The point wasnt about the parliament issues, it was about repeated attempts to call it a marginal win. How can a binary decision be marginal ? You are either in the EU, or you are out.
Any politician with the slightest inclination to get re-elected is going to have to give at least marginal ground on immigration, even if only as far as Freedom of Work rather than Freedom of Movement, just that one aspect on its own has been declared a completely non-negotiable redline by the EU. So politicians broadly have the choice of "Four Freedoms" and lose the next election, or anything else and "Hard" BrExit.
Look of course it was a win, of course it was close. That much we should be able to agree on. Did it represent the 'clear will of the people'. Well no, because it was so close.
1% more majority than Blair got in 2005, but somehow I am struggling to recall all those complaints about him having no mandate, and that he was not following the will of the people with his majority of 66.
'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.
In what way would it end Brexit?
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.
The referendum was advisory and it was close. Those are simple facts.
Only one of those is a fact. The other is a silly meme invented by people who want to disregard the democratic decision of the British people.
No, I think you'll find that it was advisory. Also that 3.8 in 100 is quite a small number.
I seem to recall we've been here before and you were unable to point to anything whereby Parliament reserved the right to override the decision at a later date.
3.8 in 100 is 1.0 in 100 more than Labour won a 66 majority with in 2005.
Can people stop flogging this point to death? The referendum was advisory in the sense that a further decision - either by the executive or parliament, depending mostly upon what the courts decide, is necessary before anything whatsoever can happen.
The point wasnt about the parliament issues, it was about repeated attempts to call it a marginal win. How can a binary decision be marginal ? You are either in the EU, or you are out.
Any politician with the slightest inclination to get re-elected is going to have to give at least marginal ground on immigration, even if only as far as Freedom of Work rather than Freedom of Movement, just that one aspect on its own has been declared a completely non-negotiable redline by the EU. So politicians broadly have the choice of "Four Freedoms" and lose the next election, or anything else and "Hard" BrExit.
Look of course it was a win, of course it was close. That much we should be able to agree on. Did it represent the 'clear will of the people'. Well no, because it was so close.
*Thats picking up your your football and taking it home*
'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.
In what way would it end Brexit?
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.
The referendum was advisory and it was close. Those are simple facts.
Only one of those is a fact. The other is a silly meme invented by people who want to disregard the democratic decision of the British people.
No, I think you'll find that it was advisory. Also that 3.8 in 100 is quite a small number.
I seem to recall we've been here before and you were unable to point to anything whereby Parliament reserved the right to override the decision at a later date.
3.8 in 100 is 1.0 in 100 more than Labour won a 66 majority with in 2005.
Can people stop flogging this point to death? The referendum was advisory in the sense that a further decision - either by the executive or parliament, depending mostly upon what the courts decide, is necessary before anything whatsoever can happen.
The point wasnt about the parliament issues, it was about repeated attempts to call it a marginal win. How can a binary decision be marginal ? You are either in the EU, or you are out.
Any politician with the slightest inclination to get re-elected is going to have to give at least marginal ground on immigration, even if only as far as Freedom of Work rather than Freedom of Movement, just that one aspect on its own has been declared a completely non-negotiable redline by the EU. So politicians broadly have the choice of "Four Freedoms" and lose the next election, or anything else and "Hard" BrExit.
Look of course it was a win, of course it was close. That much we should be able to agree on. Did it represent the 'clear will of the people'. Well no, because it was so close.
538 asks "Is there any precedent for a Trump comeback?"
"Simply put, there isn’t a precedent for a candidate coming back to win this late in the game after being behind by as much as Trump is now. That’s not to say Trump is dead in the water — polls are not perfectly predictive — but history doesn’t offer much hope for candidates in Trump’s position." "This year, of course, two debates are already in the books, and Trump has lost both. Trump could obviously do better in the third debate, but it would likely have far less of an impact than the lone Carter-Reagan debate in 1980 did." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-there-any-precedent-for-a-trump-comeback/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
Looks more like cock up by duty solicitors than anything else.
"It is a criminal offence for anyone to travel into the UK on false documents, but asylum seekers who are fleeing for their lives and have no other way of travelling to safety have a defence under the 1951 refugee convention."
''How about link to stuff when the MSM deem it worthy of comment? Because if it doesn't, i'll asssume it's just the same worthless rubbish ''
YOu can talk mate, after your potentially libelous retweet of a complete nomark this morning about a 'predator' emerging.
You can see connections between Trump and Cosby. I am not saying it is the same of course, but if around 50-60 women come out against Trump saying waht he admitted to doing on tape happended to them as well, the Cosby comparision is very appropriate.
538 asks "Is there any precedent for a Trump comeback?"
"Simply put, there isn’t a precedent for a candidate coming back to win this late in the game after being behind by as much as Trump is now. That’s not to say Trump is dead in the water — polls are not perfectly predictive — but history doesn’t offer much hope for candidates in Trump’s position." "This year, of course, two debates are already in the books, and Trump has lost both. Trump could obviously do better in the third debate, but it would likely have far less of an impact than the lone Carter-Reagan debate in 1980 did." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-there-any-precedent-for-a-trump-comeback/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
Trump isn't coming back. Not only is he massively flawed and way behind, the Clinton highly organized political machine have enough dirt to fire every day until the election and lots of friendly journos to spread it vs Trump whose party machine doesn't even support him.
''You can see connections between Trump and Cosby. I am not saying it is the same of course, but if around 50-60 women come out against Trump saying waht he admitted to doing on tape happended to them as well, the Cosby comparision is very appropriate.''
