to me that all the states have wildly different rules on voting in the POTUS election, from who is allowed to vote to when you can / can't register.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
Always seems crazy to me that all the states have wildly different rules on voting in the POTUS election, from who is allowed to vote to when you can / can't register.
Almost as if you can have a federal system where each state makes its own rules.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
Always seems crazy to me that all the states have wildly different rules on voting in the POTUS election, from who is allowed to vote to when you can / can't register.
It's called a federal system and democracy. Each state gets to decide how the vote is conducted.
Eligibility for federal elections is set by federal regs, but the mechanisms for implementing the vote - and the levels of proof of eligibility required to register to vote - is for the State.
Ref eligibility to vote:
"You are eligible to vote in federal elections if: - You are a U.S. citizen (either by birth or naturalization) - You meet your state's residency requirements - You are 18 year old. (or, in some states, will be 18 before the general election). You must be legally registered to vote in your jurisdiction in order to be able to vote in federal elections. State laws vary on voter requirements"
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
Always seems crazy to me that all the states have wildly different rules on voting in the POTUS election, from who is allowed to vote to when you can / can't register.
Almost as if you can have a federal system where each state makes its own rules.
Yes I know that is the case and well aware of the history, but still the rules are wildly different for people living in the same country e.g. some states if you have been imprisoned you can't vote even following your release, in others you can.
For POTUS election this just seems wrong to me, when said individual will govern for all. For state elections, sure have whatever rules you want.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
Always seems crazy to me that all the states have wildly different rules on voting in the POTUS election, from who is allowed to vote to when you can / can't register.
It's called a federal system and democracy. Each state gets to decide how the vote is conducted.
Eligibility for federal elections is set by federal regs, but the mechanisms for implementing the vote - and the levels of proof of eligibility required to register to vote - is for the State.
Ref eligibility to vote:
"You are eligible to vote in federal elections if: - You are a U.S. citizen (either by birth or naturalization) - You meet your state's residency requirements - You are 18 year old. (or, in some states, will be 18 before the general election). You must be legally registered to vote in your jurisdiction in order to be able to vote in federal elections. State laws vary on voter requirements"
What about laws banning felons from voting? Is that Federal or State?
For POTUS election this just seems wrong to me, when said individual will govern for all. For state elections, sure have whatever rules you want.
Indeed. The odd bit is having state laws on voting for a federal job. State laws for voting for state positions or those directly representing the state totally makes sense.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
Always seems crazy to me that all the states have wildly different rules on voting in the POTUS election, from who is allowed to vote to when you can / can't register.
It's called a federal system and democracy. Each state gets to decide how the vote is conducted.
Eligibility for federal elections is set by federal regs, but the mechanisms for implementing the vote - and the levels of proof of eligibility required to register to vote - is for the State.
Ref eligibility to vote:
"You are eligible to vote in federal elections if: - You are a U.S. citizen (either by birth or naturalization) - You meet your state's residency requirements - You are 18 year old. (or, in some states, will be 18 before the general election). You must be legally registered to vote in your jurisdiction in order to be able to vote in federal elections. State laws vary on voter requirements"
What about laws banning felons from voting? Is that Federal or State?
State, but because of a clause in the constitution allowing them to do so.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
Always seems crazy to me that all the states have wildly different rules on voting in the POTUS election, from who is allowed to vote to when you can / can't register.
It's called a federal system and democracy. Each state gets to decide how the vote is conducted.
Eligibility for federal elections is set by federal regs, but the mechanisms for implementing the vote - and the levels of proof of eligibility required to register to vote - is for the State.
Ref eligibility to vote:
"You are eligible to vote in federal elections if: - You are a U.S. citizen (either by birth or naturalization) - You meet your state's residency requirements - You are 18 year old. (or, in some states, will be 18 before the general election). You must be legally registered to vote in your jurisdiction in order to be able to vote in federal elections. State laws vary on voter requirements"
What about laws banning felons from voting? Is that Federal or State?
