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'.
Not sure that is much of an example of a benefit. The case against microsoft was that OMG they bundled their own browser with their operating system. google now make android phones with android software and gmail and chrome and youtube and everything under the sun. How have we benefited from this charade?
PS And windows no longer seems to have a 3rd party browser bundled with it, either.
On Nicola Sturgeon's IndyRef2 announcement. I think she is going for a Win/Win/Win scenario. She uses the threat to extract concessions from a weakened Westminster government. These will come in the form of money and further devolution (Win 1). If that doesn't work, it will further destabilise a brexiting Britain (Win 2). And all else failing, she makes a new case on independence to the Scottish people. As a nationalist that's her goal anyway (Win 3)
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.
Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.
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 slightly amused by the number of outraged remain supporters of Twitter who think there is even the slightest chance that Parliament is going to vote against Article 50. Once you move the careerists into the "aye" camp as they line up behind May and add in Labour MPs vulnerable to a UKIP challenge its not even going to be close, and that is before you consider people who have genuinely changed their mind after seeing the referendum result, and what a lot of bull Project Fear turned out to be.
So you feel that conducting checks to see if people are carrying unlawful weapons is not going to reduce the number of unlawful weapons being carried ? Its a view I suppose, on that basis we should disband Neighbourhood Watch.
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.
Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.
What is the minimum wage in Bulgaria, Rumania and other countries of Eastern Europe? What level of child benefits do they pay out? Then there are those other in-work benefits to consider, not to mention education and health care. The level of pull for immigration may have dropped enough at your rarified level, though I doubt it, but it certainly will not have at the bottom end.
'Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.'
What about the difference between EU and UK benefit payments which is part of the total package for many EU immigrants.
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.
It even has a parliament in which noted experts on trade such as Daniel Hannan can have their say. The fact that he'd rather speechify about his utopian ideas and doesn't even know about the FTAs that the EU has negotiated is a flaw in the process, I'll admit.
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.
Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.
What is the minimum wage in Bulgaria, Rumania and other countries of Eastern Europe? What level of child benefits do they pay out? Then there are those other in-work benefits to consider, not to mention education and health care. The level of pull for immigration may have dropped enough at your rarified level, though I doubt it, but it certainly will not have at the bottom end.
You make the natural mistake of thinking of it as a step function, rather than a curve.
If £1 was worth €0.10, then I think you'd agree there'd be almost no-one here. If, on the other hand, £1 was worth €10, then I think there'd be another 50m pushing to get in.
There are a large number of migrant workers who come here by Megabus, stay five to a room, work on building sites for £100/day, and send half of that home to Gsansk.
They've just seen the money that goes back to Poland cut by 15%. And if the cost of living here rise through inflation, as seems likely, then the real cut might be close to 20%.
A number of these people will now choose building sites in Germany* or the Netherlands, rather than the UK.
* And German construction, which has been in the doldrums since the early 1990s, is beginning to go through the roof.
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.
It even has a parliament in which noted experts on trade such as Daniel Hannan can have their say. The fact that he'd rather speechify about his utopian ideas and doesn't even know about the FTAs that the EU has negotiated is a flaw in the process, I'll admit.
A parliament which cannot propose legislation, very democratic I am sure.
So we are at get three in a hunded wrong people wrong in the polls and we have an almighty shock territory.
With a sample size of 500 that is 15 people
Honestly, I've seen enough bias everywhere to ignore the polling and look entirely at the campaign behaviour now.
If HRC was as far ahead as claimed - they wouldn't be resorting to implying that Trump's a paedo or serial groper from 35yrs ago. It smacks of desperation, not clear lead. Hillary isn't campaigning again today - even Michelle is turning out for an event.
There's a problem that's more than a course of anti-biotics.
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.
Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.
Gross non-EU immigration is higher than gross EU immigration. Presumably the former requires all kinds of bells and whistles and closed colleges and visas and work permits, and so forth. And they are coming from the other side of the world rather than popping over to try their luck.
As I say, I will be interested in the measures announced and taken.
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.
Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.
What is the minimum wage in Bulgaria, Rumania and other countries of Eastern Europe? What level of child benefits do they pay out? Then there are those other in-work benefits to consider, not to mention education and health care. The level of pull for immigration may have dropped enough at your rarified level, though I doubt it, but it certainly will not have at the bottom end.
You make the natural mistake of thinking of it as a step function, rather than a curve.
If £1 was worth €0.10, then I think you'd agree there'd be almost no-one here. If, on the other hand, £1 was worth €10, then I think there'd be another 50m pushing to get in.
There are a large number of migrant workers who come here by Megabus, stay five to a room, work on building sites for £100/day, and send half of that home to Gsansk.
They've just seen the money that goes back to Poland cut by 15%. And if the cost of living here rise through inflation, as seems likely, then the real cut might be close to 20%.
A number of these people will now choose building sites in Germany* or the Netherlands, rather than the UK.
