@Blue Rog I know we have a permanent seat at the UN..but do you not think in matters of security at the EU, the British held extra weight because of our role with the UN?
It defies logic how we could step away from our neighbours and move to pariah status..it really does. No influence on what they do, no veto, no say..no nothing...on our neighbours, our trading partners! We have lost our influence in Europe completely....if we lost an aggressive war, then so be it (the victors dictate the terms)....but to do it in an act of wilful, ignorant self harm is an entirely different matter.
But the die is cast. Brexit is Brexit. We are not going to negotiate a favourable deal, so let's have it quickly rather than endure this death by a thousand cuts.....
Maybe in ten years enough old people will have gone on to better things to change the vote.......
As I understand it, security matters are devolved to the individual states.
Please...stop being pedantic...it's excruciating having to reply....do you not think the EU discussed maters of security...people/drugs/arms trafficking......
Being out of the EU of course will affect our security and safety...Remain banged on about it over and over again...but that was project fear and all that....
Anyway this conversation is pointless...we are where we are..we are heading for a Hard Brexit, let's have it....... and then hope that sufficient numbers of Brexit voters pass on to higher places, and then we can review it all from a position of weakness
I think Interpol existed before the EU
The NHS existed before the EU Pensions existed before the EU Democracy existed before the EU
That's an unnecessarily bold statement. There's a non-zero chance of the EU breaking up, and a substantially higher chance of either other countries leaving (Hungary?) or some pillar of the European project collapsing (couple of years ago I might have said the euro, now maybe Schengen?) but treating it as racing certainty the whole thing is going to blow up is rather nostradamic.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Pulps
Trump is going to drift out...I spent an hour going through the polls and he should be more like 9/1.....Andy JS he's the man...Kentucky and Indiana on election night.. first to call and big Trump wins....and then bam...
Of course not in most cases but it will add fuel to the fire of the 'conspiracy' theorists and make the base even more determined to vote, while the fact the FBI has not found anything 'criminal' does not excuse the fact sensitive emails were found on Weiner's server
Given what the FBI have actually found — including the stuff reported in the NY Post today, which I still can't believe — you do have to wonder what it would take to see charges brought.
Thousands of emails reviewed in less than a week. Hmm. A minor boost for Clinton but I doubt it makes virtually any difference, it was still yet another example of her failing to follow proper security procedures and if you disapproved of her email classification measures enough to determine your vote on it, which was probably a small minority anyway, I doubt this changes anything
The only way it would have made a material difference to the outcome of the election was if she had been arrested, which was not going to happen this week.
It may however encourage GOP voters who were going to abstain rather than vote for Trump to turn out to ensure she faces a hostile Congress, simply because it has given them a brutal reminder of just how incompetent and untrustworthy she is. The old check and balance system may seem suddenly desirable.
Yes, this 'clearing' of Clinton will enrage the GOP base, they will certainly all be at the polls on Tuesday
I see, it's a good think she's been cleared because it will enrage the GOP base.
Let me get this right then, somebody who wouldn't have bothered to vote against her when the FBI announced the investigation was being reopened will now go out and vote because she's been cleared.
The handful of Trump rampers on here are living in fantasy land.
Of course not in most cases but it will add fuel to the fire of the 'conspiracy' theorists and make the base even more determined to vote, while the fact the FBI has not found anything 'criminal' does not excuse the fact sensitive emails were found on Weiner's server
We don't know tbe content of the emails, indeed they may well be cat videos...
@Blue Rog I know we have a permanent seat at the UN..but do you not think in matters of security at the EU, the British held extra weight because of our role with the UN?
It defies logic how we could step away from our neighbours and move to pariah status..it really does. No influence on what they do, no veto, no say..no nothing...on our neighbours, our trading partners! We have lost our influence in Europe completely....if we lost an aggressive war, then so be it (the victors dictate the terms)....but to do it in an act of wilful, ignorant self harm is an entirely different matter.
But the die is cast. Brexit is Brexit. We are not going to negotiate a favourable deal, so let's have it quickly rather than endure this death by a thousand cuts.....
Maybe in ten years enough old people will have gone on to better things to change the vote.......
Nope - the UK position on the security council is/was completely independent of Europe. In Europe we were largely ignored because of our lack of interest in a Euro army. Our lack of interest was mainly on the grounds that a Euro army would simply be a another layer of generals on top of less and less actual capability...