No mate I can;t see any connections, and I for one would never take liberties with OGH's site.
Looks more like cock up by duty solicitors than anything else.
"It is a criminal offence for anyone to travel into the UK on false documents, but asylum seekers who are fleeing for their lives and have no other way of travelling to safety have a defence under the 1951 refugee convention."
Again, why didn't he claim asylum in Turkey or Spain? He travelled through the whole of Europe before boarding a flight to the UK with false documents.
Wasn't the second debate called a score-draw by most non-partisan (if there are still any such) observers ?
I was amused to see the vlogsphere convulsed in recriminations this evening after leading vlogger Casey Neistat used his platform to his vlog's 5 million subscribers to put the boot into Trump (www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjS6OdY2dBQ), and then many of his competitors put their boot into him either for being excessively partisan, or because they supported the other ticket.
It seems all but certain to me that we're going to end up with a Hard Brexit. Fine. As a Leave voter / Tory voter (usually but not always) my non-negotiables would be: 1. Control of our borders 2. Control of our waters / fishing grounds 3. UK courts are supreme / no ECJ 4. Zero ongoing payments at all / but might handshake on a reasonable leaving gift
Nice to haves but not show stoppers: 1. Softish terms of trade / customs / passporting 2. Existing residents get to stay (we should unilaterally declare EU citizens can stay no matter what they do to Brits, but only after a deal is signed) 3. Juncker's head on a stick
I see Trump is now out from 4-1 to 11-2 ie 5.5 to 1.
Mr Bedfordshires Law may soon come in to play:
In a two horse political race, if, less than a week before the election, the lagging candidate is less far behind the leading candidate in percentage terms in any recent non voodoo opinion poll, than their ratio to one in their betting odds, then its time to consider betting on them.
So if Clinton was 48%-43% in a credible poll and trump was 6-1 then the trigger point is reached.
This is one thats best to wait until the morning of the election given what else might come out about Trump though.
I'm not sure whether Scott was re-tweeting Faisal Islam because he agreed with him or he thought Faisal an example of the sneering elite who think us plebs will turn on Brexit when the price of our beer, tabs and bingo start to go up.
I think the latter part of your sentence is exactly where Faisal Islam is coming from and he hardly fails to disguise it with his smug grin. Sky are becoming a mouthpiece for remain and without being unkind, they are hammering us hourly with dreadful images from Syria and the refugees in the Med as if we are able to wave a magic wand and peace will reign.
It says something when I find myself switching over more and more to the BBC
Today's foreign policy by emoting crying child made me watch Yesterday channel instead. Sky's totally lost it - the BBC are just as awful or worse.
Honestly, I get better informed argument from the internet now - it replaces the poorly informed clickbait twaddle that still hasn't got over Brexit. The Times is crap now bar a few parly sketches and novelty stories. It's as if all the Lefties have jumped free and write their opinions as news.
Trump is now so toasted the US election is actually very dull wrt to the outcome.
Sad really and bad for popcorn sales.
98% likely to be the case, I would reserve 1% for a last minute major health issue for HRC, and 1% for a last minute revelation sufficiently catastrophic to doom her (such as someone releasing an unredacted copy of all the emails on her server)
Trump is now so toasted the US election is actually very dull wrt to the outcome.
Sad really and bad for popcorn sales.
98% likely to be the case, I would reserve 1% for a last minute major health issue for HRC, and 1% for a last minute revelation sufficiently catastrophic to doom her (such as someone releasing an unredacted copy of all the emails on her server)
Yes - Trump aint pulling this back by himself - black swan only.
Does make for rather dull viewing for those that don't live in the US and hence aren't directly impacted - a preview of the 2018 GE I suppose - crushing blue win.
Wasn't the second debate called a score-draw by most non-partisan (if there are still any such) observers ?
I was amused to see the vlogsphere convulsed in recriminations this evening after leading vlogger Casey Neistat used his platform to his vlog's 5 million subscribers to put the boot into Trump (www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjS6OdY2dBQ), and then many of his competitors put their boot into him either for being excessively partisan, or because they supported the other ticket.
All four polls post debate had Clinton as a clear winner ( similar margins as to the first debate, though not as big)
538 asks "Is there any precedent for a Trump comeback?"
"Simply put, there isn’t a precedent for a candidate coming back to win this late in the game after being behind by as much as Trump is now. That’s not to say Trump is dead in the water — polls are not perfectly predictive — but history doesn’t offer much hope for candidates in Trump’s position." "This year, of course, two debates are already in the books, and Trump has lost both. Trump could obviously do better in the third debate, but it would likely have far less of an impact than the lone Carter-Reagan debate in 1980 did." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-there-any-precedent-for-a-trump-comeback/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
Trump isn't coming back. Not only is he massively flawed and way behind, the Clinton highly organized political machine have enough dirt to fire every day until the election and lots of friendly journos to spread it vs Trump whose party machine doesn't even support him.
I'm surprised by how many Republican figures are still supporting Trump. The moment he says "the hell with the Republican party", there's a vacancy for the Republican nomination.
I'm not sure whether Scott was re-tweeting Faisal Islam because he agreed with him or he thought Faisal an example of the sneering elite who think us plebs will turn on Brexit when the price of our beer, tabs and bingo start to go up.
I think the latter part of your sentence is exactly where Faisal Islam is coming from and he hardly fails to disguise it with his smug grin. Sky are becoming a mouthpiece for remain and without being unkind, they are hammering us hourly with dreadful images from Syria and the refugees in the Med as if we are able to wave a magic wand and peace will reign.