* And German construction, which has been in the doldrums since the early 1990s, is beginning to go through the roof.
Same fallacy as you get when the price of drink goes up: "yebbut it won't put the *real* alcoholics off, it just penalizes us social drinkers".
So we are at get three in a hunded wrong people wrong in the polls and we have an almighty shock territory.
With a sample size of 500 that is 15 people
Honestly, I've seen enough bias everywhere to ignore the polling and look entirely at the campaign behaviour now.
If HRC was as far ahead as claimed - they wouldn't be resorting to implying that Trump's a paedo or serial groper from 35yrs ago. It smacks of desperation, not clear lead. Hillary isn't campaigning again today - even Michelle is turning out for an event.
There's a problem that's more than a course of anti-biotics.
Do you think they might be campaigning to maximise the win, and the senate? Or just for fun?
“During the referendum campaign, someone said the real danger of Brexit is you'll end up with higher interest rates, lower house prices and a lower exchange rate, and I thought: dream on. Because that's what we've been trying to achieve for the past three years and now we have a chance of getting it.
So Sterling devaluation actually good after all, who knew it.
Lord King backed Brexit. Remainers seem to prefer to pretend he doesn't exist so they can pretend that experts back them. People who disagree like King or Sir Digby Jones get written off like Orwellian unpersons.
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.
Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.
What is the minimum wage in Bulgaria, Rumania and other countries of Eastern Europe? What level of child benefits do they pay out? Then there are those other in-work benefits to consider, not to mention education and health care. The level of pull for immigration may have dropped enough at your rarified level, though I doubt it, but it certainly will not have at the bottom end.
You make the natural mistake of thinking of it as a step function, rather than a curve.
If £1 was worth €0.10, then I think you'd agree there'd be almost no-one here. If, on the other hand, £1 was worth €10, then I think there'd be another 50m pushing to get in.
There are a large number of migrant workers who come here by Megabus, stay five to a room, work on building sites for £100/day, and send half of that home to Gsansk.
They've just seen the money that goes back to Poland cut by 15%. And if the cost of living here rise through inflation, as seems likely, then the real cut might be close to 20%.
A number of these people will now choose building sites in Germany* or the Netherlands, rather than the UK.
* And German construction, which has been in the doldrums since the early 1990s, is beginning to go through the roof.
Do you suppose there will be a similar function inhibiting UK citizens from migrating to the EU?
So we are at get three in a hunded wrong people wrong in the polls and we have an almighty shock territory.
With a sample size of 500 that is 15 people
Honestly, I've seen enough bias everywhere to ignore the polling and look entirely at the campaign behaviour now.
If HRC was as far ahead as claimed - they wouldn't be resorting to implying that Trump's a paedo or serial groper from 35yrs ago. It smacks of desperation, not clear lead. Hillary isn't campaigning again today - even Michelle is turning out for an event.
There's a problem that's more than a course of anti-biotics.
Plato: the problem is that you're not looking at the campaign behaviour: you're looking at the campaign behaviour through the prism of a one-sided set of sources, with your mind already set to look for things which reinforce your existing view.
Thus you ignore polling that contradicts your view, and say it's because they are biased.
From your posts, I'd say it's much more likely that you're biased than the polls.
“During the referendum campaign, someone said the real danger of Brexit is you'll end up with higher interest rates, lower house prices and a lower exchange rate, and I thought: dream on. Because that's what we've been trying to achieve for the past three years and now we have a chance of getting it.
So Sterling devaluation actually good after all, who knew it.
Lord King backed Brexit. Remainers seem to prefer to pretend he doesn't exist so they can pretend that experts back them. People who disagree like King or Sir Digby Jones get written off like Orwellian unpersons.
On the contrary. Brexiters have a selective adoration of Bank of England Governors.
My forecast is that the UK will have negative net migration at some point in the next five years.
I would expect the number of foreign assignments to drop quite sharply from UK companies as well, for whose UK companies paying their salaries and allowances in other currencies just got 15-20% more expensive. British companies are going to be look closer at exactly how many people they need in Paris and Frankfurt (and NY).
Now that Queen Elizabeth II is the world's longest reigning monarch, she should celebrate her achievement by exercising her royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 straight away. That would stop the impertinence of the nincompoopismatic lawyers, politicians and bremoaniacs.
I've been doing some local history research and found a book called "Round About Wiltshire (1907)" ( http://www.twhc.org.uk/book/RoundAboutWiltshire.pdf ), and this passage in it on the people of Marlborough, "you would recognize at once a place eloquent of fine old prejudices, of warm affections and deathless feuds, of strong stomachs and stronger heads, of unshakable convictions, and a passionate attachment to the British constitution, and a proper hatred of Frenchmen and Popery"
Which made me think of Les Aigles Hurlants (TSE for non francophones), does anyone really believe that he has a "proper hatred of Frenchmen", as he so often claims?
