Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
Are you making it up ? Source, please. A precise one.
It think it was Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan.
The exact quote was something like "This has increased the possibility of the Eurozone not lasting another decade by a factor of about five." Of course, without knowing the initial probability, it's not that useful. 15% -> 75% is a very big move. 0.1% -> 0.5% is not.
That's exactly what Brexit ideologues are desperate to happen....for the EU to implode, then they could say they were ahead of the curve.
I'd say now there is much less chance of the EU splitting apart because of Brexit Why?.... less chance of plebiscites, less chance of populist governments, more chance of elites holding the fort and making the union work......and the price...that the UK will be punished heavily.
If we are to be punished for having the temerity to decide we should go in a different direction, we are right to go in a different direction.
Quite so.
Democracy is sacred and the ones making such threats are not elected and cannot be removed by the people. That in a nutshell sums up the EU project. Why does a trading block need 3 presidents, 2 parliaments and a national anthem?
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
One man's ameliorated damage is another man's car crash further up the road.
Which is why by far the most sensible option is for us to enter into a five to seven year (time limited) transitional EEA arrangement.
This would enable British businesses to adapt. It would enable the UK government to enter into further agreements with countries outside the EU.
And it would allow time for a proper discussion about the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
Sadly, it seems that Mrs May and her team are implacably opposed to it.
How dare remainers express an opinion, that 48.3%? The people have spoken and they should shut up. Remainers are treacherous scum who want to do down the country. Freedom has prevailed as we have thrown off the yoke of EU tyranny and plough our prosperous future ahead, free of immigrants and lefty, liberals.
Oh dear....I could get quite used to being a Brexit ideologue. It's exceptionally refreshing to view life using only half a brain cell.
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
She was beatable this year. Even Donald could have beaten her if he'd calmed down and run a sensible campaign after he secured the nomination...
Does no-one understand negotiation among Tory MPs, or are they hoping that Cameron's negotiating style will work a second time..?
If we don't start by saying we'll walk away from a crap deal, then a crap deal is what we will be getting.
The problem is our current position appears to be aiming directly for the worst possible deal
More that it is sending a message to the EU of "Face. Bovvered. Do your worst if you want and we will take you down as well. Or you can be sensible in everyones interest."
We'll take the EU down? How do you envisage we'd do that?
One of the large financial entities (JP Morgan or Goldmans) recently stated that there was a 5 times greater chance of explosion in the eurozone because of Brexit. But they probably also forecast a recession here in 2016 post Brexit.....
Are you making it up ? Source, please. A precise one.
It think it was Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan.
The exact quote was something like "This has increased the possibility of the Eurozone not lasting another decade by a factor of about five." Of course, without knowing the initial probability, it's not that useful. 15% -> 75% is a very big move. 0.1% -> 0.5% is not.
That's exactly what Brexit ideologues are desperate to happen....for the EU to implode, then they could say they were ahead of the curve.
I'd say now there is much less chance of the EU splitting apart because of Brexit Why?.... less chance of plebiscites, less chance of populist governments, more chance of elites holding the fort and making the union work......and the price...that the UK will be punished heavily.
The forecast was from a Remain supporter, Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan and was about the Euro not the EU.
How dare remainers express an opinion, that 48.3%? The people have spoken and they should shut up. Remainers are treacherous scum who want to do down the country. Freedom has prevailed as we have thrown off the yoke of EU tyranny and plough our prosperous future ahead, free of immigrants and lefty, liberals.
Oh dear....I could get quite used to being a Brexit ideologue. It's exceptionally refreshing to view life using only half a brain cell.
I'm not surprised. It's a half more than you're used to using.
Those who preferred Remain to Leave but also preferred EEA to Completely Out have had over three months to advocate EEA, but have wasted that time fighting the battle they'd already lost.
Are they a bigger or a smaller number than those who preferred Leave to Remain, but also preferred EEA to Completely Out?
That's a good question. But now that Remain is no longer an option, EEA probably has a majority over Completely Out if those who want it are prepared to argue for it...
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
She was beatable this year. Even Donald could have beaten her if he'd calmed down and run a sensible campaign after he secured the nomination...
But what we have now learned is that he was literally incapable of doing that.
I think I would have to vote Johnson if I had a vote. Even at the price of letting the dreaded Clinton win. And what a price that is.
I'm glad I don't get a vote and just get to eat popcorn and watch. The future certainly isnt bright and orange though, whoever wins.
My wife is holding on to her ballot for the remote chance that Trump gets booted but will otherwise vote Johnson. As she put it last night: he may be an idiot but at least he's a sensible idiot.
The most likely scenario seems to be Hilary wins but is impotent with Repubs controlling both houses - which dosent bode well for for years time.
The only hope Trump has is that enough middle class (in the British sense) Americans see the prospect of Hillary Nominating Supreme Court Judges as a bigger issue than Trumps personality. I doubt that is the case though.
No, the most likely result is Republican's maintaining control of the House but losing the Senate to the Democrats. "Democrats currently have a 57 percent chance of winning a Senate majority according to our polls-plus forecast and a 56 percent chance in polls-only. Those numbers have been fairly consistent since the conventions." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/senate-update-6-really-important-races-are-really-close/
Which would be significant in terms of SCOTUS nominations. That said, as the Democrats' chances of taking the Senate are lower than those of them gaining the White House, the GOP's best bet would be to pile money into the critical senate races rather than blowing it on Trump.
Even if the GOP aren't on board with Trump, they'll be desperate to hold the Senate in order to block President Clinton's SC nominees. They'll probably be belligerent enough to see if they can avoid replacing Scalia before 2020, which would leave something of a constitutional crisis with a deadlocked Supreme Court for so long.
Not just SCOTUS nominees, of course. A majority in the Senate could block all manner of Democrat-inspired legislation too, whether from the House (if lost) or from Hillary.
I don't think there'd be any need to not consider a nominee. If the GOP gain a majority, they could simply use that new mandate to block anyone they don't like. A rejection would be more powerful than delay (why don't they do that now? Because they're waiting for the election to see whether they'd need to and because they're wary about how public opinion would react to the move).
A rejection would of course not resolve the deadlock (except negatively, dependent on other vacancies opening up) but it would move the issue on.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
Six months ago some of the same posters who are currently exulting in the prospect of car crash Brexit were angrily denying that it was even conceivable.
This thread from six months ago contains some true comedy gold from PB leavers
In the year of Trump and Brexit, education has become the greatest divide of all – splitting voters into two increasingly hostile camps. But don’t assume this is simply a clash between the ignorant and the enlightened
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
One man's ameliorated damage is another man's car crash further up the road.
Which is why by far the most sensible option is for us to enter into a five to seven year (time limited) transitional EEA arrangement.
This would enable British businesses to adapt. It would enable the UK government to enter into further agreements with countries outside the EU.
And it would allow time for a proper discussion about the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
Sadly, it seems that Mrs May and her team are implacably opposed to it.
Would that be because it implies a five to seven year 'do nothing' period on immigration? (Genuine question not a dig). May seems primarily motivated to limit entrants ASAP as that is the political imperative.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
One man's ameliorated damage is another man's car crash further up the road.
Which is why by far the most sensible option is for us to enter into a five to seven year (time limited) transitional EEA arrangement.
This would enable British businesses to adapt. It would enable the UK government to enter into further agreements with countries outside the EU.
And it would allow time for a proper discussion about the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
Sadly, it seems that Mrs May and her team are implacably opposed to it.
They seem to believe that ending free movement of the EU unskilled is going to be impossible. But once the negotiations start may be the position of the EU Leaders may change to a temporary ending on the 5 year basis that you indicate above. When entering such negotiations prepare for the worst (for both sides) and anything that is better is a negotiating success.