It says something when I find myself switching over more and more to the BBC
Today's foreign policy by emoting crying child made me watch Yesterday channel instead. Sky's totally lost it - the BBC are just as awful or worse.
Honestly, I get better informed argument from the internet now - it replaces the poorly informed clickbait twaddle that still hasn't got over Brexit. The Times is crap now bar a few parly sketches and novelty stories. It's as if all the Lefties have jumped free and write their opinions as news.
The current media environment both encourages and perpetuates these reactions because, after all, it’s good for business. The writer and media commentator Ryan Holiday refers to this as “outrage porn”: rather than report on real stories and real issues, the media find it much easier (and more profitable) to find something mildly offensive, broadcast it to a wide audience, generate outrage, and then broadcast that outrage back across the population in a way that outrages yet another part of the population. This triggers a kind of echo of bullshit pinging back and forth between two imaginary sides, meanwhile distracting everyone from real societal problems. It’s no wonder we’re more politically polarized than ever before.
from "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck" (which is a fun read)
Wouldn't disagree with that, as I'm sure you wouldn't disagree that the tactics employed by those who would now wish to ensure soft Brexit or, in some cases, to stop Brexit from happening at all are using exactly the kinds of tactics that Eurosceptic campaigners employed for the last 20 years - make an argument, make a noise, make an appeal to the courts, make it difficult for the government to come to the decisions you do not like.
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
Its just idiocy because soft-BrExit doesn't and never has existed in a way that gives the government any slight possibility of getting re-elected. So it won't happen.
To get re-elected the government is going to have to give some ground on immigration, it might not be a lot, but it going to have to be at the very least not coming here without a job offer.
This is completely anathema to the EU who state the four freedoms is non-negotiable, and they appear to be prepared to die in a ditch for it. So the government can either lose the next election, or go for Hard BrExit, which do you think they will chose. This has been conspicuously been the case since will before the referendum but seems to come as a big surprise to a lot of people.
I have never seen soft Brexit and giving serious grounds on immigration as mutually exclusive, notwithstanding the 4 freedoms, given that well over half of net immigration over the last decade was controlled, economic non-EU immigration.
My plan would have 5 elements:
- A good deal of seriousness around reducing non-EU migration - Using the somewhat greater flexibility the EEA gives in terms of restricting EU migrant benefits - A limited scope but severe further restriction deal on FOM for those convicted of crimes in their own countries as the one hard FOM demand from the UK in Brexit negotiations. - Pressing home the point that if anyone under 40 wants to retire anytime before their late 70s, that a desirable net immigration figure substantially over 100000 (and probably nearer 150) is needed, and pointing out that that level would lead to the UK population eventually stabilising. - Making a point of splitting the taxes payed by immigrants between deficit reduction and improving services in affected communities.
The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.
To all the sick bastards on here still defending Trump I see now your fake outrage over "muslim grooming gangs" was manufactured.
I actually take the possibly controversial view that with one of two exceptions, it's none of our business who the American's choose to elect. Sure we can bet on it, but if they chose to elect him, well thats democracy folks.
Looks more like cock up by duty solicitors than anything else.
"It is a criminal offence for anyone to travel into the UK on false documents, but asylum seekers who are fleeing for their lives and have no other way of travelling to safety have a defence under the 1951 refugee convention."
Again, why didn't he claim asylum in Turkey or Spain? He travelled through the whole of Europe before boarding a flight to the UK with false documents.
I think the first safe country thing has also been called into question insofar that the asylum requirement doesn't actually say that. Hence they all turn up here as more a destination of choice.
I have always viewed the UK as a safe haven and long should it be so. In the same light it is political asylum until they pass through a safe country to another then at which point they simply become economic migrants as they are safe. However those countries on the front line with land borders would probably not agree with that approach as crossing the border is so much easier in comparison to an island which is more easily protected.
The only Republican candidate shit enough to lose to Hillary is Trump and the only Democrat candidate shit enough to be at risk to Trump is Hillary. So...is there any reasonable world in which Trump can be persuaded to pull out and let someone else shit all over Hillary?
To all the sick bastards on here still defending Trump I see now your fake outrage over "muslim grooming gangs" was manufactured.
I really can't get the nature of your hatred - Hillary has called Muslims, Blacks and Roma 'professional-never-do-wells' She and her team have called ordinary Americans 'red-necks', Catholics 'backward' requiring a covert reformation of their entire faith and Evangelicals beyond comprehension. Latinos are 'needy'.
If you care to spend half an hour, you'll discover that what Trump says in public - HRC says in private. You appear to have swallowed her media team's framing strategy whole with large fries.
There's an attempt to turn one person into Cosby, and its not Trump. More Bill-ettes are due to come forward.
This is from the Independent newspaper, not some 619 no-mark tweet
Yeah, not going to work. Hilary is running, and Trump can't pin her defeniding him on it after all his surrogates defended him against abuse. Why is she wrong to do so and his surrpogates aren't?
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
The only Republican candidate shit enough to lose to Hillary is Trump and the only Democrat candidate shit enough to be at risk to Trump is Hillary. So...is there any reasonable world in which Trump can be persuaded to pull out and let someone else shit all over Hillary?
Nahhhh. I think Trump's actions this week shows what he thinks of the GOP
The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.
Indeed. Plus anything involving still being subject to the ECJ is going to be catastrophically unpopular.