Jeez..do your not think that Britain (like France and Germany) held some extra weight on the EU? Or that all 27 states were exactly the same.
I tell you discussing anything with Brexit ideologues is like talking to a 5 year old child, or a dog for the sense you get out of them. At least children and dogs are loveable instead of repulsive, repellant, creatures
But, as I have said, Brexit is Brexit,,,,so let's get on with it and see how it goes
I voted remain...
You do not appear to understand that the post war structure was - EEC does the economic bit, NATO does the security bit. Despite the French flounce on NATO (walking away from influence etc), they held the same view as the UK - keep the military stuff with NATO.
Inside the EU, the member states largely did their own thing, with on and off pushing and shoving from France and the UK - as the nuclear, expeditionary capable powers.
In fact the attempts inside the EU to move into the security area have arguably been destabilising - see Ukraine etc.
ar. If that direction of travel continues, it will become less and less enticing for the UK. If instead an unreformed Europe continues to flail from crisis to crisis, that will hardly make it more attractive.
There will be no EU in five years time.
"I am not a betting man normally" but that seems like very easy money. Want a bet on it?
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
@Blue Rog I know we have a permanent seat at the UN..but do you not think in matters of security at the EU, the British held extra weight because of our role with the UN?
It defies logic how we could step away from our neighbours and move to pariah status..it really does. No influence on what they do, no veto, no say..no nothing...on our neighbours, our trading partners! We have lost our influence in Europe completely....if we lost an aggressive war, then so be it (the victors dictate the terms)....but to do it in an act of wilful, ignorant self harm is an entirely different matter.
But the die is cast. Brexit is Brexit. We are not going to negotiate a favourable deal, so let's have it quickly rather than endure this death by a thousand cuts.....
Maybe in ten years enough old people will have gone on to better things to change the vote.......
As I understand it, security matters are devolved to the individual states.
Please...stop being pedantic...it's excruciating having to reply....do you not think the EU discussed maters of security...people/drugs/arms trafficking......
Being out of the EU of course will affect our security and safety...Remain banged on about it over and over again...but that was project fear and all that....
Anyway this conversation is pointless...we are where we are..we are heading for a Hard Brexit, let's have it....... and then hope that sufficient numbers of Brexit voters pass on to higher places, and then we can review it all from a position of weakness
I think Interpol existed before the EU
The NHS existed before the EU Pensions existed before the EU Democracy existed before the EU
@Blue Rog I know we have a permanent seat at the UN..but do you not think in matters of security at the EU, the British held extra weight because of our role with the UN?
It defies logic how we could step away from our neighbours and move to pariah status..it really does. No influence on what they do, no veto, no say..no nothing...on our neighbours, our trading partners! We have lost our influence in Europe completely....if we lost an aggressive war, then so be it (the victors dictate the terms)....but to do it in an act of wilful, ignorant self harm is an entirely different matter.
But the die is cast. Brexit is Brexit. We are not going to negotiate a favourable deal, so let's have it quickly rather than endure this death by a thousand cuts.....
Maybe in ten years enough old people will have gone on to better things to change the vote.......
Nope - the UK position on the security council is/was completely independent of Europe. In Europe we were largely ignored because of our lack of interest in a Euro army. Our lack of interest was mainly on the grounds that a Euro army would simply be a another layer of generals on top of less and less actual capability...
Jeez..do your not think that Britain (like France and Germany) held some extra weight on the EU? Or that all 27 states were exactly the same.
I tell you discussing anything with Brexit ideologues is like talking to a 5 year old child, or a dog for the sense you get out of them. At least children and dogs are loveable instead of repulsive, repellant, creatures
But, as I have said, Brexit is Brexit,,,,so let's get on with it and see how it goes
I voted remain...
You do not appear to understand that the post war structure was - EEC does the economic bit, NATO does the security bit. Despite the French flounce on NATO (walking away from influence etc), they held the same view as the UK - keep the military stuff with NATO.
Do you see economics or the military as the key vector of political power in today's world?
(As for Ukraine, it was the prospect of NATO membership that was truly destabilising so blaming the EU is a bit rich.)
Go Hillary!! Increased my exposure the other day for 1.35. Hurrah!
The cash I put on her at 1.19 doesn't look so silly now.
My average bet on her is @ 1.48
Better than a bank interest rate that's for sure.