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.
It even has a parliament in which noted experts on trade such as Daniel Hannan can have their say. The fact that he'd rather speechify about his utopian ideas and doesn't even know about the FTAs that the EU has negotiated is a flaw in the process, I'll admit.
A parliament which cannot propose legislation, very democratic I am sure.
And why can't it? Because the democratic national governments don't want it to be able to.
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.
Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.
Gross non-EU immigration is higher than gross EU immigration. Presumably the former requires all kinds of bells and whistles and closed colleges and visas and work permits, and so forth. And they are coming from the other side of the world rather than popping over to try their luck.
As I say, I will be interested in the measures announced and taken.
It was quietly tightened up a lot last year without any public announcement. Rules for appeals were made much tighter, and appeals now have to be paid for in full up front whereas they didn't used to be. Plus there is now the 600 quid per year up front payment for the NHS surcharge (so another 2400 for most visa holders). The number of rejections for visa applications increased by 20% last year as well. That all this happened and the immigration numbers went up should tell people something.
I think it also rather misses the point. If we processed all asylum appeals in six months, and expelled all people that failed their appeal. If we expelled anyone convicted of a jailable offense at the end of their prison term and if they didn't allow people to enter without a job offer, or to stay without a job offer if they hadnt previous worked a certain number of years in the UK. The amount of public grumbling would plummet without actually reducing the numbers that much.
“During the referendum campaign, someone said the real danger of Brexit is you'll end up with higher interest rates, lower house prices and a lower exchange rate, and I thought: dream on. Because that's what we've been trying to achieve for the past three years and now we have a chance of getting it.
So Sterling devaluation actually good after all, who knew it.
Lord King backed Brexit. Remainers seem to prefer to pretend he doesn't exist so they can pretend that experts back them. People who disagree like King or Sir Digby Jones get written off like Orwellian unpersons.
Did he actually go on the record saying that, or just nod and wink heavily (as I thought) ?
Trump is now so toasted the US election is actually very dull wrt to the outcome.
Sad really and bad for popcorn sales.
If the popcorn is imported, your news is great for the domestic food budget....
Oh i don't know, Trump and GOP being utterly humiliated on election night could be a lot of fun.
I remember one or two David Laws is toast deniers when I called Yeovil for the Tories a couple of months before the election
Marcus Fysh didn't expect to win!
I expected him to based on what I saw down there. The place was a sea of kipper posters the year before. In the Euros LD came a very poor third, getting roughly a quarter of the combined totals of UKIP/Tory votes.
In the 2013 county elections UKIP not only won Chard a libdem working class bastion (more like a northern mill town) but came within 11 votes of beating the Tories in Ilminster, a poshish market and increasingly Taunton/Bristol commuter town, beating the libdems into third by 100 votes.
It was obvious that the liberals were in big trouble and with Laws involvement denting his personal vote an upset there was on the cards.
I've been following the debate on here for some time. I think people have far too much confidence on here that the current government can weather the course they have embarked on. There must be a high chance that the current government will fall, when the implications of the Brexit strategy fall in to place. As it is starting to now. Scotland is one issue, Ireland is another, the economic fallout of the fall in value of the pound another. And then there are a whole host of other interrelated issues, issues that have already been considered but will start to become more real over the next few months: what happens to trident if Scotland becomes independent. What happens to the land border in Ireland. and so on. These are all questions that we know about already, but they haven't been thought through by anyone to any conclusion, because there is so much uncertainty, and there are so many distractions as events roll out on a daily basis. The key developments I would argue is that there is now an organised 'opposition' in parliament. Businesses are spooked. The bizarre movements of the pound. The statements by Nissan, land rover, American banks. Petrol prices have risen 10%. In the town where I work every single private sector funded major investment project has been stopped or halted due to Brexit. I'm not saying anything new, but all I am saying is look at the volatility. It is completely unprecedented. The decision to go forward with leaving the EU would result in vast political, economic and constitional chaos. I don't believe that the government can weather it. I believe that they will fall, and that the tories will not be able to decide how resolve it when they call a general election, because the Brexitters are already starting to argue amongst themselves.
And it is anyones guess how it could play out after that.
I think people are in denial about the true scale of the political, economic and social volatility the UK is currently in. The phoney peace is currently coming to an end, and people are starting to wake up.
On topic, from a betting point of view, I think the odds that A50 wont be triggered until the second half of next year are very good.
Now that Queen Elizabeth II is the world's longest reigning monarch, she should celebrate her achievement by exercising her royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 straight away. That would stop the impertinence of the nincompoopismatic lawyers, politicians and bremoaniacs.
The smoke signals from the courthouse today is that their lordships are not that impressed with the arguments opposing use of the prerogative.
My forecast is that the UK will have negative net migration at some point in the next five years.