From where we are now though May's pledges were clear and unambiguous, No payments, No ECJ, Control of Borders, Laws made only in the UK. There is no way she can back away from those and stay in her job, and possibly no way to back away from those and win an election. So the die is cast, it might be a slog, it might end up in the courts, there certainly will be endless bitching in the papers from remainers, but she has given herself no option of retreat.
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
IMHO - anyone who thinks Trump will roll over before 8th is bonkers.
He's spent $100m of his own money and invested an enormous % of his time in it for over a year. Why would he throw in the towel with 28 days to go? He's bulldozed Ryan with ease.
And if the NYT aren't facing a $1bn law suit before the end of today - I'll be amazed.
IMHO - anyone who thinks Trump will roll over before 8th is bonkers.
He's spent $100m of his own money and invested an enormous % of his time in it for over a year. Why would he throw in the towel with 28 days to go? He's bulldozed Ryan with ease.
And if the NYT aren't facing a $1bn law suit before the end of today - I'll be amazed.
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
It's not as if the Brexit debate is generating much productive at the moment.
We really did make the right choice didn't we? C-words!
I think we can tackle this three ways:
1. We don't want to pay the money so we won't
2. What's the precedent? Is the EU a club, where the club takes on corporate obligations that are completely separate from the membership? Or is a it an association where each constituent shares the assets and obligations?
3. It just comes down to a haggle. This will be sorted out with all the other stuff.
My personal view: (1) won't cut any ice. (2) I think it COULD be an association and we COULD be on the hook for the EU's obligations. In that case we should get a share of the movable assets of the EU. This is what typically happens when countries split for example. The breakaway state gets its share of the central reserves as well as being responsible for a share of the National Debt. (3) There will be a haggle whatever principles apply.
The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.
Indeed. Plus anything involving still being subject to the ECJ is going to be catastrophically unpopular.
From where we are now though May's pledges were clear and unambiguous, No payments, No ECJ, Control of Borders, Laws made only in the UK. There is no way she can back away from those and stay in her job, and possibly no way to back away from those and win an election. So the die is cast, it might be a slog, it might end up in the courts, there certainly will be endless bitching in the papers from remainers, but she has given herself no option of retreat.
All trade agreements involve agreeing to binding arbitration: whether its the EFTA court in Luxembourg, the secret ISDS tribunals for NAFTA, or the ECJ in the EU.
The question is whether the ECJ is limited to opining on single market access and NTBs.
To all the sick bastards on here still defending Trump I see now your fake outrage over "muslim grooming gangs" was manufactured.
I really can't get the nature of your hatred - Hillary has called Muslims, Blacks and Roma 'professional-never-do-wells' She and her team have called ordinary Americans 'red-necks', Catholics 'backward' requiring a covert reformation of their entire faith and Evangelicals beyond comprehension. Latinos are 'needy'.
If you care to spend half an hour, you'll discover that what Trump says in public - HRC says in private. You appear to have swallowed her media team's framing strategy whole with large fries.
This is the second time you've posted someone taking this extract from that email.
The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.
Indeed. Plus anything involving still being subject to the ECJ is going to be catastrophically unpopular.
From where we are now though May's pledges were clear and unambiguous, No payments, No ECJ, Control of Borders, Laws made only in the UK. There is no way she can back away from those and stay in her job, and possibly no way to back away from those and win an election. So the die is cast, it might be a slog, it might end up in the courts, there certainly will be endless bitching in the papers from remainers, but she has given herself no option of retreat.
Unless, unless the game is for the British public to sample Hard Brexit on a try and buy basis in anticipation of it being a bit of a disaster to, as it were, 'soften' them up for a softer Brexit.
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.
Indeed. Plus anything involving still being subject to the ECJ is going to be catastrophically unpopular.
From where we are now though May's pledges were clear and unambiguous, No payments, No ECJ, Control of Borders, Laws made only in the UK. There is no way she can back away from those and stay in her job, and possibly no way to back away from those and win an election. So the die is cast, it might be a slog, it might end up in the courts, there certainly will be endless bitching in the papers from remainers, but she has given herself no option of retreat.
Unless, unless the game is for the British public to sample Hard Brexit on a try and buy basis in anticipation of it being a bit of a disaster to, as it were, 'soften' them up for a softer Brexit.
Or perhaps that is just me clutching at straws
Seemingly clueless UK Government actually plays a blinder with knockout pre-negotiation conditioning strategy.....?
I'm not sure whether Scott was re-tweeting Faisal Islam because he agreed with him or he thought Faisal an example of the sneering elite who think us plebs will turn on Brexit when the price of our beer, tabs and bingo start to go up.
I think the latter part of your sentence is exactly where Faisal Islam is coming from and he hardly fails to disguise it with his smug grin. Sky are becoming a mouthpiece for remain and without being unkind, they are hammering us hourly with dreadful images from Syria and the refugees in the Med as if we are able to wave a magic wand and peace will reign.
It says something when I find myself switching over more and more to the BBC
Today's foreign policy by emoting crying child made me watch Yesterday channel instead. Sky's totally lost it - the BBC are just as awful or worse.
Honestly, I get better informed argument from the internet now - it replaces the poorly informed clickbait twaddle that still hasn't got over Brexit. The Times is crap now bar a few parly sketches and novelty stories. It's as if all the Lefties have jumped free and write their opinions as news.
Writing opinions is cheap. Getting hard news stories is costly and can be dangerous for the journalists.