How dare remainers express an opinion, that 48.3%? The people have spoken and they should shut up. Remainers are treacherous scum who want to do down the country. Freedom has prevailed as we have thrown off the yoke of EU tyranny and plough our prosperous future ahead, free of immigrants and lefty, liberals.
Oh dear....I could get quite used to being a Brexit ideologue. It's exceptionally refreshing to view life using only half a brain cell.
*48.1%
And no, most of them aren't treacherous scum who want to do down the country. I stress 'most'.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
Given that May has thus far reserved her negotiating position, not much other than signing up for open borders could accurately be painted as a 'screeching handbrake turn'. We also might have a slightly different set of senior politicians across the EU to deal with in a year's time, electoral uncertainties being what they are. I am not an optimist, but I cannot reach quite your level of pessimism; many outcomes are still possible.
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
That's easy to say but how? Unless they're prepared to significantly tighten up on the rules as to who can enter the race, who can vote in it, and what effect those votes have, the system will remain open to populists and extremists because of the relatively low vote shares needed to propel a candidate into the later stages of the primaries.
How dare remainers express an opinion, that 48.3%? The people have spoken and they should shut up. Remainers are treacherous scum who want to do down the country. Freedom has prevailed as we have thrown off the yoke of EU tyranny and plough our prosperous future ahead, free of immigrants and lefty, liberals.
Oh dear....I could get quite used to being a Brexit ideologue. It's exceptionally refreshing to view life using only half a brain cell.
I didn't use any of those words in your post nor did I infer them but yet again your nasty streak gets the better of you and you have just resorted to a tirade of abuse yet again. It's why you lost.
It's almost like people don't know weighting works in polls.
The gentleman quoted by Plato doesn't actually read like a wholly objective analyst. Apparently, Trump won a "stunning victory". Presumably he was watching a different debate to everyone else.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
One man's ameliorated damage is another man's car crash further up the road.
Which is why by far the most sensible option is for us to enter into a five to seven year (time limited) transitional EEA arrangement.
This would enable British businesses to adapt. It would enable the UK government to enter into further agreements with countries outside the EU.
And it would allow time for a proper discussion about the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
Sadly, it seems that Mrs May and her team are implacably opposed to it.
Would that be because it implies a five to seven year 'do nothing' period on immigration? (Genuine question not a dig). May seems primarily motivated to limit entrants ASAP as that is the political imperative.
That would be exactly why. There is no way this government can not do anything, pretty quickly, on immigration. Rudd's kite-flying worked perfectly well as a nudge. People are on notice.
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
That's correct but they produced a sensible report following 2012 and look what's happened. Why should next time be different?
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
That's easy to say but how? Unless they're prepared to significantly tighten up on the rules as to who can enter the race, who can vote in it, and what effect those votes have, the system will remain open to populists and extremists because of the relatively low vote shares needed to propel a candidate into the later stages of the primaries.
There was a piece a few months ago where the RNC were going to stipulate from 2020 the GOP must have held/does hold a suitable elected office, such as Governor, Senator, or Congressman/woman.
It would have only impacted Eisenhower in the last 70 years.
Morally, I cannot deny that you are right three quidder about the EU posturing over Brexit. But as we have heard from Hollande, Merkel Renzi, they have all said that the UK will pay a price for Brexit. Of course, Brexit ideologues are hoping for a populist uprising in Europe, Le Pen, Grillo, the end of Merkel...all in the next year. But if that happens, Europe will be a very bleak place indeed. Just imagine that future; Turkey on the brink, Russia flexing it's muscles, instability in the middle east, mass migration, global warming, with Europe engulfed and fragmented by right wing populism.
I would much rather Britain pays a short term price for Brexit, something that can be reversed in the future, and that Europe manages to collectively hold together. The fact that people here call me a traitor is an indication of how bad things could get.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
One man's ameliorated damage is another man's car crash further up the road.
Which is why by far the most sensible option is for us to enter into a five to seven year (time limited) transitional EEA arrangement.
This would enable British businesses to adapt. It would enable the UK government to enter into further agreements with countries outside the EU.
And it would allow time for a proper discussion about the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
Sadly, it seems that Mrs May and her team are implacably opposed to it.
Would that be because it implies a five to seven year 'do nothing' period on immigration? (Genuine question not a dig). May seems primarily motivated to limit entrants ASAP as that is the political imperative.
That would be exactly why. There is no way this government can not do anything, pretty quickly, on immigration. Rudd's kite-flying worked perfectly well as a nudge. People are on notice.
Propose something really awful so when the regularly awful comes along it doesn't seem so bad. Maybe that's what UKIP were doing in Strasbourg.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
Six months ago some of the same posters who are currently exulting in the prospect of car crash Brexit were angrily denying that it was even conceivable.
This thread from six months ago contains some true comedy gold from PB leavers
I can only assume this is click bait, aimed at getting the Leavers to re-examine the "true comedy gold" by posting tens of thousands of posts from Remainers?
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
That's easy to say but how? Unless they're prepared to significantly tighten up on the rules as to who can enter the race, who can vote in it, and what effect those votes have, the system will remain open to populists and extremists because of the relatively low vote shares needed to propel a candidate into the later stages of the primaries.
Thats what they need to do. It's their party, so their rules. Make it so you have to have served as a Governor, Senator or Congressman so you don't get guys like Trump or Ben Carson.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Your argument seems to be that half the country has no right to an opinion on the terms on which we leave the EU ?
Morally, I cannot deny that you are right three quidder about the EU posturing over Brexit. But as we have heard from Hollande, Merkel Renzi, they have all said that the UK will pay a price for Brexit. Of course, Brexit ideologues are hoping for a populist uprising in Europe, Le Pen, Grillo, the end of Merkel...all in the next year. But if that happens, Europe will be a very bleak place indeed. Just imagine that future; Turkey on the brink, Russia flexing it's muscles, instability in the middle east, mass migration, global warming, with Europe engulfed and fragmented by right wing populism.
I would much rather Britain pays a short term price for Brexit, something that can be reversed in the future, and that Europe manages to collectively hold together. The fact that people here call me a traitor is an indication of how bad things could get.
People are calling you a traitor because you are a traitor. Not for voting remain, there were many good reasons to do so, but for hoping that the UK will suffer and the EU prosper from it. That is base treachery.
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
That's correct but they produced a sensible report following 2012 and look what's happened. Why should next time be different?
It's almost like people don't know weighting works in polls.
The gentleman quoted by Plato doesn't actually read like a wholly objective analyst. Apparently, Trump won a "stunning victory". Presumably he was watching a different debate to everyone else.
You could argue that compared to the expected Trump meltdown, what he delivered was "stunning". A victory? Not in November anyway....
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
That's easy to say but how? Unless they're prepared to significantly tighten up on the rules as to who can enter the race, who can vote in it, and what effect those votes have, the system will remain open to populists and extremists because of the relatively low vote shares needed to propel a candidate into the later stages of the primaries.
Thats what they need to do. It's their party, so their rules. Make it so you have to have served as a Governor, Senator or Congressman so you don't get guys like Trump or Ben Carson.
I really don't understand people's dislike of Hillary Clinton. She seems the ideal choice to be President and I think she will be a very good President.
If Americans are worried about having a less than wholly pure President, well, they shouldn't be. After all, they've had Nixon, Kennedy, Bill Clinton and plenty of others before then who had moral or financial issues in office. You even had Woodrow Wilson's wife and doctor running the country when he was incapacitated by a stroke.
On the other hand, you have Jimmy Carter, a sincere, honest and decent man but generally regarded as the worst President of the post-WW2 period.
To move on from SeanF's dilemma earlier today about how liberals (who apparently are to blame for everything even when conservatives and socialists have the power) can condone majorities voting for the abolition of democracy, is it more important to have a capable person in office and power than a virtuous one ?