State, but because of a clause in the constitution allowing them to do so.
Indeed, felon voting issues have not been regulated federally, so it has fallen to States, hence the disparities.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What a silly question - If the UK "appears" to be doing better than the EU after Brexit this is because
1) You are not looking at the right numbers. UK has become a dog-eat-dog super-unequal hellhole. 2) The WWC (Nazi Scum that they are) have savagely destroyed Europe out of their (usual) racist, homophobic, isolationist, little englander, failed state, misogynistic, cannibalistic beliefs and behaviours. 3) UK and EU would have been even richer together.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What a silly question - If the UK "appears" to be doing better than the EU after Brexit this is because
1) You are not looking at the right numbers. UK has become a dog-eat-dog super-unequal hellhole. 2) The WWC (Nazi Scum that they are) have savagely destroyed Europe out of their (usual) racist, homophobic, isolationist, little englander, failed state, misogynistic, cannibalistic beliefs and behaviours. 3) UK and EU would have been even richer together.
Didn't you get the memo?
Even the most optimistic Brexiteer isn't predicting that the country will be united.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
In most States registration closes on 11 or 18 October.
All the indications seem to be that early voting and registrations are more Democrat than previously.
Non -voters seem to be more likely to take an interest in plebescites than run of the mill elections.
Mr. Senior, I'm unconvinced that governing ourselves is comparable to killing ourselves.
You need to Learn2LD The EU is good, noble and absolute necessary despite any democratic deficit, irrespective of any economic turmoil or civil strife because "reasons".
True Lib Dems believe that the EU is benevolent and not the reason for so much suffering across Southern Europe.
The EU has been very positive for Southern Europe. Better governance than the Italians can provide for themselves. Helped Spain and Portugal transition from fascist dictatorship and Greece from military-backed rule.
The issue for Southern Europe is the Euro, not the EU.
They are inseparable. The Euro is the EU.
For all practical purposes this is correct. The EU can't make the Euro work because the member state Governments (especially in Germany and the other creditors) will not contemplate the measures - political federalisation, with common debt issuance and taxes, and large scale fiscal transfers - that are necessary. However, because the EU has been designed without a reverse gear - always pressing for more and more integration, with disintegration being unthinkable - the Euro project cannot be dismantled, either. Therefore the Eurozone remains stuck in a permacrisis.
The Euro is the child of the EU, and its continued existence is a product of the flawed, dogmatic, inflexible stance of the parent. Whilst one can, technically, have the latter without the former, to expect the latter to give up the former is to demand that the beast change its spots. The EU can, will and must act according to its nature.
For POTUS election this just seems wrong to me, when said individual will govern for all. For state elections, sure have whatever rules you want.
Indeed. The odd bit is having state laws on voting for a federal job. State laws for voting for state positions or those directly representing the state totally makes sense.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
In most States registration closes on 11 or 18 October.
All the indications seem to be that early voting and registrations are more Democrat than previously.
Non -voters seem to be more likely to take an interest in plebescites than run of the mill elections.
This late registration makes polling a bit of a farce at the moment, the results are mostly quite close and there could be a last minute registration dash from either side as their voters eventually engage with the election at a higher level than just scowling at their opponent on the TV and changing the channel.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What a silly question - If the UK "appears" to be doing better than the EU after Brexit this is because
1) You are not looking at the right numbers. UK has become a dog-eat-dog super-unequal hellhole. 2) The WWC (Nazi Scum that they are) have savagely destroyed Europe out of their (usual) racist, homophobic, isolationist, little englander, failed state, misogynistic, cannibalistic beliefs and behaviours. 3) UK and EU would have been even richer together.
Didn't you get the memo?
It is also very possible that the EU will do better economically. At what point would the Leavers change their minds?
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
In most States registration closes on 11 or 18 October.
All the indications seem to be that early voting and registrations are more Democrat than previously.