We shall see. You maybe correct but I doubt that currency movements will be the cause, or even the main cause. At the top end salaries will just be increased and at the bottom end the driver of combined wage and benefit levels are just too great. Plus of course your forecast period includes the point where we will probably succeed from the EU.
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?
And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:
All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .
Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.
“During the referendum campaign, someone said the real danger of Brexit is you'll end up with higher interest rates, lower house prices and a lower exchange rate, and I thought: dream on. Because that's what we've been trying to achieve for the past three years and now we have a chance of getting it.
So Sterling devaluation actually good after all, who knew it.
Lord King backed Brexit. Remainers seem to prefer to pretend he doesn't exist so they can pretend that experts back them. People who disagree like King or Sir Digby Jones get written off like Orwellian unpersons.
On the contrary. Brexiters have a selective adoration of Bank of England Governors.
AFAIK there is only one living ex-Governor of the Bank of England. A data point of one isn't useful. It looks like all recent CBI DGs supported UK's EU membership except Digby Jones.
And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:
All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .
Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.
3rd parties usually get squeezed after debates which are not invited.
But my call that absent another tape, that this is Trump's bottom on the betting markets seems to be accurate.
And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:
All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .
Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.
Crowenation #FakeTrumpVictim and her homie are quite the pair! Scam artists! @nytimes did you get these ppl?! Looks more like Clinton assoc. @wikileaks! https://t.co/7Wuf2kXlrZ
And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:
All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .
Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.
3.6% isn't wide open.
No candidate above 50% and an electoral college on a knife-edge is.
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.'
Any club will have a rule book and in this case it's the Lisbon agreement,so if the section (which is apparently very brief) that covers Article 50 says we have to pay for this stuff so be it,if not we don't.
Simply superb news about Dylan and the Nobel. Ok his books aren't much cop, and his metal art is just weird - but he must be the most influential lyricist in English in the last 50 years. A true genius. Even if you don't like his music, everyone on this board can probably rattle off a few Dylan quotes without even thinking.
Day 111 since the referendum and the mood is still febrile. Shocking that the headbanging Leaver tendency (house papers: the Mail and Express) are now assigning Unilever to their coalition of the traitors. A great British company, even if their PR is a bit lacking today.
The more we continue with this insanity, the more we support Sturgeon's narrative that the country has been captured by a loony minority in the Tory party. A Brexit that dissolves the Union is no victory at all.
Anecdote alert: I had lunch with a Leaver today, Finance Director of an advertising company. He's rattled. The collapse in the pound and the Unilever story have made him realise that Brexit will have a cost, and we ain't seen nothing yet.
I don't for a moment suggest he is indicative, but it's interesting how these silly stories about Marmite resonate in a way that Project Fear did not. Recall the pasty tax!
I've been following the debate on here for some time. I think people have far too much confidence on here that the current government can weather the course they have embarked on. There must be a high chance that the current government will fall, when the implications of the Brexit strategy fall in to place. As it is starting to now. Scotland is one issue, Ireland is another, the economic fallout of the fall in value of the pound another. And then there are a whole host of other interrelated issues, issues that have already been considered but will start to become more real over the next few months: what happens to trident if Scotland becomes independent. What happens to the land border in Ireland. and so on. These are all questions that we know about already, but they haven't been thought through by anyone to any conclusion, because there is so much uncertainty, and there are so many distractions as events roll out on a daily basis. The key developments I would argue is that there is now an organised 'opposition' in parliament. Businesses are spooked. The bizarre movements of the pound. The statements by Nissan, land rover, American banks. Petrol prices have risen 10%. In the town where I work every single private sector funded major investment project has been stopped or halted due to Brexit. I'm not saying anything new, but all I am saying is look at the volatility. It is completely unprecedented. The decision to go forward with leaving the EU would result in vast political, economic and constitional chaos. I don't believe that the government can weather it. I believe that they will fall, and that the tories will not be able to decide how resolve it when they call a general election, because the Brexitters are already starting to argue amongst themselves.
And it is anyones guess how it could play out after that.
I think people are in denial about the true scale of the political, economic and social volatility the UK is currently in. The phoney peace is currently coming to an end, and people are starting to wake up.
On topic, from a betting point of view, I think the odds that A50 wont be triggered until the second half of next year are very good.
Welcome, Neil, and thanks for that insight. As you say, the headwinds are huge and go right across the board.
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.
And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:
All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .
Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.
3.6% isn't wide open.
It's just less than Romney's defeat, with 3 weeks to go and another debate it's on the edge of the plausible that Trump could do it.
Crowenation #FakeTrumpVictim and her homie are quite the pair! Scam artists! @nytimes did you get these ppl?! Looks more like Clinton assoc. @wikileaks! https://t.co/7Wuf2kXlrZ
Who you going to believe, women who claim they were groped, or a man who says he gropes women? It's a real "he & she both said" situation.
And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:
All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .
Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.
3.6% isn't wide open.