Would a conservative vote for a capable but dishonest socialist over an honest but incapable conservative ?
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
Six months ago some of the same posters who are currently exulting in the prospect of car crash Brexit were angrily denying that it was even conceivable.
This thread from six months ago contains some true comedy gold from PB leavers
I can only assume this is click bait, aimed at getting the Leavers to re-examine the "true comedy gold" by posting tens of thousands of posts from Remainers?
Not to mention the threads themselves....
It is either on that thread or another thread nearby that a PB leaver said 'Hard Brexit is more Project Fear bullshit, not going to happen'
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
One man's ameliorated damage is another man's car crash further up the road.
Which is why by far the most sensible option is for us to enter into a five to seven year (time limited) transitional EEA arrangement.
This would enable British businesses to adapt. It would enable the UK government to enter into further agreements with countries outside the EU.
And it would allow time for a proper discussion about the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
Sadly, it seems that Mrs May and her team are implacably opposed to it.
Would that be because it implies a five to seven year 'do nothing' period on immigration? (Genuine question not a dig). May seems primarily motivated to limit entrants ASAP as that is the political imperative.
That would be exactly why. There is no way this government can not do anything, pretty quickly, on immigration. Rudd's kite-flying worked perfectly well as a nudge. People are on notice.
Propose something really awful so when the regularly awful comes along it doesn't seem so bad. Maybe that's what UKIP were doing in Strasbourg.
Don't get the last bit. How does fighting each other help? Or do you mean that at least Suzanne Evans won't beat up other members?
Would that be because it implies a five to seven year 'do nothing' period on immigration? (Genuine question not a dig). May seems primarily motivated to limit entrants ASAP as that is the political imperative.
Well, we could solve most unskilled immigration problems by (as we should anyway) moving to a contributory based system for benefits.
The point is that negotiating deals with - for example - even Australia is going to be multi-year process. Asking the UK government to simultaneously deal with Brexit negotiations, plus every other country we might want to have deals with, in a very time limited environment is not a good idea. Knowing how time limited we are likely to be dramatically lowers our negotiating power - and I'm not talking about with the EU.
My point is that in the EEA, but outside the EU, we can actually have deals signed with other countries, and we can start reorientating our trade. Otherwise, we're likely to end up in a situation where we fall out of the EU and onto WTO rules will everyone on 1 May 2019.
If you want to discourage inward investment into the UK in the next two years, you would be hard pressed to think of a stance better than the current government's.
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
That's easy to say but how? Unless they're prepared to significantly tighten up on the rules as to who can enter the race, who can vote in it, and what effect those votes have, the system will remain open to populists and extremists because of the relatively low vote shares needed to propel a candidate into the later stages of the primaries.
There was a piece a few months ago where the RNC were going to stipulate from 2020 the GOP must have held/does hold a suitable elected office, such as Governor, Senator, or Congressman/woman.
It would have only impacted Eisenhower in the last 70 years.
And I'm sure they'd have make an exception for the General. That rule is along the right lines, but they also need to limit the numbers to no more than half a dozen. Trump was able to dominate the early rounds because of the crowded field and everyone else thinking he was the side show rather than a serious candidate.
I really don't understand people's dislike of Hillary Clinton. She seems the ideal choice to be President and I think she will be a very good President.
If Americans are worried about having a less than wholly pure President, well, they shouldn't be. After all, they've had Nixon, Kennedy, Bill Clinton and plenty of others before then who had moral or financial issues in office. You even had Woodrow Wilson's wife and doctor running the country when he was incapacitated by a stroke.
On the other hand, you have Jimmy Carter, a sincere, honest and decent man but generally regarded as the worst President of the post-WW2 period.
To move on from SeanF's dilemma earlier today about how liberals (who apparently are to blame for everything even when conservatives and socialists have the power) can condone majorities voting for the abolition of democracy, is it more important to have a capable person in office and power than a virtuous one ?
Would a conservative vote for a capable but dishonest socialist over an honest but incapable conservative ?
I'm amazed you don't know who Luntz is - assuming this is who you referred to. He's the focus group man for the debates and over the primaries. He's employed by a few of the networks. He also IIRC did the same stuff for a few of our UK debates during the GE.
As for your view of Hillary - well, I'll just say I disagree entirely.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard te.
Tour favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
One man's ameliorated damage is another man's car crash further up the road.
Which is why by far the most sensible option is for us to enter into a five to seven year (time limited) transitional EEA arrangement.
This would enable British businesses to adapt. It would enable the UK government to enter into further agreements with countries outside the EU.
And it would allow time for a proper discussion about the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
Sadly, it seems that Mrs May and her team are implacably opposed to it.
Would that be because it implies a five to seven year 'do nothing' period on immigration? (Genuine question political imperative.
That would be exactly why. There is no way this government can not do anything, pretty quickly, on immigration. Rudd's kite-flying worked perfectly well as a nudge. People are on notice.
Propose something really awful so when the regularly awful comes along it doesn't seem so bad. Maybe that's what UKIP were doing in Strasbourg.
Wouldn't be the first time. To believe Rudd saying it at conference, and then Fallon denying it (3x) yesterday was not scripted is either lunacy or, if it wasn't, very very worrying.
Thing is, they will need to do something. They have been commanded to do so and it is unlikely to be pretty whatever they do. They haven't as we know done anything in terms of numbers for non-EU migration. If they are serious, which I believe the electorate have told them they must be, there will be plenty of regularly awful measures ahead.
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
She was beatable this year. Even Donald could have beaten her if he'd calmed down and run a sensible campaign after he secured the nomination...
She was arguably more beatable this year....tough, competent, women initially struggle with being elected first as party leaders, and then by the public, but once in power they are difficult to dislodge. Clinton 2020 will be judged on her record. If she's competent all the Clinton baggage thrown at her today would be forgotten. Similarly with Trump, if he won, he'd be judged on his record and not on these endless lurid headlines.
''I really don't understand people's dislike of Hillary Clinton. She seems the ideal choice to be President and I think she will be a very good President.''
Clinton clearly cannot abide a very large minority of her voters. She will be an extremely divisive president who will wage war on the white blue collar male vote that is behind the Trump insurgency.
At some juncture, its not completely inconceivable that the States could break up. Clinton would certainly hasten that process.
I really don't understand people's dislike of Hillary Clinton. She seems the ideal choice to be President and I think she will be a very good President.
If Americans are worried about having a less than wholly pure President, well, they shouldn't be. After all, they've had Nixon, Kennedy, Bill Clinton and plenty of others before then who had moral or financial issues in office. You even had Woodrow Wilson's wife and doctor running the country when he was incapacitated by a stroke.
On the other hand, you have Jimmy Carter, a sincere, honest and decent man but generally regarded as the worst President of the post-WW2 period.
To move on from SeanF's dilemma earlier today about how liberals (who apparently are to blame for everything even when conservatives and socialists have the power) can condone majorities voting for the abolition of democracy, is it more important to have a capable person in office and power than a virtuous one ?
Would a conservative vote for a capable but dishonest socialist over an honest but incapable conservative ?
Hillary will continue to store up the problems caused by years of stagnant wages for the middle and lower middle classes in the US. Trump is just a symptom of a dysfunctional America. Clearly he isn't the answer and gives no real solutions, but Clinton is probably worse. A better GOP candidate in 2020 will walk it, people can scream and shout about demographics all they want, but Trump was getting pretty close despite being very poor with AAs and Hispanics. It's only since the first debate he fell back, before that he was in with a 40% chance of winning. A candidate that can hold that pre-debate coalition together and add AAs who are also suffering from endemic working poverty or worklessness, much of it caused by illegal immigration will do very well indeed.
Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless. Worse than useless when taking foreign policy into account.
Mr. 1000, a time-limited EEA membership is an interesting idea.
Kicking the can down the road is a cop-out too far.
Leaving the EU is best thought of a multi-stage process.
We simply will not have any trade deals agreed with non-EU countries in the next two years. We may well even drop out of the 31 odd FTAs that the EU have in place with countries like Korea.
So, we're basically saying to anyone - including Brits - who wants to invest in production capacity in the UK:
"We're not going to tell you what tariffs with the EU will be. We're not going to be able to tell you what tariffs with other countries will be. We're not going to be able to tell you who will be on the Most Favoured Nation list. And we're not going to be able to tell you which countries we'll have Free Trade Agreements with."
Were you a business person, would you invest in capacity in the UK, or would you choose somewhere else where you knew the answer to most of those questions?
Mostly I was just disagreeing with the premise that adding tariffs makes everyone better off, which seems to be Mr Raab's argument.
(Not only that, but he his suggestions for compensating those who lost out due to others' tariffs would be in blatant violation of the 1995 World Trade Organisation Treaty.)
The argument that the effect of the tariff can easily be negated by using the tariff income to reduce other costs is a sound one. The same applies through currency depreciation.
Unilateral tariff abolition also makes sense in selected cases. Why on earth would any sane government add a tariff to goods that cannot be sourced domestically and which do not act as a replacement for other goods sourced domestically?
Half of the EU was against tariffs on Chinese steel because those nations had no steel industry of their own and just wanted the cheapest (but necessary) supply .
I really don't understand people's dislike of Hillary Clinton. She seems the ideal choice to be President and I think she will be a very good President.
If Americans are worried about having a less than wholly pure President, well, they shouldn't be. After all, they've had Nixon, Kennedy, Bill Clinton and plenty of others before then who had moral or financial issues in office. You even had Woodrow Wilson's wife and doctor running the country when he was incapacitated by a stroke.
On the other hand, you have Jimmy Carter, a sincere, honest and decent man but generally regarded as the worst President of the post-WW2 period.
To move on from SeanF's dilemma earlier today about how liberals (who apparently are to blame for everything even when conservatives and socialists have the power) can condone majorities voting for the abolition of democracy, is it more important to have a capable person in office and power than a virtuous one ?
Would a conservative vote for a capable but dishonest socialist over an honest but incapable conservative ?
The dislike is because she's an untrustworthy Washington politico exuding entitlement while also having the temerity to play the outsider card (purely on the grounds of being a woman, despite this being her biggest asset given that she's where she is largely by being tied to Bill).
Would she make a 'very good president'? Given her record as senator and Sec of State, that seems unlikely. Mediocre is about the best we can hope for. But mediocre is a good deal better than Trump would be.
I wonder whether the fog is starting to lift in the heads of the useful idiots and they are beginning to see just how badly they were had? It's all too late now of course.
It's hard to see now how we don't end up with hard Brexit (better described as car crash Brexit). The alternative requires a screeching handbrake turn from the Prime Minister that would destroy her credibility or a screeching handbrake turn from the EU that would destroy the credibility of numerous senior politicians across the EU. The former is slightly more likely than the latter, but neither seems remotely likely to me.
The people who need to reflect on the Referendum vote were those who were unable to convince the voters "just how badly they were had". Your side had everything in your favour. EVERYTHING. And yet you still couldn't make the case.
We feel your pain at realising just how crap you were. But there is only going to be one outcome as a result of your failure to make the case - that the UK will leave the EU. That is the price of your losing. The continual bleating from Remain just gives an outcome that should hurt all the more - it prolongs the joy of that unexpected June result for those who voted Leave.
Maybe you want the 'car crash' Brexit, but not everybody who voted Leave agrees. It is quite valid for people to campaign to ameliorate the damage.
Six months ago some of the same posters who are currently exulting in the prospect of car crash Brexit were angrily denying that it was even conceivable.
This thread from six months ago contains some true comedy gold from PB leavers
I can only assume this is click bait, aimed at getting the Leavers to re-examine the "true comedy gold" by posting tens of thousands of posts from Remainers?
Not to mention the threads themselves....
It is either on that thread or another thread nearby that a PB leaver said 'Hard Brexit is more Project Fear bullshit, not going to happen'
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
She was beatable this year. Even Donald could have beaten her if he'd calmed down and run a sensible campaign after he secured the nomination...
She was arguably more beatable this year....tough, competent, women initially struggle with being elected first as party leaders, and then by the public, but once in power they are difficult to dislodge. Clinton 2020 will be judged on her record. If she's competent all the Clinton baggage thrown at her today would be forgotten. Similarly with Trump, if he won, he'd be judged on his record and not on these endless lurid headlines.
I think President Hillary will strike a huge blow for sex equality....
....by showing that women President's can be just as shit as their male counterparts.
The argument that the effect of the tariff can easily be negated by using the tariff income to reduce other costs is a sound one. The same applies through currency depreciation.
Mostly I was just disagreeing with the premise that adding tariffs makes everyone better off, which seems to be Mr Raab's argument.
(Not only that, but he his suggestions for compensating those who lost out due to others' tariffs would be in blatant violation of the 1995 World Trade Organisation Treaty.)
The argument that the effect of the tariff can easily be negated by using the tariff income to reduce other costs is a sound one. The same applies through currency depreciation.
Unilateral tariff abolition also makes sense in selected cases. Why on earth would any sane government add a tariff to goods that cannot be sourced domestically and which do not act as a replacement for other goods sourced domestically?
Half of the EU was against tariffs on Chinese steel because those nations had no steel industry of their own and just wanted the cheapest (but necessary) supply .
True but it undermines the case for the EU, or, if you prefer, proves more integration is needed so that all EU nations come to regard Welsh steel mills as their own.
Mr. 1000, a time-limited EEA membership is an interesting idea.
Kicking the can down the road is a cop-out too far.
Leaving the EU is best thought of a multi-stage process.
We simply will not have any trade deals agreed with non-EU countries in the next two years. We may well even drop out of the 31 odd FTAs that the EU have in place with countries like Korea.
So, we're basically saying to anyone - including Brits - who wants to invest in production capacity in the UK:
"We're not going to tell you what tariffs with the EU will be. We're not going to be able to tell you what tariffs with other countries will be. We're not going to be able to tell you who will be on the Most Favoured Nation list. And we're not going to be able to tell you which countries we'll have Free Trade Agreements with."
Were you a business person, would you invest in capacity in the UK, or would you choose somewhere else where you knew the answer to most of those questions?
Whether we get it or not, whether it is for a transitional period or not, the idea that we would float gently from EU membership into the EEA and get on with it much as before, except we could reduce VAT on home energy supplies and be free of Droite de Suite was, and appears still may be, a PB Leavers fantasy.
In that world of perfectly charming and reasonable outcomes, not much would change. Certainly immigration at current levels would be welcomed.
But of course Leave won and it turns out those ghastly voters actually want to reduce immigration. Dramatically. And the government must respond. And in 24-hr news channel time, not sensible geopolitical time.
One phrase I noted from that thread @TSE linked to (perhaps it was even Moi who used it, I wasn't the only one) - throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It seems that might prove the most pertinent analysis of Brexit.
The Republicans should write off this election, and focus on what they need to do to win in 4 years time. Get the right candidate and Hiliary will be beatable for sure.
That's easy to say but how? Unless they're prepared to significantly tighten up on the rules as to who can enter the race, who can vote in it, and what effect those votes have, the system will remain open to populists and extremists because of the relatively low vote shares needed to propel a candidate into the later stages of the primaries.