Non -voters seem to be more likely to take an interest in plebescites than run of the mill elections.
This late registration makes polling a bit of a farce at the moment, the results are mostly quite close and there could be a last minute registration dash from either side as their voters eventually engage with the election at a higher level than just scowling at their opponent on the TV and changing the channel.
It looks as if the voter registration drives are more effective on the Democrat side.
What would cause a sea change with just 10 (or 24) days to go?
It is also very possible that the EU will do better economically. At what point would the Leavers change their minds?
For me, after all the extrication is finished, if over the next economic cycle, the UK were underperforming the EU average, I'd be wanting to look at what we were doing wrong. If the evidence at that point indicates that the underperformance were due to withdrawal from the EU rather than some other factor, then I'd be prepared to fess up.
However, as many have already said, such clarity of evidence is not a given.
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” " (Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
The key question is going to be are several million people who haven't voted since Reagan going to leave their trailer parks where they have been discounted as non-voters by pollsters and put a cross in the box for Trump. We won't know that until the day, but there are recent precedents I can't quite put my finger on.
well they arent registered and non voters tend not to vote...
Really ? How did that work out in the BrExit referendum ?
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
In most States registration closes on 11 or 18 October.
All the indications seem to be that early voting and registrations are more Democrat than previously.
Non -voters seem to be more likely to take an interest in plebescites than run of the mill elections.
This late registration makes polling a bit of a farce at the moment, the results are mostly quite close and there could be a last minute registration dash from either side as their voters eventually engage with the election at a higher level than just scowling at their opponent on the TV and changing the channel.
The current rash of dead citizens registering shows how close this is. I've seen reports from several states.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What a silly question - If the UK "appears" to be doing better than the EU after Brexit this is because
1) You are not looking at the right numbers. UK has become a dog-eat-dog super-unequal hellhole. 2) The WWC (Nazi Scum that they are) have savagely destroyed Europe out of their (usual) racist, homophobic, isolationist, little englander, failed state, misogynistic, cannibalistic beliefs and behaviours. 3) UK and EU would have been even richer together.
Didn't you get the memo?
It is also very possible that the EU will do better economically. At what point would the Leavers change their minds?
The Leavers will never change their mind; nor will the Remainers. This is about identity, not rationality.
We were hoodwinked into a political union, so the argument goes, and now we have our chance to make it right; economics be damned.
That's why we're still "debating" in as much as we are repeating the same lines, without resolution, three months after the vote.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What a silly question - If the UK "appears" to be doing better than the EU after Brexit this is because
1) You are not looking at the right numbers. UK has become a dog-eat-dog super-unequal hellhole. 2) The WWC (Nazi Scum that they are) have savagely destroyed Europe out of their (usual) racist, homophobic, isolationist, little englander, failed state, misogynistic, cannibalistic beliefs and behaviours. 3) UK and EU would have been even richer together.
Didn't you get the memo?
It is also very possible that the EU will do better economically. At what point would the Leavers change their minds?
Some Leavers will never change their minds because they are opposed to the idea of any transfer of sovereignty. Perfectly honourable position to take of course, if misguided. (IMHO!)
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What a silly question - If the UK "appears" to be doing better than the EU after Brexit this is because
1) You are not looking at the right numbers. UK has become a dog-eat-dog super-unequal hellhole. 2) The WWC (Nazi Scum that they are) have savagely destroyed Europe out of their (usual) racist, homophobic, isolationist, little englander, failed state, misogynistic, cannibalistic beliefs and behaviours. 3) UK and EU would have been even richer together.
Didn't you get the memo?
It is also very possible that the EU will do better economically. At what point would the Leavers change their minds?
The Leavers will never change their mind; nor will the Remainers. This is about identity, not rationality.
We were hoodwinked into a political union, so the argument goes, and now we have our chance to make it right; economics be damned.
That's why we're still "debating" in as much as we are repeating the same lines, without resolution, three months after the vote.