Newspaper circulation has fallen and they are under financial pressure. Consequently they resort to opinion rather than hard news.
TV news programmes want pictures. Without pictures they are not going to run a news item but to get on-the-spot pictures often means journalists are in danger. Sky's Alex Crawford (and camera man) seems to be the only TV journalist who goes to danger areas any more.
The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.
Indeed. Plus anything involving still being subject to the ECJ is going to be catastrophically unpopular.
From where we are now though May's pledges were clear and unambiguous, No payments, No ECJ, Control of Borders, Laws made only in the UK. There is no way she can back away from those and stay in her job, and possibly no way to back away from those and win an election. So the die is cast, it might be a slog, it might end up in the courts, there certainly will be endless bitching in the papers from remainers, but she has given herself no option of retreat.
All trade agreements involve agreeing to binding arbitration: whether its the EFTA court in Luxembourg, the secret ISDS tribunals for NAFTA, or the ECJ in the EU.
The question is whether the ECJ is limited to opining on single market access and NTBs.
I agree. I dont think that is controversial. The ECJ overruling domestic courts on non-trade matters is what incenses the voters, but it seems stopping that is not compatible with anything other than a pretty hard brexit.
I have been saying for months on here that a result that doesn't do something significant about immigration is not going to be politically tenable (especially with so little breathing room before losing a majority), and that doing anything about immigration is going to unacceptable to the EU, ergo hard brexit, all the rest is window dressing.
Trumpers saying the Clintons will 'steal the election' from them, thus triggering a revolution from the WWC, salt-of-the-earth, anti-liberal elite, anti-intellectual, silent majority.
IMHO - anyone who thinks Trump will roll over before 8th is bonkers.
He's spent $100m of his own money and invested an enormous % of his time in it for over a year. Why would he throw in the towel with 28 days to go? He's bulldozed Ryan with ease.
And if the NYT aren't facing a $1bn law suit before the end of today - I'll be amazed.
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
Mr Pot, let me introduce to you to Mr Kettle.
Mr Apple let me introduce you to Mr Pear.
So who does Mr Up get to meet?
Miss Under (you wrongly assumed it would be Mr Down, presumably?)
I'm not sure whether Scott was re-tweeting Faisal Islam because he agreed with him or he thought Faisal an example of the sneering elite who think us plebs will turn on Brexit when the price of our beer, tabs and bingo start to go up.
I think the latter part of your sentence is exactly where Faisal Islam is coming from and he hardly fails to disguise it with his smug grin. Sky are becoming a mouthpiece for remain and without being unkind, they are hammering us hourly with dreadful images from Syria and the refugees in the Med as if we are able to wave a magic wand and peace will reign.
It says something when I find myself switching over more and more to the BBC
Today's foreign policy by emoting crying child made me watch Yesterday channel instead. Sky's totally lost it - the BBC are just as awful or worse.
Honestly, I get better informed argument from the internet now - it replaces the poorly informed clickbait twaddle that still hasn't got over Brexit. The Times is crap now bar a few parly sketches and novelty stories. It's as if all the Lefties have jumped free and write their opinions as news.
Writing opinions is cheap. Getting hard news stories is costly and can be dangerous for the journalists.
Newspaper circulation has fallen and they are under financial pressure. Consequently they resort to opinion rather than hard news.
TV news programmes want pictures. Without pictures they are not going to run a news item but to get on-the-spot pictures often means journalists are in danger. Sky's Alex Crawford (and camera man) seems to be the only TV journalist who goes to danger areas any more.
It is interesting point. Reporting from war zones appears to now be the preserve of the likes of Vice News.
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
Mr Pot, let me introduce to you to Mr Kettle.
Mr Apple let me introduce you to Mr Pear.
So who does Mr Up get to meet?
Miss Under (you wrongly assumed it would be Mr Down, presumably?)
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
Mr Pot, let me introduce to you to Mr Kettle.
Mr Apple let me introduce you to Mr Pear.
Does he make phones???
No they both sell all we will be able to eat when oranges and lemons become unaffordable. And don't even think about pineapple...
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.
Indeed. Plus anything involving still being subject to the ECJ is going to be catastrophically unpopular.
From where we are now though May's pledges were clear and unambiguous, No payments, No ECJ, Control of Borders, Laws made only in the UK. There is no way she can back away from those and stay in her job, and possibly no way to back away from those and win an election. So the die is cast, it might be a slog, it might end up in the courts, there certainly will be endless bitching in the papers from remainers, but she has given herself no option of retreat.
All trade agreements involve agreeing to binding arbitration: whether its the EFTA court in Luxembourg, the secret ISDS tribunals for NAFTA, or the ECJ in the EU.
The question is whether the ECJ is limited to opining on single market access and NTBs.
All trade agreements necessarily involve a loss of sovereignty. The EU is unique in its level of democratic and political oversight - going backwards on this score is not a win for the UK.
This could turn into an absolute rout. I wonder if Hils can beat Obama's ECV score from 2012?
Well Let's hope so.
If the margin between the two is 4% or less then HRC won't have the mandate according to recent discussions on here because it would not be sufficient to infer the will of the people. Could be rather messy.
We really did make the right choice didn't we? C-words!
It *might* be perfectly reasonable - *if* we've made specific commitments to fund them individually.
Have they made commensurate commitments to fund things in UK?
We'll still be out of pocket after setting up UK government offices and hiring civil servants to do things which the EU did on our behalf such as enforce anti-trust law against Google, Microsoft et al plus many more activities.