I go to bed slightly more optimistic tonight. NV early voting looking very good. Possible huge turnout of latinos in several states. FBI on the retreat. FL too close to call (without which Trump has a mountain to climb).
@Blue Rog I know we have a permanent seat at the UN..but do you not think in matters of security at the EU, the British held extra weight because of our role with the UN?
It defies logic how we could step away from our neighbours and move to pariah status..it really does. No influence on what they do, no veto, no say..no nothing...on our neighbours, our trading partners! We have lost our influence in Europe completely....if we lost an aggressive war, then so be it (the victors dictate the terms)....but to do it in an act of wilful, ignorant self harm is an entirely different matter.
But the die is cast. Brexit is Brexit. We are not going to negotiate a favourable deal, so let's have it quickly rather than endure this death by a thousand cuts.....
Maybe in ten years enough old people will have gone on to better things to change the vote.......
As I understand it, security matters are devolved to the individual states.
Please...stop being pedantic...it's excruciating having to reply....do you not think the EU discussed maters of security...people/drugs/arms trafficking......
Being out of the EU of course will affect our security and safety...Remain banged on about it over and over again...but that was project fear and all that....
Anyway this conversation is pointless...we are where we are..we are heading for a Hard Brexit, let's have it....... and then hope that sufficient numbers of Brexit voters pass on to higher places, and then we can review it all from a position of weakness
I think Interpol existed before the EU
On the heavy end security stuff, the EU has long been upset with us - because we are fully paid up members of Echelon (yes, I know it's not called that - but that's what most people know it by) etc. Rather than getting involved in creating an EU equivelant.
For comic value - the head of the ICPC (precursor to Interpol) was, in 1940, this blossom -
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
Nope - in a path shape model like that, if you assign 100% probability to a state, it basically moves to first in order, and the remainder of the path thus gets shifted along by Nevada's number of ECVs.
Next would be Colorado on the 538 model, although you could maybe suggest Pennsylvania or even Michigan (#2 and #3) are more realistic.
@Blue Rog I know we have a permanent seat at the UN..but do you not think in matters of security at the EU, the British held extra weight because of our role with the UN?
It defies logic how we could step away from our neighbours and move to pariah status..it really does. No influence on what they do, no veto, no say..no nothing...on our neighbours, our trading partners! We have lost our influence in Europe completely....if we lost an aggressive war, then so be it (the victors dictate the terms)....but to do it in an act of wilful, ignorant self harm is an entirely different matter.
But the die is cast. Brexit is Brexit. We are not going to negotiate a favourable deal, so let's have it quickly rather than endure this death by a thousand cuts.....
Maybe in ten years enough old people will have gone on to better things to change the vote.......
As I understand it, security matters are devolved to the individual states.
Please...stop being pedantic...it's excruciating having to reply....do you not think the EU discussed maters of security...people/drugs/arms trafficking......
Being out of the EU of course will affect our security and safety...Remain banged on about it over and over again...but that was project fear and all that....
Anyway this conversation is pointless...we are where we are..we are heading for a Hard Brexit, let's have it....... and then hope that sufficient numbers of Brexit voters pass on to higher places, and then we can review it all from a position of weakness
I think Interpol existed before the EU
The NHS existed before the EU Pensions existed before the EU Democracy existed before the EU
daniel a. smith @electionsmith 12m12 minutes ago Black turnout is sky-rocking in Florida, w "Souls to Polls" still to be counted. 564k blacks have voted EIP. In '12, total 539k voted EIP
@Blue Rog I know we have a permanent seat at the UN..but do you not think in matters of security at the EU, the British held extra weight because of our role with the UN?
It defies logic how we could step away from our neighbours and move to pariah status..it really does. No influence on what they do, no veto, no say..no nothing...on our neighbours, our trading partners! We have lost our influence in Europe completely....if we lost an aggressive war, then so be it (the victors dictate the terms)....but to do it in an act of wilful, ignorant self harm is an entirely different matter.
But the die is cast. Brexit is Brexit. We are not going to negotiate a favourable deal, so let's have it quickly rather than endure this death by a thousand cuts.....
Maybe in ten years enough old people will have gone on to better things to change the vote.......
As I understand it, security matters are devolved to the individual states.
Please...stop being pedantic...it's excruciating having to reply....do you not think the EU discussed maters of security...people/drugs/arms trafficking......
Being out of the EU of course will affect our security and safety...Remain banged on about it over and over again...but that was project fear and all that....