There was a piece a few months ago where the RNC were going to stipulate from 2020 the GOP must have held/does hold a suitable elected office, such as Governor, Senator, or Congressman/woman.
It would have only impacted Eisenhower in the last 70 years.
That could easily be got round by extending the list to senior appointed federal office - secretaries of departments, senior military offices and the like. My guess would be that one usable line to draw would be positions that have to be approved by Congress.
The argument that the effect of the tariff can easily be negated by using the tariff income to reduce other costs is a sound one. The same applies through currency depreciation.
@tnewtondunn: Trouble ahead for PM. Tory Leavers now joining Remainers in revolt on hard Brexit. Stephen Phillips pushing for emergency debate, voted out.
That's what I posted on PB the other day, from conference I got the feeling the Liberal/Economic Leavers weren't happy with the way we were headed for a hard Brexit.
It really does screw the economy.
Dominic Raab:
Should the EU impose tariffs, forcing the UK to reciprocate, the UK government would rake in an estimated £12 billion each year (on top of the £10 billion from not paying an EU membership fee). This can be used to support vulnerable business sectors. It would be the ultimate schadenfreude, if it were to be German car manufacturers and French farmers compensating British businesses, bruised by vindictive bureaucrats in Brussels.
Britain can flourish with even the worst deal. But how can we get the best?\
That's terrible economics. If we impose tariffs on goods, then consumers will pay more. You might as well just simply charge extra income tax on people that buy those kind of products.
For the record, there is no "forcing the UK reciprocate", as there is no obligation on the UK to charge tariffs on anything. As @GeoffM has posted, there is a very good economic case for simply abolishing all import duties, irrespective of the country of origin. (Really, the only case against it, is that lowering our tariffs is a weapon to persuade others to lower theirs.)
Import tariff abolition is a bit like unilateral disarmament.
I tend to agree.
Mostly I was just disagreeing with the premise that adding tariffs makes everyone better off, which seems to be Mr Raab's argument.
(Not only that, but he his suggestions for compensating those who lost out due to others' tariffs would be in blatant violation of the 1995 World Trade Organisation Treaty.)
Even if we did impose tariffs and they did, the fall in the pound means that cost in EU of most UK products would be lower than on June 22nd.
Wheras EU exporters to UK hit by double whammy of high Euro and Tariffs.
I'm surprised weve heard nothing yet from RoI about difficulties the high Euro vs Pound must be causing them.
There was an example in circulation before the referendum relating to starter model Jaguars and Audis/BMWs.
On the assumption of a 10% currency movement and 10% tariff, the Jaguar became the more competitively priced car both in the UK and in Europe having been the more expensive product beforehand in both markets.
So, we're basically saying to anyone - including Brits - who wants to invest in production capacity in the UK:
"We're not going to tell you what tariffs with the EU will be. We're not going to be able to tell you what tariffs with other countries will be. We're not going to be able to tell you who will be on the Most Favoured Nation list. And we're not going to be able to tell you which countries we'll have Free Trade Agreements with."
Were you a business person, would you invest in capacity in the UK, or would you choose somewhere else where you knew the answer to most of those questions?
Well, quite. Exactly the point I made repeatedly for about four years leading up to June 23rd. But I was told that I was a Europhile or worse for asking the question.
Now we are where we are. The eventual outcome of the negotiations remains unclear, and - crucially - doesn't depend only on what the UK government wants. At the very least, any agreeement will have to include political 'wins' for all our veto-wielding counterparties. It's unclear to me what political win would arise for anyone in your idea of a temporary EEA deal, which looks a non-starter to me on multiple grounds.
More generally, I agree with this article that talk of a 'Hard' vs 'Soft' Brexit is unhelpful, and actually conflates a number of different issues:
Donald Trump's inability to construct a sentence reminds me of John Prescott.
He's perfectly capable of constructing one; the question is whether he's capable of finishing it before he starts on his next one.
I read a fascinating article in The Times about his deliberate speaking style - short sentences, simple words, repeating himself, moving from one topic to another and back again.
Morally, I cannot deny that you are right three quidder about the EU posturing over Brexit. But as we have heard from Hollande, Merkel Renzi, they have all said that the UK will pay a price for Brexit. Of course, Brexit ideologues are hoping for a populist uprising in Europe, Le Pen, Grillo, the end of Merkel...all in the next year. But if that happens, Europe will be a very bleak place indeed. Just imagine that future; Turkey on the brink, Russia flexing it's muscles, instability in the middle east, mass migration, global warming, with Europe engulfed and fragmented by right wing populism.
I would much rather Britain pays a short term price for Brexit, something that can be reversed in the future, and that Europe manages to collectively hold together. The fact that people here call me a traitor is an indication of how bad things could get.
People are calling you a traitor because you are a traitor. Not for voting remain, there were many good reasons to do so, but for hoping that the UK will suffer and the EU prosper from it. That is base treachery.
I said I'd rather the UK pays a short term price for Brexit and the EU prospers because I think the alternative, namely a populist, fragmented Europe presents an exponentially more serious long term risk for the UK.
I think Brexit presents a zero sum game. We pay an economic price as the EU prospers; or the EU implodes and we pay an economic price in an unstable Europe. Naturally, the latter might well have happened if we had stayed...but at least we could have avoided the first outcome.
Mr. 1000, a time-limited EEA membership is an interesting idea.
Kicking the can down the road is a cop-out too far.
Were you a business person, would you invest in capacity in the UK, or would you choose somewhere else where you knew the answer to most of those questions?
So if you own a hotel you should never close for refurbishments which would improve your longer term prospects as you might have a short period of reduced room capacity ?
I really don't understand people's dislike of Hillary Clinton. She seems the ideal choice to be President and I think she will be a very good President.
If Americans are worried about having a less than wholly pure President, well, they shouldn't be. After all, they've had Nixon, Kennedy, Bill Clinton and plenty of others before then who had moral or financial issues in office. You even had Woodrow Wilson's wife and doctor running the country when he was incapacitated by a stroke.
On the other hand, you have Jimmy Carter, a sincere, honest and decent man but generally regarded as the worst President of the post-WW2 period.
To move on from SeanF's dilemma earlier today about how liberals (who apparently are to blame for everything even when conservatives and socialists have the power) can condone majorities voting for the abolition of democracy, is it more important to have a capable person in office and power than a virtuous one ?
Would a conservative vote for a capable but dishonest socialist over an honest but incapable conservative ?
I'm amazed you don't know who Luntz is - assuming this is who you referred to. He's the focus group man for the debates and over the primaries. He's employed by a few of the networks. He also IIRC did the same stuff for a few of our UK debates during the GE.
As for your view of Hillary - well, I'll just say I disagree entirely.
Luntz is a self-described paid shill... who tends to be paid by Republicans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz Luntz describes his specialty as “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”
Mr. Tyson, what if you believed (as I do) that the EU imploding is a matter of when rather than if? If that were your perspective, would you have voted to Leave [on the basis that it's better to disentangle the UK during relatively good times rather than get more integrated and then have to disentangle the UK]?
Morally, I cannot deny that you are right three quidder about the EU posturing over Brexit. But as we have heard from Hollande, Merkel Renzi, they have all said that the UK will pay a price for Brexit. Of course, Brexit ideologues are hoping for a populist uprising in Europe, Le Pen, Grillo, the end of Merkel...all in the next year. But if that happens, Europe will be a very bleak place indeed. Just imagine that future; Turkey on the brink, Russia flexing it's muscles, instability in the middle east, mass migration, global warming, with Europe engulfed and fragmented by right wing populism.
I would much rather Britain pays a short term price for Brexit, something that can be reversed in the future, and that Europe manages to collectively hold together. The fact that people here call me a traitor is an indication of how bad things could get.