This work was and is relatively invisible. Consequently [am I allowed this c word?], Leave was free to behave as though the £8bn/yr or so paid to the EU immediately vanished beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Remain did a terrible job in pointing out the positive effects of 'pooling sovereignty'.
IMHO - anyone who thinks Trump will roll over before 8th is bonkers.
He's spent $100m of his own money and invested an enormous % of his time in it for over a year. Why would he throw in the towel with 28 days to go? He's bulldozed Ryan with ease.
And if the NYT aren't facing a $1bn law suit before the end of today - I'll be amazed.
Politicians don't "roll over" even if they know, deep down, they won't win. Dukakis, McGovern, Carter, Dole, Goldwater to name but five Presidential candidates who must have known long before a vote was counted that they had lost but kept going.
Sometimes it's to help other candidates in the Party but for Trump it will be a question of pride and perhaps, just perhaps, a marker for a 2020 run.
Do you think after Hils wins big on November 8 we will be spared from Plato clogging up the site with boring propaganda every three minutes? Or is that just wishful thinking only part?
Mr Pot, let me introduce to you to Mr Kettle.
Mr Apple let me introduce you to Mr Pear.
Does he make phones???
I thought Mr Pear made soap? Or has he sold out to Unilever?
IMHO - anyone who thinks Trump will roll over before 8th is bonkers.
He's spent $100m of his own money and invested an enormous % of his time in it for over a year. Why would he throw in the towel with 28 days to go? He's bulldozed Ryan with ease.
And if the NYT aren't facing a $1bn law suit before the end of today - I'll be amazed.
Politicians don't "roll over" even if they know, deep down, they won't win. Dukakis, McGovern, Carter, Dole, Goldwater to name but five Presidential candidates who must have known long before a vote was counted that they had lost but kept going.
Sometimes it's to help other candidates in the Party but for Trump it will be a question of pride and perhaps, just perhaps, a marker for a 2020 run.
There will be no re-run. If Trump loses he will rapidly become an irrelevance, a la Palin.
The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.
Indeed. Plus anything involving still being subject to the ECJ is going to be catastrophically unpopular.
From where we are now though May's pledges were clear and unambiguous, No payments, No ECJ, Control of Borders, Laws made only in the UK. There is no way she can back away from those and stay in her job, and possibly no way to back away from those and win an election. So the die is cast, it might be a slog, it might end up in the courts, there certainly will be endless bitching in the papers from remainers, but she has given herself no option of retreat.
All trade agreements involve agreeing to binding arbitration: whether its the EFTA court in Luxembourg, the secret ISDS tribunals for NAFTA, or the ECJ in the EU.
The question is whether the ECJ is limited to opining on single market access and NTBs.
I agree. I dont think that is controversial. The ECJ overruling domestic courts on non-trade matters is what incenses the voters, but it seems stopping that is not compatible with anything other than a pretty hard brexit.
I have been saying for months on here that a result that doesn't do something significant about immigration is not going to be politically tenable (especially with so little breathing room before losing a majority), and that doing anything about immigration is going to unacceptable to the EU, ergo hard brexit, all the rest is window dressing.
While I suspect your conclusion is ultimately correct, there is a theoretical deal where the EU compromises on Free Movement (pick two of: requires a written job offer, no benefits, and perhaps keeping an NI card for non-citizens for more than a year requires tax payments to exceed x). Of course, the price for that would be that we maintained our payments to the EU.
I do wonder if that square could be circled (so to speak), by having those who are most vocal in demanding we remain in the single market being the ones to pay for it. I.e., a single market banking levy that raises £8bn or something.
We really did make the right choice didn't we? C-words!
I think we can tackle this three ways:
1. We don't want to pay the money so we won't
2. What's the precedent? Is the EU a club, where the club takes on corporate obligations that are completely separate from the membership? Or is a it an association where each constituent shares the assets and obligations?
3. It just comes down to a haggle. This will be sorted out with all the other stuff.
My personal view: (1) won't cut any ice. (2) I think it COULD be an association and we COULD be on the hook for the EU's obligations. In that case we should get a share of the movable assets of the EU. This is what typically happens when countries split for example. The breakaway state gets its share of the central reserves as well as being responsible for a share of the National Debt. (3) There will be a haggle whatever principles apply.
When the constituency boundary changes are implimented, local constituency parties will have to decide how to split the assets and liabilities of their organisation, especially any property.
At the last boundary change we gained 10% of the members of a rich neighbouring constituency. However, it was decided that 10% was too small a percentage to trigger a division of the neighbour's assets and so our additional members did not bring a dowry with them.
Could be some arguments about this elsewhere though where constituencies are divided up.
The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.
Indeed. Plus anything involving still being subject to the ECJ is going to be catastrophically unpopular.
From where we are now though May's pledges were clear and unambiguous, No payments, No ECJ, Control of Borders, Laws made only in the UK. There is no way she can back away from those and stay in her job, and possibly no way to back away from those and win an election. So the die is cast, it might be a slog, it might end up in the courts, there certainly will be endless bitching in the papers from remainers, but she has given herself no option of retreat.
All trade agreements involve agreeing to binding arbitration: whether its the EFTA court in Luxembourg, the secret ISDS tribunals for NAFTA, or the ECJ in the EU.
The question is whether the ECJ is limited to opining on single market access and NTBs.
All trade agreements necessarily involve a loss of sovereignty. The EU is unique in its level of democratic and political oversight - going backwards on this score is not a win for the UK.