Anyway this conversation is pointless...we are where we are..we are heading for a Hard Brexit, let's have it....... and then hope that sufficient numbers of Brexit voters pass on to higher places, and then we can review it all from a position of weakness
I think Interpol existed before the EU
The NHS existed before the EU Pensions existed before the EU Democracy existed before the EU
@Blue Rog I know we have a permanent seat at the UN..but do you not think in matters of security at the EU, the British held extra weight because of our role with the UN?
It defies logic how we could step away from our neighbours and move to pariah status..it really does. No influence on what they do, no veto, no say..no nothing...on our neighbours, our trading partners! We have lost our influence in Europe completely....if we lost an aggressive war, then so be it (the victors dictate the terms)....but to do it in an act of wilful, ignorant self harm is an entirely different matter.
But the die is cast. Brexit is Brexit. We are not going to negotiate a favourable deal, so let's have it quickly rather than endure this death by a thousand cuts.....
Maybe in ten years enough old people will have gone on to better things to change the vote.......
Nope - the UK position on the security council is/was completely independent of Europe. In Europe we were largely ignored because of our lack of interest in a Euro army. Our lack of interest was mainly on the grounds that a Euro army would simply be a another layer of generals on top of less and less actual capability...
Jeez..do your not think that Britain (like France and Germany) held some extra weight on the EU? Or that all 27 states were exactly the same.
I tell you discussing anything with Brexit ideologues is like talking to a 5 year old child, or a dog for the sense you get out of them. At least children and dogs are loveable instead of repulsive, repellant, creatures
But, as I have said, Brexit is Brexit,,,,so let's get on with it and see how it goes
I voted remain...
You do not appear to understand that the post war structure was - EEC does the economic bit, NATO does the security bit. Despite the French flounce on NATO (walking away from influence etc), they held the same view as the UK - keep the military stuff with NATO.
Do you see economics or the military as the key vector of political power in today's world?
(As for Ukraine, it was the prospect of NATO membership that was truly destabilising so blaming the EU is a bit rich.)
Economics or military? I will take both - a common mistake is to assume that one transfers into the other.
The point remains - Europe wasn't the essential *security* structure of the post war world in Western Europe. NATO was/is.
Re: cause and effect, I think it's as clear as it could be that Clinton's lead went down by about 2.5% as a result of the first FBI intervention. But I wonder whether that will be reversed by this announcement, as the betting markets seem to expect. I'd expect any boost to be smaller. But as there won't be time for it to show up in the polls now, I suppose we'll never know.
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
What odds will you give on the EU consisting of at least its current constituent members in five years time?* Quite big I'd imagine?
No but if Trump wins New Hampshire it means that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin are all potentially in his column.
I think the odds disparity for the correlation is high enough anyhow.
Of course you can lose both but the chances aren't SOOO high. (Trump will smash into Evens if he wins New Hampshre methinks tbh)
FOP ....
Rinse and repeat ....
And Pennsylvania is the hardest of those for Trump. New Hampshire was 0.2% different from PA last time round, hence the bet on Clinton in New Hampshire.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
The point remains - Europe wasn't the essential *security* structure of the post war world in Western Europe. NATO was/is.
But what made it so important was the fact that West Germany was a member, anchoring it in the West. Without the political project to pool economic sovereignty which predated this, it would have been much harder and it's possible to imagine other ways in which the geopolitical situation could have developed.
Re: cause and effect, I think it's as clear as it could be that Clinton's lead went down by about 2.5% as a result of the first FBI intervention. But I wonder whether that will be reversed by this announcement, as the betting markets seem to expect. I'd expect any boost to be smaller. But as there won't be time for it to show up in the polls now, I suppose we'll never know.
I don't think the FBI thing actually will have the slightest effect one way or the other...Trump was tightening anyhow. His team was making hate with wikileaks....
The only states I am unsure about now are Arizona and Ohio....I think the rest are predicatable...
On BF, 1.20 and 1.21 seem to be the price points of choice for HRC. They have had £5.6m and £4.3m traded respectively. Way more than other points if I have seen it right.
This may well be a miscalculation on my part. One assumption I've made is that Eurofederalism is unlikely to catch on here, but who can know the political tastes two generations hence?
What assumptions are you making about the trends within the UK itself? It's clear that our current constitution is unsustainable. Perhaps if federalism catches on domestically we might start to see the point of the EU.