It's just less than Romney's defeat, with 3 weeks to go and another debate it's on the edge of the plausible that Trump could do it.
It's remarkable what Trump's debate victory did.
the rcp poll average is 6.5%. What are u talking about???
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.
Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.
Gross non-EU immigration is higher than gross EU immigration. Presumably the former requires all kinds of bells and whistles and closed colleges and visas and work permits, and so forth. And they are coming from the other side of the world rather than popping over to try their luck.
As I say, I will be interested in the measures announced and taken.
It was quietly tightened up a lot last year without any public announcement. Rules for appeals were made much tighter, and appeals now have to be paid for in full up front whereas they didn't used to be. Plus there is now the 600 quid per year up front payment for the NHS surcharge (so another 2400 for most visa holders). The number of rejections for visa applications increased by 20% last year as well. That all this happened and the immigration numbers went up should tell people something.
I think it also rather misses the point. If we processed all asylum appeals in six months, and expelled all people that failed their appeal. If we expelled anyone convicted of a jailable offense at the end of their prison term and if they didn't allow people to enter without a job offer, or to stay without a job offer if they hadnt previous worked a certain number of years in the UK. The amount of public grumbling would plummet without actually reducing the numbers that much.
Mr. Indigo, your insight into how the rules on entry for non-EU visa applicants have already been tightened is welcome, I am sure many here will have been unaware.
You also touch on a point I have tried to make several times - if you cannot chuck people out there is not much point in trying to control who comes in.
And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:
All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .
Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.
3.6% isn't wide open.
No candidate above 50% and an electoral college on a knife-edge is.
Nate Silver of 538 has the best track record. According to his polls Clinton wins ALL 14 swing States including Florida, Ohio, Iowa and even Arizona, giving her 342 EC votes to Trump's 196. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:
All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .
Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.
3.6% isn't wide open.
No candidate above 50% and an electoral college on a knife-edge is.
Silly me. If it's on a knife edge, do you want a wager say £20 at evens?
I've been following the debate on here for some time. I think people have far too much confidence on here that the current government can weather the course they have embarked on. There must be a high chance that the current government will fall, when the implications of the Brexit strategy fall in to place. As it is starting to now. Scotland is one issue, Ireland is another, the economic fallout of the fall in value of the pound another. And then there are a whole host of other interrelated issues, issues that have already been considered but will start to become more real over the next few months: what happens to trident if Scotland becomes independent. What happens to the land border in Ireland. and so on. These are all questions that we know about already, but they haven't been thought through by anyone to any conclusion, because there is so much uncertainty, and there are so many distractions as events roll out on a daily basis. The key developments I would argue is that there is now an organised 'opposition' in parliament. Businesses are spooked. The bizarre movements of the pound. The statements by Nissan, land rover, American banks. Petrol prices have risen 10%. In the town where I work every single private sector funded major investment project has been stopped or halted due to Brexit. I'm not saying anything new, but all I am saying is look at the volatility. It is completely unprecedented. The decision to go forward with leaving the EU would result in vast political, economic and constitional chaos. I don't believe that the government can weather it. I believe that they will fall, and that the tories will not be able to decide how resolve it when they call a general election, because the Brexitters are already starting to argue amongst themselves.
And it is anyones guess how it could play out after that.
I think people are in denial about the true scale of the political, economic and social volatility the UK is currently in. The phoney peace is currently coming to an end, and people are starting to wake up.
On topic, from a betting point of view, I think the odds that A50 wont be triggered until the second half of next year are very good.
Welcome. Another voice of sanity.
I disagree with you around the odds of A50 though. Or rather, I think that now that May has set a date, it's either that or an early election.
And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:
All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .
Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.
3.6% isn't wide open.
It's just less than Romney's defeat, with 3 weeks to go and another debate it's on the edge of the plausible that Trump could do it.
It's remarkable what Trump's debate victory did.
the rcp poll average is 6.5%. What are u talking about???
I'm talking about the average of all polls done post-debate, the RCP average still includes polls done before the debate.
All the national polls that where done exclusively after the debate show Hillary leads of 7, 5, 5 ,3 and a Trump lead of 2, that's 5 national polls with an average of 3.6 for Hillary.
And the post debate state polls also point to a small but modest Hillary lead nationally of around 4 points.
Right as write this yet another post-debate state poll, this time from a democratic pollster:
And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:
All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .
Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.
3.6% isn't wide open.
No candidate above 50% and an electoral college on a knife-edge is.
Nate Silver of 538 has the best track record. According to his polls Clinton wins ALL 14 swing States including Florida, Ohio, Iowa and even Arizona, giving her 342 EC votes to Trump's 196. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Unless something involving a black swan happens in next two weeks this is over. Trump is going down to a landslide.
'We shall see. You maybe correct but I doubt that currency movements will be the cause, or even the main cause. At the top end salaries will just be increased and at the bottom end the driver of combined wage and benefit levels are just too great.'