There were die hard believers on both sides but they are a minority.
For POTUS election this just seems wrong to me, when said individual will govern for all. For state elections, sure have whatever rules you want.
Indeed. The odd bit is having state laws on voting for a federal job. State laws for voting for state positions or those directly representing the state totally makes sense.
* You don't vote for POTUS (a federal job) * You vote for your state's component of the Electoral College (a state job) * They vote for POTUS.
In 2012 the states voted for POTUS on Devember 17th 2012 via the Electoral College. Each state's vote is online: here's the YouTube for Virginia, for example. h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1FKjFy2gac
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What a silly question - If the UK "appears" to be doing better than the EU after Brexit this is because
1) You are not looking at the right numbers. UK has become a dog-eat-dog super-unequal hellhole. 2) The WWC (Nazi Scum that they are) have savagely destroyed Europe out of their (usual) racist, homophobic, isolationist, little englander, failed state, misogynistic, cannibalistic beliefs and behaviours. 3) UK and EU would have been even richer together.
Didn't you get the memo?
It is also very possible that the EU will do better economically. At what point would the Leavers change their minds?
There are two main Leaver shibboleths that will be seen for what they are over time: firstly that the EU is a protectionist block that held back our free trading ways, and secondly that the Euro is a disastrous failure.
“He’s a diehard Democrat, and I was thinking that if somebody was voting under his name, he’s probably rolling in his grave if they were voting Republican,” Givans said."
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What a silly question - If the UK "appears" to be doing better than the EU after Brexit this is because
1) You are not looking at the right numbers. UK has become a dog-eat-dog super-unequal hellhole. 2) The WWC (Nazi Scum that they are) have savagely destroyed Europe out of their (usual) racist, homophobic, isolationist, little englander, failed state, misogynistic, cannibalistic beliefs and behaviours. 3) UK and EU would have been even richer together.
Didn't you get the memo?
It is also very possible that the EU will do better economically. At what point would the Leavers change their minds?
There are two main Leaver shibboleths that will be seen for what they are over time: firstly that the EU is a protectionist block that held back our free trading ways, and secondly that the Euro is a disastrous failure.
Well, I think you're wrong on the Euro.
But the one you missed was the idea that we are weighed down in EU regulation. I think there's very little evidence of that, especially given our opt-outs.
There are two main Leaver shibboleths that will be seen for what they are over time: firstly that the EU is a protectionist block that held back our free trading ways, and secondly that the Euro is a disastrous failure.
The Euro is a failure and the EU is protectionist. Neither of those is controversial.
There are two main Leaver shibboleths that will be seen for what they are over time: firstly that the EU is a protectionist block that held back our free trading ways, and secondly that the Euro is a disastrous failure.
Or that a fair chunk of Leavers are prepared to put up with a modest amount of economic drift to feel they are in control of their own country.
For a lot of Leavers is a simple transaction in as much as they dont feel they are getting enough out of the EU to justify the loss of sovereignty. Almost everyone has their price, if the EU was providing a 50% increase in the standard of living compared to being outside almost no one would have voted Leave, but the 2-3% that is being talked of in the worse cases isnt floating anyone's boat.
But the one you missed was the idea that we are weighed down in EU regulation. I think there's very little evidence of that, especially given our opt-outs.
Yes very true, but that's a general purpose complaint that would survive any political change in circumstances. The coalition were going to have a bonfire of regulations but it didn't amount to much.
Other countries seeking trade deals with the UK post Brexit will not be doing with the best interests of the UK in their minds . They will be seeking to take advantage of a weakened isolated little island nation which has cut itself off from its near neighbours .
I do wish Remainers would make up their minds. Either we're a poor isolated weak little island nation, or we're the fifth biggest economy in the world - a rich successful country which has prospered so mightily from EU membership we'd be foolish to give it up.