That's a very interesting argument, thanks. Certainly our domestic political order is up for grabs post-Brexit. Aaron Banks may well have spotted the best value-for-money ever to intervene in the political sphere.
What I hold against it is something that I think also dashes another potential "seeing the point of the EU then wanting to jump back in again" scenario - suppose we end up signing up to various aspects of cooperation until, like Norway, we have thoroughly dipped our feet back into the water. I do reckon if we ever reached that kind of half-in, half-out stage then Britain would be far more likely than Norway has proven to make the leap at some point - our political system is capable of decisive swings in a way their more proportional, coalition-based system is not. Leave "only needed to win once" - until Rejoin manage to win once!
(Incidentally, if Britain were to change its voting system and end up with a political realignment in which there are a series of coalitions of pro- and anti-EU parties, then I suspect like Norway we'd end up frozen over the decision. For various reasons, not least the self-interest of major parties, I think such voting reform is highly unlikely.)
However, absent serious change in the EU, even rejoining from the "half-in" position still means taking a big plunge. Joining the euro. Depending on how far European centralisation has progressed, accepting Brussels or Frankfurt as a capital "above" London, and changing our concept of national identity. "More likely than Norway" may still mean "not very likely at all". I'm similarly unconvinced that a taste of federalism at the British level will persuade the electorate to transfer the centre of federal power overseas. If the EU changes its direction of travel on political union then tempting the electorate seems rather more feasible, but what sign of that? Alternatively, if the EU eventually constructs an associate tier of membership for bordering countries (Norway, Switzerland, Ukraine, in the long-run Turkey or the Caucasus) with lower requirements for integration, that sounds saleable.
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
What odds will you give on the EU consisting of at least its current constituent members in five years time?* Quite big I'd imagine?
*Minus the UK of course.
So iam thinking Italy and Spain will leave the euro within two to three years. Hungary three to five. Trouble is they will still call themselves the EU. I will bet three or more will leave the Euro zone within three years.
Further movement towards Hillary on Sporting tonight with her mid-spread now at 319, 101 ECVs ahead of Trump on 218 - OGH is now well into the money with his spread bet!
These numbers are in sharp contrast with those of 538.com who currently have Hillary winning 292 ECVs, just 46 ahead of Donald on 246.
Of course not in most cases but it will add fuel to the fire of the 'conspiracy' theorists and make the base even more determined to vote, while the fact the FBI has not found anything 'criminal' does not excuse the fact sensitive emails were found on Weiner's server
Given what the FBI have actually found — including the stuff reported in the NY Post today, which I still can't believe — you do have to wonder what it would take to see charges brought.
Indeed and it ensures if Hillary does win a GOP Congress would certainly not be rolling out the welcome mat
Are you going to allocate all the states into Red or Blue Jack? None of this lean one way bollox which is as helpful as chocolate teapot.
Initially I thought I'd allocate Trump states with a rampant todger and Clinton with a "Sun" page 3 mock up - all in the best possible taste don't you know .... but OGH declined.
So .... yes it'll be red and blue - all states allocated.
#VoteHillary @ladygaga 4h4 hours ago Young people listen up. We need to mobilize now, #VoteHillary and stop this dangerous man from continuing to divide and wreck our democracy.
The point remains - Europe wasn't the essential *security* structure of the post war world in Western Europe. NATO was/is.
But what made it so important was the fact that West Germany was a member, anchoring it in the West. Without the political project to pool economic sovereignty which predated this, it would have been much harder and it's possible to imagine other ways in which the geopolitical situation could have developed.
The important membership for West Germany was NATO - "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".
This was a critical fact long before the Coal and Steel pact began to evolve from it's simple beginnings.
Re: cause and effect, I think it's as clear as it could be that Clinton's lead went down by about 2.5% as a result of the first FBI intervention. But I wonder whether that will be reversed by this announcement, as the betting markets seem to expect. I'd expect any boost to be smaller. But as there won't be time for it to show up in the polls now, I suppose we'll never know.
I don't think the FBI thing actually will have the slightest effect one way or the other...Trump was tightening anyhow. His team was making hate with wikileaks....
My inclination is that it won't have much effect, given that a week is a long time in politics and things have moved on.