Apparently in Germany there are no benefit handouts for immigrants until they have 5 years residency. So UK benefits still massively outweigh a 20% or so devaluation.
Doubt there are any EU countries where married workers with kids don't become net taxpayers until they are earning over £ 35,000.
If a POTUS is impeached, can he/she only be impeached for what he/she has done as POTUS? Or in any public office?
Hmm, that will be up to interpretation.
Hillary has definitely done impeachable offences while in Public Office, Trump has never held Public Office but will definitely do impeachable offences while being President.
My forecast is that the UK will have negative net migration at some point in the next five years.
Ironically as Merv has effectively pointed out Brexit has brought about the rebalancing of the economy that was desperately wanted and desired for three years to stop the masses turning on the EU
You also touch on a point I have tried to make several times - if you cannot chuck people out there is not much point in trying to control who comes in.
So we are at get three in a hunded wrong people wrong in the polls and we have an almighty shock territory.
With a sample size of 500 that is 15 people
Honestly, I've seen enough bias everywhere to ignore the polling and look entirely at the campaign behaviour now.
If HRC was as far ahead as claimed - they wouldn't be resorting to implying that Trump's a paedo or serial groper from 35yrs ago. It smacks of desperation, not clear lead. Hillary isn't campaigning again today - even Michelle is turning out for an event.
There's a problem that's more than a course of anti-biotics.
Plato: the problem is that you're not looking at the campaign behaviour: you're looking at the campaign behaviour through the prism of a one-sided set of sources, with your mind already set to look for things which reinforce your existing view.
Thus you ignore polling that contradicts your view, and say it's because they are biased.
From your posts, I'd say it's much more likely that you're biased than the polls.
Im looking at it from the view of making some more money out of William Hill.
The more we continue with this insanity, the more we support Sturgeon's narrative that the country has been captured by a loony minority in the Tory party. A Brexit that dissolves the Union is no victory at all.
But that narrative would be pursued regardless of anything else that was going on, along with the new list of grievances: demands for Scottish exceptionalism on issues such as immigration and single market access, which cannot possibly be met by anything other than independence, yet which the UK Government will be accused of wrongfully denying to Scotland when they are not forthcoming. Regardless of how well or not Brexit itself actually goes, the SNPs usual array of hate figures and institutions is being set up to fail. It was ever thus.
Beyond that, whilst I don't expect the Union to founder and I don't want it to founder, there is a hierarchy of priorities at work here. The ultimate purpose of the EU is to dismantle the nation states of Europe. If the EU were to survive and achieve its aims with us still in it, then eventually there would be no UK regardless. With the country out of the EU, there is a chance for the Union between England and Scotland to survive. Within the EU, should the project progress to its logical conclusion, the terms England and Scotland would eventually cease to have any meaning.
Therefore, the primary aim has to be to extract the UK from the EU, even at the risk of compromising its integrity. Keeping the UK 92% intact outside of the EU would be better than having 100% of the UK gradually dissolved to mush inside of it.
And continuing with the good polling news for Trump, my average daily tracker has turned the corner for him, the first time today he has gone up since Oct.1st.
Oh god...Wussellly Brand is back doing his Trews....He must have a tour to flog or a new movie...or some t-shirts made with sweat shop labour.
Well, Ed M seems to be back in action, so why not his old mucker Brand?
Easy to be nostalgic for the days politics was practised by sensible grown ups like Ed and Russell. Not the juvenile charlatans we have to deal with today.
If you don't think Donald Trump grabbed women by the pussy like he said he would, why do you believe any of his other promises?
Point of order. I think he actually said 'they even let you grab them by the pussy'
I think a lawyer might argue that this phrase, and in particular the words 'they even let you 'implies he received consent for said cat abducting in a legal sense at least.
So we are at get three in a hunded wrong people wrong in the polls and we have an almighty shock territory.
With a sample size of 500 that is 15 people
Honestly, I've seen enough bias everywhere to ignore the polling and look entirely at the campaign behaviour now.
If HRC was as far ahead as claimed - they wouldn't be resorting to implying that Trump's a paedo or serial groper from 35yrs ago. It smacks of desperation, not clear lead. Hillary isn't campaigning again today - even Michelle is turning out for an event.
There's a problem that's more than a course of anti-biotics.
Plato: the problem is that you're not looking at the campaign behaviour: you're looking at the campaign behaviour through the prism of a one-sided set of sources, with your mind already set to look for things which reinforce your existing view.
Thus you ignore polling that contradicts your view, and say it's because they are biased.
From your posts, I'd say it's much more likely that you're biased than the polls.
Im looking at it from the view of making some more money out of William Hill.
Comments
PS And windows no longer seems to have a 3rd party browser bundled with it, either.
@DineshDSouza
I guess it is now fine for men to use women's bathrooms but not for the CEO of Miss Universe to walk into a woman's dressing room
This is an actual post. That a person wrote.