The FT is suffering the same schizophrenia. After arguing for months that we benefitted massively from the EU, that we were the EU's best performing large economy, that the reason we've got so many immigrants is simply because of our success, they've now completely volte faced and they're claiming our economy is shit after forty years of membership, which, apparently, is, um, a good reason to REMAIN?
The UK, viewed in the round, is one of the dozen best countries to live in the world, and I see no reason for that to change.
And with BREXIT we'll become poorer so less attractive to migrants.
I'm pretty confident that ten years from now, the UK will have a higher standard of living than it does today (barring a war). The question is how much higher?
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
What a silly question - If the UK "appears" to be doing better than the EU after Brexit this is because
1) You are not looking at the right numbers. UK has become a dog-eat-dog super-unequal hellhole. 2) The WWC (Nazi Scum that they are) have savagely destroyed Europe out of their (usual) racist, homophobic, isolationist, little englander, failed state, misogynistic, cannibalistic beliefs and behaviours. 3) UK and EU would have been even richer together.
Didn't you get the memo?
It is also very possible that the EU will do better economically. At what point would the Leavers change their minds?
...Leaver shibboleth... that the Euro is a disastrous failure.
Is there any meaningful constituency - the arch-federalists, residing mainly within the EU institutions, notwithstanding - which views the Euro as a success?
There are two main Leaver shibboleths that will be seen for what they are over time: firstly that the EU is a protectionist block that held back our free trading ways, and secondly that the Euro is a disastrous failure.
The Euro is a failure and the EU is protectionist. Neither of those is controversial.
Is there any meaningful constituency - the arch-federalists, residing mainly within the EU institutions, notwithstanding - which views the Euro as a success?
You're talking to one, remember that when discussing things with some of our more motivated Remoaners.
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
It's a sensible question (and thank you for using "Remain" instead of a slur, btw). I would like to compile a series of indices and stats about the UK on Referendum Day, and comparable ones about the EU (or a UK-equivalent EU country - France or Ireland?) on the same day. That way, ten years hence, we can consult the same stats and see who "won" or "lost". It will convince nobody - people never take opportunity cost into account, and one man's win is another's loss (what happens if immigration increases? Is that a win or a lose?) but it's an attempt to objectivise the assessment.
There are two main Leaver shibboleths that will be seen for what they are over time: firstly that the EU is a protectionist block that held back our free trading ways, and secondly that the Euro is a disastrous failure.
The Euro is a failure and the EU is protectionist. Neither of those is controversial.
There are two main Leaver shibboleths that will be seen for what they are over time: firstly that the EU is a protectionist block that held back our free trading ways, and secondly that the Euro is a disastrous failure.
The Euro is a failure and the EU is protectionist. Neither of those is controversial.
Ain't groupthink a bitch.
The fact that you believe the Euro is a success shows how very blinkered your view of the EU is. Federalists like you are so very blind.
If the UK does do economically well post-Brexit, while the EU stagnates further, at what point would those who voted Remain change their minds?
It's a sensible question (and thank you for using "Remain" instead of a slur, btw). I would like to compile a series of indices and stats about the UK on Referendum Day, and comparable ones about the EU (or a UK-equivalent EU country - France or Ireland?) on the same day. That way, ten years hence, we can consult the same stats and see who "won" or "lost". It will convince nobody - people never take opportunity cost into account, and one man's win is another's loss (what happens if immigration increases? Is that a win or a lose?) but it's an attempt to objectivise the assessment.
Comments
I think there will be some direct Lab to Con switchers, but in Scotland.
I think there are quite a lot of Ideally lab/Con/LD but will vote for whoever can beet the SNP in my constituency. in 2015 the only 4 seats in the UK where the LD vote went up with LD/SNP marginal, but for most scots this meant Lab, in 2020, it could well be Conservatives, at least if Roth Davidson, stays as leader.
How may seats will this affect? hard to say before the new boundaries are published, but maybe 5 - 10 seats.