People are calling you a traitor because you are a traitor. Not for voting remain, there were many good reasons to do so, but for hoping that the UK will suffer and the EU prosper from it. That is base treachery.
I said I'd rather the UK pays a short term price for Brexit and the EU prospers because I think the alternative, namely a populist, fragmented Europe presents an exponentially more serious long term risk for the UK.
I think Brexit presents a zero sum game. We pay an economic price as the EU prospers; or the EU implodes and we pay an economic price in an unstable Europe. Naturally, the latter might well have happened if we had stayed...but at least we could have avoided the first outcome.
And in any case I thought prices worth paying were popular Leavers' currency.
Morally, I cannot deny that you are right three quidder about the EU posturing over Brexit. But as we have heard from Hollande, Merkel Renzi, they have all said that the UK will pay a price for Brexit. Of course, Brexit ideologues are hoping for a populist uprising in Europe, Le Pen, Grillo, the end of Merkel...all in the next year. But if that happens, Europe will be a very bleak place indeed. Just imagine that future; Turkey on the brink, Russia flexing it's muscles, instability in the middle east, mass migration, global warming, with Europe engulfed and fragmented by right wing populism.
I would much rather Britain pays a short term price for Brexit, something that can be reversed in the future, and that Europe manages to collectively hold together. The fact that people here call me a traitor is an indication of how bad things could get.
People are calling you a traitor because you are a traitor. Not for voting remain, there were many good reasons to do so, but for hoping that the UK will suffer and the EU prosper from it. That is base treachery.
I said I'd rather the UK pays a short term price for Brexit and the EU prospers because I think the alternative, namely a populist, fragmented Europe presents an exponentially more serious long term risk for the UK.
I think Brexit presents a zero sum game. We pay an economic price as the EU prospers; or the EU implodes and we pay an economic price in an unstable Europe. Naturally, the latter might well have happened if we had stayed...but at least we could have avoided the first outcome.
The latter is likely to happen Brexit or no Brexit. Tbh, if it is shown that the EU isn't necessary for economic and political stability (which it isn't) then leaving the EU may serve as a safety valve for other nations struggling with populist parties like AfD, FN, M5S, FPO and others across the continent. Indeed our exit may even force the Eurocrats to examine what prompted one of the most stable nations in the world to turn against hundreds of years of tradition and vote against the establishment. Unlikely, but you never know.
Morally, I cannot deny that you are right three quidder about the EU posturing over Brexit. But as we have heard from Hollande, Merkel Renzi, they have all said that the UK will pay a price for Brexit. Of course, Brexit ideologues are hoping for a populist uprising in Europe, Le Pen, Grillo, the end of Merkel...all in the next year. But if that happens, Europe will be a very bleak place indeed. Just imagine that future; Turkey on the brink, Russia flexing it's muscles, instability in the middle east, mass migration, global warming, with Europe engulfed and fragmented by right wing populism.
I would much rather Britain pays a short term price for Brexit, something that can be reversed in the future, and that Europe manages to collectively hold together. The fact that people here call me a traitor is an indication of how bad things could get.
People are calling you a traitor because you are a traitor. Not for voting remain, there were many good reasons to do so, but for hoping that the UK will suffer and the EU prosper from it. That is base treachery.
I said I'd rather the UK pays a short term price for Brexit and the EU prospers because I think the alternative, namely a populist, fragmented Europe presents an exponentially more serious long term risk for the UK.
I think Brexit presents a zero sum game. We pay an economic price as the EU prospers; or the EU implodes and we pay an economic price in an unstable Europe. Naturally, the latter might well have happened if we had stayed...but at least we could have avoided the first outcome.
You don't mean zero sum game (which means any wining by team A must be at the expense of team B and vv) you mean lose-lose situation. And if the EU implodes that will damage us less if we aren't in it. It will still damage us, but short of towing the country across the Atlantic there is nothing we can do about that.
There was an example in circulation before the referendum relating to starter model Jaguars and Audis/BMWs.
On the assumption of a 10% currency movement and 10% tariff, the Jaguar became the more competitively priced car both in the UK and in Europe having been the more expensive product beforehand in both markets.
Has the currency move already exceeded 10%?
That Jaguar only has around 20% of its costs denominated in Sterling, because the steel, the electricity, the tyres, the gearbox, perhaps the engine, the electronics, etc., will all have been sourced in the international supply chain.
So, a 10% change in the value of Sterling moves the cost to a Euro purchaser by 2%.
And don't forget those European cars that derive significant amounts of their value from parts made in the UK will benefit similarly. So, a French Renault that bought seats from a UK supplier has just seen the cost of these decline.
Mr. 1000, a time-limited EEA membership is an interesting idea.
Kicking the can down the road is a cop-out too far.
Were you a business person, would you invest in capacity in the UK, or would you choose somewhere else where you knew the answer to most of those questions?
So if you own a hotel you should never close for refurbishments which would improve your longer term prospects as you might have a short period of reduced room capacity ?
Or would you choose to phase refurbishment so as to minimise the risk of going bust in the middle of the process?
The biggest threat to Brexit is a severe recession that leads to the fall of the government and a pro-EU party being elected.
I really don't understand people's dislike of Hillary Clinton. She seems the ideal choice to be President and I think she will be a very good President.
If Americans are worried about having a less than wholly pure President, well, they shouldn't be. After all, they've had Nixon, Kennedy, Bill Clinton and plenty of others before then who had moral or financial issues in office. You even had Woodrow Wilson's wife and doctor running the country when he was incapacitated by a stroke.
On the other hand, you have Jimmy Carter, a sincere, honest and decent man but generally regarded as the worst President of the post-WW2 period.
To move on from SeanF's dilemma earlier today about how liberals (who apparently are to blame for everything even when conservatives and socialists have the power) can condone majorities voting for the abolition of democracy, is it more important to have a capable person in office and power than a virtuous one ?
Would a conservative vote for a capable but dishonest socialist over an honest but incapable conservative ?
Hillary will continue to store up the problems caused by years of stagnant wages for the middle and lower middle classes in the US. Trump is just a symptom of a dysfunctional America. Clearly he isn't the answer and gives no real solutions, but Clinton is probably worse. A better GOP candidate in 2020 will walk it, people can scream and shout about demographics all they want, but Trump was getting pretty close despite being very poor with AAs and Hispanics. It's only since the first debate he fell back, before that he was in with a 40% chance of winning. A candidate that can hold that pre-debate coalition together and add AAs who are also suffering from endemic working poverty or worklessness, much of it caused by illegal immigration will do very well indeed.
Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless. Worse than useless when taking foreign policy into account.
39% Hispanics thought Trump won. Better than I expected.
Mr. Tyson, what if you believed (as I do) that the EU imploding is a matter of when rather than if? If that were your perspective, would you have voted to Leave [on the basis that it's better to disentangle the UK during relatively good times rather than get more integrated and then have to disentangle the UK]?
No, because we will be no less affected as a non-member (or potentially a member in the process of leaving) than we would as a member. It is naive to think that a small stretch of water and non-membership will insulate the UK from the effects of an EU and Euro implosion.
The argument that the effect of the tariff can easily be negated by using the tariff income to reduce other costs is a sound one. The same applies through currency depreciation.
The government are free to use revenue to adjust taxation as they choose.
If there is an increase of £22bn in available revenue it means they can cut taxes elsewhere.
For example, they could apply a £22bn tax cut on incomes or VAT. The consequence would be that any price rises for the consumer would be offset by increases in disposable incomes etc.
So at an overall economic level balance is restored rather than direct subsidy to a particular business/industry etc.
Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless.
Yet has amazing favourability ratings.
I will scream demographics just now. The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 6 attempts. This is only going to get worse for them unless they re-align.