The prospect of the semi-insane crown prince of Thailand assuming power now that his father has died is not receiving much scrutiny from this site. Where is renowned Thailand expert SeanT when we need him?
This could turn into an absolute rout. I wonder if Hils can beat Obama's ECV score from 2012?
Highly likely at this stage.
Clinton looking good for North Carolina and Arizona is tight. Although Iowa is close for a Trump flip.
I think Trump will carry Iowa, although I suspect Arizona could indeed fall into Democratic hands – the local paper's historic endorsement being a symptom, rather than a cause, of what is going on in the state.
The prospect of the semi-insane crown prince of Thailand assuming power now that his father has died is not receiving much scrutiny from this site. Where is renowned Thailand expert SeanT when we need him?
I am very interested to see what ground the government makes on reducing both EU and non-EU immigration. If we assume that it was the pesky LDs holding them back 2010-2015 (as per Ms Rudd's speech), then I am interested in what measures they will now take, especially now of course, to reduce it.
Have they announced a cut-off date for EU nationals in terms of eligibility to stay in advance of our actual leaving. ie will those that come over the next two and a half years have the right to stay?
I must say if anyone thought the naming and shaming nudge was distasteful, I must believe that it's going to get a whole lot less tasteful in the months and years ahead.
Comments
Taniel @Taniel 1h1 hour ago
New PA/NH polls: HRC performs 7% better than McGinty & 10% better than Hassan—& yet McGinty & Hassan lead too. That's how far ahead HRC is.
Syrian's conviction for using false passport in asylum claim quashed
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/13/syrians-conviction-for-using-false-passport-in-asylum-claim-quashed
"Simply put, there isn’t a precedent for a candidate coming back to win this late in the game after being behind by as much as Trump is now. That’s not to say Trump is dead in the water — polls are not perfectly predictive — but history doesn’t offer much hope for candidates in Trump’s position."
"This year, of course, two debates are already in the books, and Trump has lost both. Trump could obviously do better in the third debate, but it would likely have far less of an impact than the lone Carter-Reagan debate in 1980 did."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-there-any-precedent-for-a-trump-comeback/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
"It is a criminal offence for anyone to travel into the UK on false documents, but asylum seekers who are fleeing for their lives and have no other way of travelling to safety have a defence under the 1951 refugee convention."
Sad really and bad for popcorn sales.
No mate I can;t see any connections, and I for one would never take liberties with OGH's site.
I was amused to see the vlogsphere convulsed in recriminations this evening after leading vlogger Casey Neistat used his platform to his vlog's 5 million subscribers to put the boot into Trump (www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjS6OdY2dBQ), and then many of his competitors put their boot into him either for being excessively partisan, or because they supported the other ticket.
1. Control of our borders
2. Control of our waters / fishing grounds
3. UK courts are supreme / no ECJ
4. Zero ongoing payments at all / but might handshake on a reasonable leaving gift
Nice to haves but not show stoppers:
1. Softish terms of trade / customs / passporting
2. Existing residents get to stay (we should unilaterally declare EU citizens can stay no matter what they do to Brits, but only after a deal is signed)
3. Juncker's head on a stick
Mr Bedfordshires Law may soon come in to play:
In a two horse political race, if, less than a week before the election, the lagging candidate is less far behind the leading candidate in percentage terms in any recent non voodoo opinion poll, than their ratio to one in their betting odds, then its time to consider betting on them.
So if Clinton was 48%-43% in a credible poll and trump was 6-1 then the trigger point is reached.
This is one thats best to wait until the morning of the election given what else might come out about Trump though.
Honestly, I get better informed argument from the internet now - it replaces the poorly informed clickbait twaddle that still hasn't got over Brexit. The Times is crap now bar a few parly sketches and novelty stories. It's as if all the Lefties have jumped free and write their opinions as news.
Black Likely Voters for TRUMP @Rasmussen_Poll
Oct 3 - 9%
Oct 6 - 12%
Oct 7 - 13%
Oct 10 - 14%
Oct 11 - 19%
Oct 12 - 19%
Oct 13 - 24% !
http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/breaking-jill-stein-just-endorsed-donald-trump-watch-her-obliterate-hillary/
There's an attempt to turn one person into Cosby, and its not Trump. More Bill-ettes are due to come forward.
This is from the Independent newspaper, not some 619 no-mark tweet
Does make for rather dull viewing for those that don't live in the US and hence aren't directly impacted - a preview of the 2018 GE I suppose - crushing blue win.
from "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck" (which is a fun read)
My plan would have 5 elements:
- A good deal of seriousness around reducing non-EU migration
- Using the somewhat greater flexibility the EEA gives in terms of restricting EU migrant benefits
- A limited scope but severe further restriction deal on FOM for those convicted of crimes in their own countries as the one hard FOM demand from the UK in Brexit negotiations.
- Pressing home the point that if anyone under 40 wants to retire anytime before their late 70s, that a desirable net immigration figure substantially over 100000 (and probably nearer 150) is needed, and pointing out that that level would lead to the UK population eventually stabilising.
- Making a point of splitting the taxes payed by immigrants between deficit reduction and improving services in affected communities.
The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.
I have always viewed the UK as a safe haven and long should it be so. In the same light it is political asylum until they pass through a safe country to another then at which point they simply become economic migrants as they are safe. However those countries on the front line with land borders would probably not agree with that approach as crossing the border is so much easier in comparison to an island which is more easily protected.
ooooohhh Matron
Would you shake Bill Clinton's hand?