Unless the situation is handled very badly, there shouldn't be a significant economic impact. A great deal of what the EU actually does is not particularly economically beneficial to even the EZ. The impact of removing ourselves from that won't be economically detrimental either.
You lost reality then and have not found it now ,
A deeper deal could even involve customs pre-clearance in each other's territories, but I'm not sure if that would be possible outside of a few specific industries (aerospace, auto and chemicals).
The main goal in the long term should be to detach ourselves from the political project while maintaining as much free trade as possible, even if that means compromising on free movement from the beginning. As we remove ourselves from the political project, the ties that bind us to continued open immigration will start to weaken and we will eventually be able to pull away. If the EU is not able to separate trade from immigration at all even in the future and the people desire to break away completely we will be in a much stronger position to do that in the future once we have opened up favourable trade across the world than to do it today when we'll be struggling with what exactly our WTO status us, untangling ourselves from the customs union, having to give out short term incentives to industry to offset tariffs etc...
I think it can be achieved and in 10 years we'll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, possibly having taken a few other non-EMU nations out to EFTA with us.
Brexit was the most-discussed theme at the Labour conference fringe, and I suspect that party's position will evolve, especially if there's a peace deal with Hilary Benn in charge of the Brexit team, as now seems quite likely. But I agree that a popular/populist Labour position is hard to see, beyond the simplistic "enough dithering, get on with it", which has a certain appeal across the spectrum.
Antigonus, rarely (maybe uniquely) for a Successor had a really good relationship with his eldest son and co-ruler Demetrius, and let him do most of the work. Antigonus had to take the lead against Lysimachus (Demetrius was too far away) and let him escape, which may have been due to age slowing him down or making him indecisive.
But that was a few years after your age.
Incidentally, I thought the 1975 Yes campaign was much better run that the 2016 Remain one.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-30/near-collapse-minnesota-insurers-up-obamacare-rates-by-half
Minnesota to allow insurers to increase premiums 50%-67% in order to prevent the system's collapse ...
The reality is that the only way to achieve universal healthcare is through taxation, which the authors knew but knew was politically unachievable in 2009.
For the record, I was for IN in 1975 and for Brexit this time, in part because I think the EU has moved beyond reaping the economies of scale and is now at about the stage the dinosaurs were with tiny mammals scurrying around their feet just before the meteorite hit. And I am an optimist.
I know all government publications are biased to some degree, but when you erroneously mix dates to fix the numbers I would really hope there's something in the civil service code that stops it being published.
"I was most struck, however, by his ideas on immigration. Corbyn, almost uniquely in British politics, does not see excessive migration as a problem: his idiosyncratic vision for Brexit appears to be free movement without the free markets."
http://capx.co/dividing-the-cake/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/special-report-why-hungary-will-turn-the-eu-political-landscape/
It’s not just the trade issues though, is it? There’s the Erasmus programme, there’s the standardisation of pharmaceutical products, all sorts of interchanges. It’ll take a while before we see the full effects.
Although I have to say I’m pleased that so far we haven’t seen the apocalypse some expected.
My guess is that some of the positives and negatives of Obamacare have moved the debate on. People like having insurance for prior and non-actuarial conditions. Those who have had insurance for the first time have, in large numbers, availed themselves of expensive treatments and surgeries to correct chronic problems. Young people who didn't buy insurance but have since got used to doing so or paying the fine are probably less opposed to a taxation system now, as their contribution would actually decrease in a means-tested tax.
So I don't know. But neither what is nor what was are options.
Has the French Revolution worked? Too early to say, as the famous quote goes.
Isn't EU pharma regulations basically a rubber stamped version of international standards from organisations like ISO, ASTM and International Pharmacopoeia ?
It wasn't me! Honest guv!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/37522714
" Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Trump’s campaign, said, “There’s always going to be some degree of Beltway chatter, no matter how perfectly things are going.” "
(Washington Post)
This follows Trumps total post-debate meltdown as he wages a 20-year old personal war against a former beauty queen.