He's the tallest Labour dwarf.
http://en.news-4-u.ru/the-crown-prince-of-thailand-arrived-in-munich-in-sandals-and-indecent-top.html
With a sample size of 500 that is 15 people
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/rnc-donald-trump-ad-spending-229711
RNC TV ad spending for Trump: $0
The national party breaks with tradition of spending millions on ads supporting its nominees.
'Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.'
What about the difference between EU and UK benefit payments which is part of the total package for many EU immigrants.
Has your handler told you to move to a post election loss attack the RNC footing now?
Clinton 45 .. Trump 43
http://www.suffolk.edu/news/67728.php#.V_-x-OMrKgA
60-year-old millionaire Dutchman millionaire......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3836417/Unilever-boss-self-proclaimed-Geordie-survived-terror-attack.html
They've got the bit between their teeth:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835034/Major-brands-axed-Tesco-shelves-row-supplier-Unilever-demanded-10-cent-price-rise-falling-pound.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835874/Unilever-row-throws-light-long-history-Marmite.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835323/I-Marmite-s-gonna-cost-Hilarious-Sam-Allardyce-meme-pokes-fun-Unilever-Tesco-stand-food-love-hate-taken-shelves.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3835991/How-bargain-Tesco-s-axed-Unilever-products.html
If £1 was worth €0.10, then I think you'd agree there'd be almost no-one here. If, on the other hand, £1 was worth €10, then I think there'd be another 50m pushing to get in.
There are a large number of migrant workers who come here by Megabus, stay five to a room, work on building sites for £100/day, and send half of that home to Gsansk.
They've just seen the money that goes back to Poland cut by 15%. And if the cost of living here rise through inflation, as seems likely, then the real cut might be close to 20%.
A number of these people will now choose building sites in Germany* or the Netherlands, rather than the UK.
* And German construction, which has been in the doldrums since the early 1990s, is beginning to go through the roof.
If HRC was as far ahead as claimed - they wouldn't be resorting to implying that Trump's a paedo or serial groper from 35yrs ago. It smacks of desperation, not clear lead. Hillary isn't campaigning again today - even Michelle is turning out for an event.
There's a problem that's more than a course of anti-biotics.
My forecast is that the UK will have negative net migration at some point in the next five years.
In media terms, that simply isn;t correct. They are supposed to be even handed.
As I say, I will be interested in the measures announced and taken.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/business/international/marmite-brexit-britain.html?_r=0
Thus you ignore polling that contradicts your view, and say it's because they are biased.
From your posts, I'd say it's much more likely that you're biased than the polls.
"you would recognize at once a place eloquent of fine old prejudices, of warm affections and deathless feuds, of strong stomachs and stronger heads, of unshakable convictions, and a passionate attachment to the British constitution, and a proper hatred of Frenchmen and Popery"
Which made me think of Les Aigles Hurlants (TSE for non francophones), does anyone really believe that he has a "proper hatred of Frenchmen", as he so often claims?
North Carolina, Suffolk
Hillary 45
Trump 43
Johnson 5
http://www.suffolk.edu/news/67728.php#.V_-0k_l95dg
That is consistent with a Hillary national lead of 4 points.
I think it also rather misses the point. If we processed all asylum appeals in six months, and expelled all people that failed their appeal. If we expelled anyone convicted of a jailable offense at the end of their prison term and if they didn't allow people to enter without a job offer, or to stay without a job offer if they hadnt previous worked a certain number of years in the UK. The amount of public grumbling would plummet without actually reducing the numbers that much.
Damn RT @DieselTrumpGOD: @jonfitchdotnet They admit Hillary is Bills Enabler https://t.co/G85onT39mT
Oh dear me.
In the 2013 county elections UKIP not only won Chard a libdem working class bastion (more like a northern mill town) but came within 11 votes of beating the Tories in Ilminster, a poshish market and increasingly Taunton/Bristol commuter town, beating the libdems into third by 100 votes.
It was obvious that the liberals were in big trouble and with Laws involvement denting his personal vote an upset there was on the cards.
https://twitter.com/khinman/status/786303822104788992
If Trump repeats his second debate performance I will upgrade his chances of winning the election for the first time since he choose Pence as his VP.
I think people have far too much confidence on here that the current government can weather the course they have embarked on.
There must be a high chance that the current government will fall, when the implications of the Brexit strategy fall in to place. As it is starting to now. Scotland is one issue, Ireland is another, the economic fallout of the fall in value of the pound another. And then there are a whole host of other interrelated issues, issues that have already been considered but will start to become more real over the next few months: what happens to trident if Scotland becomes independent. What happens to the land border in Ireland. and so on.
These are all questions that we know about already, but they haven't been thought through by anyone to any conclusion, because there is so much uncertainty, and there are so many distractions as events roll out on a daily basis.