If this round-the-clock effort was done with the idea of saving Comey's career, I suspect they were wasting their time. ;-)
Thousands of emails reviewed in less than a week. Hmm. A minor boost for Clinton but I doubt it makes virtually any difference, it was still yet another example of her failing to follow proper security procedures and if you disapproved of her email classification measures enough to determine your vote on it, which was probably a small minority anyway, I doubt this changes anything
Comey's brief letter is of the either your signature or your brains variety.
Or of the "We investigated for 10 minutes - nothing to see here" version.
I don't foresee the end of the road for clinton for many a year yet....
Alarm bells always ring when an investigation reports that it "found no evidence".
BW: "That's because you haven't been looking". HA: "And because we haven't shown you".
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
What odds will you give on the EU consisting of at least its current constituent members in five years time?* Quite big I'd imagine?
*Minus the UK of course.
So iam thinking Italy and Spain will leave the euro within two to three years. Hungary three to five. Trouble is they will still call themselves the EU. I will bet three or more will leave the Euro zone within three years.
So we're off 'the EU won't exist in 5 years' schtick.
The point remains - Europe wasn't the essential *security* structure of the post war world in Western Europe. NATO was/is.
But what made it so important was the fact that West Germany was a member, anchoring it in the West. Without the political project to pool economic sovereignty which predated this, it would have been much harder and it's possible to imagine other ways in which the geopolitical situation could have developed.
The important membership for West Germany was NATO - "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".
This was a critical fact long before the Coal and Steel pact began to evolve from it's simple beginnings.
It's beginnings were small-scale but not simple and it was clear from the outset that this was something fundamentally new in European affairs and came several years before West Germany joined NATO.
In retrospect it's easy to underestimate the political balancing act Adenauer had to perform but many things we take for granted were not at all inevitable. With reference to your quote, what interest did the Germans have in being kept down?
@Blue Rog I know we have a permanent seat at the UN..but do you not think in matters of security at the EU, the British held extra weight because of our role with the UN?
It defies logic how we could step away from our neighbours and move to pariah status..it really does. No influence on what they do, no veto, no say..no nothing...on our neighbours, our trading partners! We have lost our influence in Europe completely....if we lost an aggressive war, then so be it (the victors dictate the terms)....but to do it in an act of wilful, ignorant self harm is an entirely different matter.
But the die is cast. Brexit is Brexit. We are not going to negotiate a favourable deal, so let's have it quickly rather than endure this death by a thousand cuts.....
Maybe in ten years enough old people will have gone on to better things to change the vote.......
Nope - the UK position on the security council is/was completely independent of Europe. In Europe we were largely ignored because of our lack of interest in a Euro army. Our lack of interest was mainly on the grounds that a Euro army would simply be a another layer of generals on top of less and less actual capability...
Jeez..do your not think that Britain (like France and Germany) held some extra weight on the EU? Or that all 27 states were exactly the same.
I think we had much less weight than the other states, because we were never committed to the Project.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
I think Hillary is going to win this more easily than generally expected. But like Silver I'm wary of putting too much weight on early voting. In 2010 Labour in my patch got hammered on postal voting (I estimate I lost that category by 2-1, while winning with votes cast on the day). In 2015 we worked really hard at getting postal votes out early. We did - but all that happened is that we got the votes earlier. Because both sides were pretty efficient in getting the vote out, the greater certainty offered by postal voting was modest. In the same way, I wonder if Hillary is getting her vote out early more than getting votes she wouldn't otherwise has had.
The reason I think she'll win anyway is that the Trump campaign seems to have lost focus in the final week in a way that suggests they're no longer a disciplined operation. The last polls are edging it her way, too.
Are you going to allocate all the states into Red or Blue Jack? None of this lean one way bollox which is as helpful as chocolate teapot.
Initially I thought I'd allocate Trump states with a rampant todger and Clinton with a "Sun" page 3 mock up - all in the best possible taste don't you know .... but OGH declined.
So .... yes it'll be red and blue - all states allocated.
One bugger is a cliff hanger ....
Oh you tease....the cliff hanger...OK....I think Ohio or Arizona.....Or Nevada...What about Colorado? or Iowa...Florida maybe....Or, scary thought, Wisconsin or New Hampshire, or even worse Pennsylvania or Michigan. Could be North Carolina. Or at a stretch Georgia or New Mexico?
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
What odds will you give on the EU consisting of at least its current constituent members in five years time?* Quite big I'd imagine?
*Minus the UK of course.
So iam thinking Italy and Spain will leave the euro within two to three years. Hungary three to five. Trouble is they will still call themselves the EU. I will bet three or more will leave the Euro zone within three years.