Mr. 1000, a time-limited EEA membership is an interesting idea.
Kicking the can down the road is a cop-out too far.
Were you a business person, would you invest in capacity in the UK, or would you choose somewhere else where you knew the answer to most of those questions?
So if you own a hotel you should never close for refurbishments which would improve your longer term prospects as you might have a short period of reduced room capacity ?
I don't think that's the correct analogy. It's more like a hotel removing themselves from online booking sites and requiring potential customers to send their bookings by post accompanied by a cheque and charging a fee to do so.
The risk is that customers will say, sod that, we'll go somewhere else.
Mr. B2, I'm not imagining the UK will be insulated from the effects, merely that the effects of EU implosion will be less if we're not in it when the implosion occurs.
[I also wanted us to leave based on democracy, accountability etc].
Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless.
Yet has amazing favourability ratings.
I will scream demographics just now. The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 6 attempts. This is only going to get worse for them unless they re-align.
Yeah. People saying Obama is a useless president ignore his high favourability ratings with the American public.
Mr. 1000, a time-limited EEA membership is an interesting idea.
Kicking the can down the road is a cop-out too far.
Were you a business person, would you invest in capacity in the UK, or would you choose somewhere else where you knew the answer to most of those questions?
So if you own a hotel you should never close for refurbishments which would improve your longer term prospects as you might have a short period of reduced room capacity ?
I don't think that's the correct analogy. It's more like a hotel removing themselves from online booking sites and requiring potential customers to send their bookings by post accompanied by a cheque and charging a fee to do so.
The risk is that customers will say, sod that, we'll go somewhere else.
So in your view of the modern economy the EU is digital and the rest of the world is analogue? That would explain the stunning economic success of continental Europe.
Mr. Tyson, what if you believed (as I do) that the EU imploding is a matter of when rather than if? If that were your perspective, would you have voted to Leave [on the basis that it's better to disentangle the UK during relatively good times rather than get more integrated and then have to disentangle the UK]?
That's a legitimate view..... to set our own terms on leaving without being caught in the maelstrom.
But, supposing Brexit makes the EU stronger? Supposing, it pulls the EU together; supposing it does everything possible to ensure that the project advances and in doing so makes scapegoats of the UK to show other members the folly of pulling out and destabilising the Union.
You see my scenario Morris is already coming to fruition. It's not fanciful, it is a reality that's being played out on the currency markets, and reinforced by the collective statements of every major EU player.
If you've noticed, I've hardly been on pbCOM these last months, mainly because I didn't want to be seen as a winging, remain naysayer. But, as we saw with the Tory party conference last week, and the increasing likelihood that we will be pushed into a punishing hard Brexit, my patience has rather worn thin.
Mr. 1000, a time-limited EEA membership is an interesting idea.
Kicking the can down the road is a cop-out too far.
Were you a business person, would you invest in capacity in the UK, or would you choose somewhere else where you knew the answer to most of those questions?
So if you own a hotel you should never close for refurbishments which would improve your longer term prospects as you might have a short period of reduced room capacity ?
I don't think that's the correct analogy. It's more like a hotel removing themselves from online booking sites and requiring potential customers to send their bookings by post accompanied by a cheque and charging a fee to do so.
The risk is that customers will say, sod that, we'll go somewhere else.
I called Foyles really not so long ago. The recorded message said: "For enquiries, please send a stamped addressed envelope to Foyles, 107 Charing Cross Road..."
Jesus Christ on a bike, this site has got boring. The same arguments seem to be rehashed several times everyday by the same, small number, of people.
Maybe a difference between Leavers who think, we had the vote, done and dusted, why are we still discussing this; and Remainers who think, we're in a mess, where do we go next?
Jeremy Corbyn has been blasted for rewarding a Labour MP embroiled in a string of anti-Semitism rows with a frontbench job. Yasmin Qureshi, Labour’s new Shadow Justice Minister, said in 2014 that the Israel-Palestine conflict was “the same” as the Holocaust.
It’s not the only time Qureshi has been in trouble: she invited blood libel anti-Semite Raed Salah to parliament, dismissed Hamas’ Iranian-built rockets as “home made”, claimed the Trojan Horse schools scandal was a “witch hunt” and attended an event in the Commons with CAGE.
Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless.
Yet has amazing favourability ratings.
I will scream demographics just now. The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 6 attempts. This is only going to get worse for them unless they re-align.
Yeah. People saying Obama is a useless president ignore his high favourability ratings with the American public.
Maybe they're just comparing him with the two muppets who want to replace him.
Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless.
Yet has amazing favourability ratings.
I will scream demographics just now. The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 6 attempts. This is only going to get worse for them unless they re-align.
Yeah. People saying Obama is a useless president ignore his high favourability ratings with the American public.
Comments
Democracy is sacred and the ones making such threats are not elected and cannot be removed by the people. That in a nutshell sums up the EU project. Why does a trading block need 3 presidents, 2 parliaments and a national anthem?
This would enable British businesses to adapt. It would enable the UK government to enter into further agreements with countries outside the EU.
And it would allow time for a proper discussion about the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
Sadly, it seems that Mrs May and her team are implacably opposed to it.
How dare remainers express an opinion, that 48.3%? The people have spoken and they should shut up. Remainers are treacherous scum who want to do down the country. Freedom has prevailed as we have thrown off the yoke of EU tyranny and plough our prosperous future ahead, free of immigrants and lefty, liberals.
Oh dear....I could get quite used to being a Brexit ideologue. It's exceptionally refreshing to view life using only half a brain cell.
YouGov Poll: Democrats oversampled AGAIN. https://t.co/IyxmNitPfY
It's a half more than you're used to using.
I don't think there'd be any need to not consider a nominee. If the GOP gain a majority, they could simply use that new mandate to block anyone they don't like. A rejection would be more powerful than delay (why don't they do that now? Because they're waiting for the election to see whether they'd need to and because they're wary about how public opinion would react to the move).
A rejection would of course not resolve the deadlock (except negatively, dependent on other vacancies opening up) but it would move the issue on.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/04/19/vote-leave-sets-out-its-objective-tse-gives-his-robust-interpretation/
In the year of Trump and Brexit, education has become the greatest divide of all – splitting voters into two increasingly hostile camps. But don’t assume this is simply a clash between the ignorant and the enlightened
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/05/trump-brexit-education-gap-tearing-politics-apart
And no, most of them aren't treacherous scum who want to do down the country. I stress 'most'.
I am not an optimist, but I cannot reach quite your level of pessimism; many outcomes are still possible.
EDIT full table https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nojfnna7ti/Post Debate Poll Tables.pdf
+65 97% weren't changing their mind
Donald 52%
Hillary 40%
It would have only impacted Eisenhower in the last 70 years.
There has to be a reasonable chance of one or two states going to neither Trump nor Clinton, the voters preferring Johnson or a well known local.
Morally, I cannot deny that you are right three quidder about the EU posturing over Brexit. But as we have heard from Hollande, Merkel Renzi, they have all said that the UK will pay a price for Brexit. Of course, Brexit ideologues are hoping for a populist uprising in Europe, Le Pen, Grillo, the end of Merkel...all in the next year. But if that happens, Europe will be a very bleak place indeed. Just imagine that future; Turkey on the brink, Russia flexing it's muscles, instability in the middle east, mass migration, global warming, with Europe engulfed and fragmented by right wing populism.
I would much rather Britain pays a short term price for Brexit, something that can be reversed in the future, and that Europe manages to collectively hold together. The fact that people here call me a traitor is an indication of how bad things could get.
Not to mention the threads themselves....
If you want to win, you have to focus on that.
You could argue that compared to the expected Trump meltdown, what he delivered was "stunning". A victory? Not in November anyway....