The key developments I would argue is that there is now an organised 'opposition' in parliament. Businesses are spooked. The bizarre movements of the pound. The statements by Nissan, land rover, American banks. Petrol prices have risen 10%.
In the town where I work every single private sector funded major investment project has been stopped or halted due to Brexit.
I'm not saying anything new, but all I am saying is look at the volatility. It is completely unprecedented. The decision to go forward with leaving the EU would result in vast political, economic and constitional chaos. I don't believe that the government can weather it. I believe that they will fall, and that the tories will not be able to decide how resolve it when they call a general election, because the Brexitters are already starting to argue amongst themselves.
And it is anyones guess how it could play out after that.
I think people are in denial about the true scale of the political, economic and social volatility the UK is currently in. The phoney peace is currently coming to an end, and people are starting to wake up.
On topic, from a betting point of view, I think the odds that A50 wont be triggered until the second half of next year are very good.
odds on trump cancelling the debate?
https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/more-brexit-in-the-courts/
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/786604227565068288
All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .
But my call that absent another tape, that this is Trump's bottom on the betting markets seems to be accurate.
Crowenation
#FakeTrumpVictim and her homie are quite the pair! Scam artists! @nytimes did you get these ppl?! Looks more like Clinton assoc. @wikileaks! https://t.co/7Wuf2kXlrZ
'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.'
Any club will have a rule book and in this case it's the Lisbon agreement,so if the section (which is apparently very brief) that covers Article 50 says we have to pay for this stuff so be it,if not we don't.
Simply superb news about Dylan and the Nobel. Ok his books aren't much cop, and his metal art is just weird - but he must be the most influential lyricist in English in the last 50 years. A true genius. Even if you don't like his music, everyone on this board can probably rattle off a few Dylan quotes without even thinking.
Day 111 since the referendum and the mood is still febrile. Shocking that the headbanging Leaver tendency (house papers: the Mail and Express) are now assigning Unilever to their coalition of the traitors. A great British company, even if their PR is a bit lacking today.
The more we continue with this insanity, the more we support Sturgeon's narrative that the country has been captured by a loony minority in the Tory party. A Brexit that dissolves the Union is no victory at all.
Anecdote alert: I had lunch with a Leaver today, Finance Director of an advertising company. He's rattled. The collapse in the pound and the Unilever story have made him realise that Brexit will have a cost, and we ain't seen nothing yet.
I don't for a moment suggest he is indicative, but it's interesting how these silly stories about Marmite resonate in a way that Project Fear did not. Recall the pasty tax!
It's remarkable what Trump's debate victory did.
You also touch on a point I have tried to make several times - if you cannot chuck people out there is not much point in trying to control who comes in.
According to his polls Clinton wins ALL 14 swing States including Florida, Ohio, Iowa and even Arizona, giving her 342 EC votes to Trump's 196.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8001
If it's on a knife edge, do you want a wager say £20 at evens?
I disagree with you around the odds of A50 though. Or rather, I think that now that May has set a date, it's either that or an early election.
All the national polls that where done exclusively after the debate show Hillary leads of 7, 5, 5 ,3 and a Trump lead of 2, that's 5 national polls with an average of 3.6 for Hillary.
And the post debate state polls also point to a small but modest Hillary lead nationally of around 4 points.
Right as write this yet another post-debate state poll, this time from a democratic pollster:
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/786610029805858817
'We shall see. You maybe correct but I doubt that currency movements will be the cause, or even the main cause. At the top end salaries will just be increased and at the bottom end the driver of combined wage and benefit levels are just too great.'
Apparently in Germany there are no benefit handouts for immigrants until they have 5 years residency. So UK benefits still massively outweigh a 20% or so devaluation.
Doubt there are any EU countries where married workers with kids don't become net taxpayers until they are earning over £ 35,000.
Hillary has definitely done impeachable offences while in Public Office, Trump has never held Public Office but will definitely do impeachable offences while being President.
Spiro Agnew was threatened with impeachment as Vice President for crimes he committed as Governor of Maryland
Beyond that, whilst I don't expect the Union to founder and I don't want it to founder, there is a hierarchy of priorities at work here. The ultimate purpose of the EU is to dismantle the nation states of Europe. If the EU were to survive and achieve its aims with us still in it, then eventually there would be no UK regardless. With the country out of the EU, there is a chance for the Union between England and Scotland to survive. Within the EU, should the project progress to its logical conclusion, the terms England and Scotland would eventually cease to have any meaning.
Therefore, the primary aim has to be to extract the UK from the EU, even at the risk of compromising its integrity. Keeping the UK 92% intact outside of the EU would be better than having 100% of the UK gradually dissolved to mush inside of it.
I think a lawyer might argue that this phrase, and in particular the words 'they even let you 'implies he received consent for said cat abducting in a legal sense at least.
All the polls showed a Clinton win. You relate to other polls regularly but choose to ignore the debate polls. Very odd.