I wouldn't
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-bombshell-racist-hillary-trashes-african-americans-calls-losers/
If you care to spend half an hour, you'll discover that what Trump says in public - HRC says in private. You appear to have swallowed her media team's framing strategy whole with large fries.
There's an attempt to turn one person into Cosby, and its not Trump. More Bill-ettes are due to come forward.
This is from the Independent newspaper, not some 619 no-mark tweet
Yeah, not going to work. Hilary is running, and Trump can't pin her defeniding him on it after all his surrogates defended him against abuse. Why is she wrong to do so and his surrpogates aren't?
From where we are now though May's pledges were clear and unambiguous, No payments, No ECJ, Control of Borders, Laws made only in the UK. There is no way she can back away from those and stay in her job, and possibly no way to back away from those and win an election. So the die is cast, it might be a slog, it might end up in the courts, there certainly will be endless bitching in the papers from remainers, but she has given herself no option of retreat.
Clinton 49 .. Trump 43
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FAU.pdf
He's spent $100m of his own money and invested an enormous % of his time in it for over a year. Why would he throw in the towel with 28 days to go? He's bulldozed Ryan with ease.
And if the NYT aren't facing a $1bn law suit before the end of today - I'll be amazed.
Mr Apple let me introduce you to Mr Pear.
Clinton 47 .. Trump 37
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/FOX_2_Detroit-Mitchell_Poll_of_MI_Press_Clinton_v_Trump_10-12-16_B.pdf
1. We don't want to pay the money so we won't
2. What's the precedent? Is the EU a club, where the club takes on corporate obligations that are completely separate from the membership? Or is a it an association where each constituent shares the assets and obligations?
3. It just comes down to a haggle. This will be sorted out with all the other stuff.
My personal view: (1) won't cut any ice. (2) I think it COULD be an association and we COULD be on the hook for the EU's obligations. In that case we should get a share of the movable assets of the EU. This is what typically happens when countries split for example. The breakaway state gets its share of the central reserves as well as being responsible for a share of the National Debt. (3) There will be a haggle whatever principles apply.
The question is whether the ECJ is limited to opining on single market access and NTBs.
Who is it that you think sent that email?
Or perhaps that is just me clutching at straws
25/1
Writing opinions is cheap. Getting hard news stories is costly and can be dangerous for the journalists.
Newspaper circulation has fallen and they are under financial pressure. Consequently they resort to opinion rather than hard news.
TV news programmes want pictures. Without pictures they are not going to run a news item but to get on-the-spot pictures often means journalists are in danger. Sky's Alex Crawford (and camera man) seems to be the only TV journalist who goes to danger areas any more.
I have been saying for months on here that a result that doesn't do something significant about immigration is not going to be politically tenable (especially with so little breathing room before losing a majority), and that doing anything about immigration is going to unacceptable to the EU, ergo hard brexit, all the rest is window dressing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/politics/trump-election-rigging.html?_r=0
National.
Hillary leads by 7, 5, 5 and a Trump lead by 2, average 3.75 for Hillary.
State polls.
Michigan Hillary lead 10
Nevada Hillary lead 4, caution DNC internal.
Florida Hillary lead 3
Missouri Trump lead 5
If the margin between the two is 4% or less then HRC won't have the mandate according to recent discussions on here because it would not be sufficient to infer the will of the people. Could be rather messy.
Just be glad when it's done and dusted TBH.
This work was and is relatively invisible. Consequently [am I allowed this c word?], Leave was free to behave as though the £8bn/yr or so paid to the EU immediately vanished beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Remain did a terrible job in pointing out the positive effects of 'pooling sovereignty'.
Sometimes it's to help other candidates in the Party but for Trump it will be a question of pride and perhaps, just perhaps, a marker for a 2020 run.
I do wonder if that square could be circled (so to speak), by having those who are most vocal in demanding we remain in the single market being the ones to pay for it. I.e., a single market banking levy that raises £8bn or something.
At the last boundary change we gained 10% of the members of a rich neighbouring constituency. However, it was decided that 10% was too small a percentage to trigger a division of the neighbour's assets and so our additional members did not bring a dowry with them.
Could be some arguments about this elsewhere though where constituencies are divided up.
Ted Carroll
@mediainvestors
Black Likely Voters for TRUMP @Rasmussen_Poll
Oct 3 - 9%
Oct 6 - 12%
Oct 7 - 13%
Oct 10 - 14%
Oct 11 - 19%
Oct 12 - 19%
Oct 13 - 24% !
A joke !
But as we were net contributors, I'd expect us to be out of pocket.
Clinton looking good for North Carolina and Arizona is tight. Although Iowa is close for a Trump flip.
WikiLeaks: Qatar Gave Clinton Foundation A Million Dollar Check For Bill’s Birthday https://t.co/eLZdrVGN5J via @dailycaller
Do WikiLeaks ever release anything interesting about anyone, anywhere?
They are in the s*** and remainers still keep saying we are in a hopelessly weak position in the Brexit negotiations with them.
That Trump lead is LA Times, which i would throw away based on it's dodgy sampling tbh
Have they announced a cut-off date for EU nationals in terms of eligibility to stay in advance of our actual leaving. ie will those that come over the next two and a half years have the right to stay?
I must say if anyone thought the naming and shaming nudge was distasteful, I must believe that it's going to get a whole lot less tasteful in the months and years ahead.
Who do you think sent the email that the gateway audit quotes from about never-do-wells?
https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/786584082167783424
Prophetic.