If Americans are worried about having a less than wholly pure President, well, they shouldn't be. After all, they've had Nixon, Kennedy, Bill Clinton and plenty of others before then who had moral or financial issues in office. You even had Woodrow Wilson's wife and doctor running the country when he was incapacitated by a stroke.
On the other hand, you have Jimmy Carter, a sincere, honest and decent man but generally regarded as the worst President of the post-WW2 period.
To move on from SeanF's dilemma earlier today about how liberals (who apparently are to blame for everything even when conservatives and socialists have the power) can condone majorities voting for the abolition of democracy, is it more important to have a capable person in office and power than a virtuous one ?
Would a conservative vote for a capable but dishonest socialist over an honest but incapable conservative ?
The point is that negotiating deals with - for example - even Australia is going to be multi-year process. Asking the UK government to simultaneously deal with Brexit negotiations, plus every other country we might want to have deals with, in a very time limited environment is not a good idea. Knowing how time limited we are likely to be dramatically lowers our negotiating power - and I'm not talking about with the EU.
My point is that in the EEA, but outside the EU, we can actually have deals signed with other countries, and we can start reorientating our trade. Otherwise, we're likely to end up in a situation where we fall out of the EU and onto WTO rules will everyone on 1 May 2019.
If you want to discourage inward investment into the UK in the next two years, you would be hard pressed to think of a stance better than the current government's.
Leavers have already imagined that future. That is why we left,.
Indeed, the present is pretty bleak in Europe.
I accept that some of the conditions of Brexit aren't ideal, and we face an uncertain future. The EU gave us no choice.
As for your view of Hillary - well, I'll just say I disagree entirely.
Thing is, they will need to do something. They have been commanded to do so and it is unlikely to be pretty whatever they do. They haven't as we know done anything in terms of numbers for non-EU migration. If they are serious, which I believe the electorate have told them they must be, there will be plenty of regularly awful measures ahead.
She was arguably more beatable this year....tough, competent, women initially struggle with being elected first as party leaders, and then by the public, but once in power they are difficult to dislodge. Clinton 2020 will be judged on her record. If she's competent all the Clinton baggage thrown at her today would be forgotten. Similarly with Trump, if he won, he'd be judged on his record and not on these endless lurid headlines.
Those that grasp that the future is nimble and agile and not an oil tanker of a superstate will share in our gains.
Those that don't will stagnate like France has over the last 3 decades.
Clinton clearly cannot abide a very large minority of her voters. She will be an extremely divisive president who will wage war on the white blue collar male vote that is behind the Trump insurgency.
At some juncture, its not completely inconceivable that the States could break up. Clinton would certainly hasten that process.
Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless. Worse than useless when taking foreign policy into account.
We simply will not have any trade deals agreed with non-EU countries in the next two years. We may well even drop out of the 31 odd FTAs that the EU have in place with countries like Korea.
So, we're basically saying to anyone - including Brits - who wants to invest in production capacity in the UK:
"We're not going to tell you what tariffs with the EU will be. We're not going to be able to tell you what tariffs with other countries will be. We're not going to be able to tell you who will be on the Most Favoured Nation list. And we're not going to be able to tell you which countries we'll have Free Trade Agreements with."
Were you a business person, would you invest in capacity in the UK, or would you choose somewhere else where you knew the answer to most of those questions?
Unilateral tariff abolition also makes sense in selected cases. Why on earth would any sane government add a tariff to goods that cannot be sourced domestically and which do not act as a replacement for other goods sourced domestically?
Half of the EU was against tariffs on Chinese steel because those nations had no steel industry of their own and just wanted the cheapest (but necessary) supply .
Would she make a 'very good president'? Given her record as senator and Sec of State, that seems unlikely. Mediocre is about the best we can hope for. But mediocre is a good deal better than Trump would be.
I think President Hillary will strike a huge blow for sex equality....
....by showing that women President's can be just as shit as their male counterparts.
In that world of perfectly charming and reasonable outcomes, not much would change. Certainly immigration at current levels would be welcomed.
But of course Leave won and it turns out those ghastly voters actually want to reduce immigration. Dramatically. And the government must respond. And in 24-hr news channel time, not sensible geopolitical time.
One phrase I noted from that thread @TSE linked to (perhaps it was even Moi who used it, I wasn't the only one) - throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It seems that might prove the most pertinent analysis of Brexit.
Vote leave to take back control.
On the assumption of a 10% currency movement and 10% tariff, the Jaguar became the more competitively priced car both in the UK and in Europe having been the more expensive product beforehand in both markets.
Has the currency move already exceeded 10%?
Now we are where we are. The eventual outcome of the negotiations remains unclear, and - crucially - doesn't depend only on what the UK government wants. At the very least, any agreeement will have to include political 'wins' for all our veto-wielding counterparties. It's unclear to me what political win would arise for anyone in your idea of a temporary EEA deal, which looks a non-starter to me on multiple grounds.
More generally, I agree with this article that talk of a 'Hard' vs 'Soft' Brexit is unhelpful, and actually conflates a number of different issues:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-09/ditch-the-hard-brexit-fallacy
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trumps-cleverest-trick-is-sounding-stupid-65p8zp3dd
I think Brexit presents a zero sum game. We pay an economic price as the EU prospers; or the EU implodes and we pay an economic price in an unstable Europe. Naturally, the latter might well have happened if we had stayed...but at least we could have avoided the first outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
Luntz describes his specialty as “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”
So, a 10% change in the value of Sterling moves the cost to a Euro purchaser by 2%.
And don't forget those European cars that derive significant amounts of their value from parts made in the UK will benefit similarly. So, a French Renault that bought seats from a UK supplier has just seen the cost of these decline.
The biggest threat to Brexit is a severe recession that leads to the fall of the government and a pro-EU party being elected.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 12m12 minutes ago
Difficult to see how taxpayer gets out of RBS without a loss of anything less than £20bn. Yes, £20bn. That's the real story.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-09/clinton-s-turnout-machine-could-prove-decisive
If there is an increase of £22bn in available revenue it means they can cut taxes elsewhere.
For example, they could apply a £22bn tax cut on incomes or VAT. The consequence would be that any price rises for the consumer would be offset by increases in disposable incomes etc.
So at an overall economic level balance is restored rather than direct subsidy to a particular business/industry etc.
I will scream demographics just now. The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 6 attempts. This is only going to get worse for them unless they re-align.
The risk is that customers will say, sod that, we'll go somewhere else.
[I also wanted us to leave based on democracy, accountability etc].
But, supposing Brexit makes the EU stronger? Supposing, it pulls the EU together; supposing it does everything possible to ensure that the project advances and in doing so makes scapegoats of the UK to show other members the folly of pulling out and destabilising the Union.
You see my scenario Morris is already coming to fruition. It's not fanciful, it is a reality that's being played out on the currency markets, and reinforced by the collective statements of every major EU player.
If you've noticed, I've hardly been on pbCOM these last months, mainly because I didn't want to be seen as a winging, remain naysayer. But, as we saw with the Tory party conference last week, and the increasing likelihood that we will be pushed into a punishing hard Brexit, my patience has rather worn thin.
There you go @Casino_Royale and @HurstLlama - a change of topic for you. On to weightier matters.
'demographics' is a very euphemistic way of describing the huge factor that race is now in US elections.
IF and when Hillary wins it will become an even bigger factor.
It’s not the only time Qureshi has been in trouble: she invited blood libel anti-Semite Raed Salah to parliament, dismissed Hamas’ Iranian-built rockets as “home made”, claimed the Trojan Horse schools scandal was a “witch hunt” and attended an event in the Commons with CAGE.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/10/jewish-groups-furious-corbyn-appoints-holocaust-slur-mp-front-bench/