Betting PostF1: pre-race ramble up. Including a bet which regular readers may be able to guess.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/malaysia-pre-race-2016.html
https://sgoldswoblog.com/2016/10/01/witney-vote-for-all-of-us/
After the LD gain in Stow this week with a 21% swing from Con to LD I think there could be a surprise result in Witney parliamentary by election.
The analysis has been done by Professor John Curtis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/exclusive-tories-call-for-early-general-election-as-polls-show-t/
1. find yourself isolated and less relevant/powerful as the EEC becomes successful
2. join the club, ostensibly as the sick man of Europe seeking nurse's attentions and discipline
3. use your insider position to expand the EU eastwards, ostensibly to tie in former communist regimes into Western liberalism and so further prevent future European wars, while in reality inoculating the EU with the seeds of its own destruction
4. leave before said destruction occurs.
Correction - not intra-EU but intra-European. Just seen that Switzerland was/is being expelled from Erasmus because of its position on freedom of movement.
The issue for Southern Europe is the Euro, not the EU.
'the conservatizes would gain 16 seats, increasing the majority from 12 to 62'
I am now resigned to that awful outcome, President HR Clinton.
A number of states allow on-the-day registration I believe ?
Eligibility for federal elections is set by federal regs, but the mechanisms for implementing the vote - and the levels of proof of eligibility required to register to vote - is for the State.
Ref eligibility to vote:
"You are eligible to vote in federal elections if:
- You are a U.S. citizen (either by birth or naturalization)
- You meet your state's residency requirements
- You are 18 year old. (or, in some states, will be 18 before the general election).
You must be legally registered to vote in your jurisdiction in order to be able to vote in federal elections. State laws vary on voter requirements"
For POTUS election this just seems wrong to me, when said individual will govern for all. For state elections, sure have whatever rules you want.
1) You are not looking at the right numbers. UK has become a dog-eat-dog super-unequal hellhole.
2) The WWC (Nazi Scum that they are) have savagely destroyed Europe out of their (usual) racist, homophobic, isolationist, little englander, failed state, misogynistic, cannibalistic beliefs and behaviours.
3) UK and EU would have been even richer together.
Didn't you get the memo?
All the indications seem to be that early voting and registrations are more Democrat than previously.
Non -voters seem to be more likely to take an interest in plebescites than run of the mill elections.
The Euro is the child of the EU, and its continued existence is a product of the flawed, dogmatic, inflexible stance of the parent. Whilst one can, technically, have the latter without the former, to expect the latter to give up the former is to demand that the beast change its spots. The EU can, will and must act according to its nature.
What would cause a sea change with just 10 (or 24) days to go?
People know both candidates pretty well already.
However, as many have already said, such clarity of evidence is not a given.
We were hoodwinked into a political union, so the argument goes, and now we have our chance to make it right; economics be damned.
That's why we're still "debating" in as much as we are repeating the same lines, without resolution, three months after the vote.
* You vote for your state's component of the Electoral College (a state job)
* They vote for POTUS.
In 2012 the states voted for POTUS on Devember 17th 2012 via the Electoral College. Each state's vote is online: here's the YouTube for Virginia, for example. h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1FKjFy2gac
"It remains unclear how the dead voters voted but 86 were registered Republicans, 146 were Democrats, including Cenkner.
“He’s a diehard Democrat, and I was thinking that if somebody was voting under his name, he’s probably rolling in his grave if they were voting Republican,” Givans said."
But the one you missed was the idea that we are weighed down in EU regulation. I think there's very little evidence of that, especially given our opt-outs.
For a lot of Leavers is a simple transaction in as much as they dont feel they are getting enough out of the EU to justify the loss of sovereignty. Almost everyone has their price, if the EU was providing a 50% increase in the standard of living compared to being outside almost no one would have voted Leave, but the 2-3% that is being talked of in the worse cases isnt floating anyone's boat.