I heard a rumour Hungary is already using the Forint! I guess you win the bet.
Are you going to allocate all the states into Red or Blue Jack? None of this lean one way bollox which is as helpful as chocolate teapot.
Initially I thought I'd allocate Trump states with a rampant todger and Clinton with a "Sun" page 3 mock up - all in the best possible taste don't you know .... but OGH declined.
So .... yes it'll be red and blue - all states allocated.
One bugger is a cliff hanger ....
Oh you tease....the cliff hanger...OK....I think Ohio or Arizona.....Or Nevada...What about Colorado? or Iowa...Florida maybe....Or, scary thought, Wisconsin or New Hampshire, or even worse Pennsylvania or Michigan. Could be North Carolina. Or at a stretch Georgia or New Mexico?
I think my nose is close to your trail......
I think there's a superfluous "r" in that last word ....
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
I think Hillary is going to win this more easily than generally expected. But like Silver I'm wary of putting too much weight on early voting. In 2010 Labour in my patch got hammered on postal voting (I estimate I lost that category by 2-1, while winning with votes cast on the day). In 2015 we worked really hard at getting postal votes out early. We did - but all that happened is that we got the votes earlier. Because both sides were pretty efficient in getting the vote out, the greater certainty offered by postal voting was modest. In the same way, I wonder if Hillary is getting her vote out early more than getting votes she wouldn't otherwise has had.
The reason I think she'll win anyway is that the Trump campaign seems to have lost focus in the final week in a way that suggests they're no longer a disciplined operation. The last polls are edging it her way, too.
Plus it is not clear that GOP has a serious GOTV like the Dems.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
The thing is, if the early voting indications in Nevada are taken at face value, there will be a Clinton lead there of something like 6% rather than the tiny Trump lead shown by 538.
If the polling averages for Florida and North Carolina were adjusted by even half that amount, Clinton would win those states comfortably. She would even come close in Georgia.Nate Silver has talked in general terms about the possibility of there being a polling error that's peculiar to Nevada, but isn't this quite crucial? If there is an error of that size in Nevada, and if there's anything like a comparable error in Florida and North Carolina, then Trump has lost, hasn't he?
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
What odds will you give on the EU consisting of at least its current constituent members in five years time?* Quite big I'd imagine?
*Minus the UK of course.
So iam thinking Italy and Spain will leave the euro within two to three years. Hungary three to five. Trouble is they will still call themselves the EU. I will bet three or more will leave the Euro zone within three years.
I heard a rumour Hungary is already using the Forint! I guess you win the bet.
#VoteHillary @ladygaga 4h4 hours ago Young people listen up. We need to mobilize now, #VoteHillary and stop this dangerous man from continuing to divide and wreck our democracy.
Whilst I understand wanting to stop Trump, Trump is only a candidate because America is already divided. It's not like everything was just fine and then along came Donald Trump to screw it up.
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
What odds will you give on the EU consisting of at least its current constituent members in five years time?* Quite big I'd imagine?
*Minus the UK of course.
So iam thinking Italy and Spain will leave the euro within two to three years. Hungary three to five. Trouble is they will still call themselves the EU. I will bet three or more will leave the Euro zone within three years.
So we're off 'the EU won't exist in 5 years' schtick.
No thats unfair.
The Holy Roman Empire existed in name ony for centuries after it had effectively ceased to exist.
The EU wil do the same. At the end the Waloons, the Dutch and the Polish will still claimt be the EU. And that will be in 2025.
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
What odds will you give on the EU consisting of at least its current constituent members in five years time?* Quite big I'd imagine?
*Minus the UK of course.
So iam thinking Italy and Spain will leave the euro within two to three years. Hungary three to five. Trouble is they will still call themselves the EU. I will bet three or more will leave the Euro zone within three years.
I heard a rumour Hungary is already using the Forint! I guess you win the bet.
That's the second funniest thing I've read on PB this week.
#VoteHillary @ladygaga 4h4 hours ago Young people listen up. We need to mobilize now, #VoteHillary and stop this dangerous man from continuing to divide and wreck our democracy.
Whilst I understand wanting to stop Trump, Trump is only a candidate because America is already divided. It's not like everything was just fine and then along came Donald Trump to screw it up.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
The thing is, if the early voting indications in Nevada are taken at face value, there will be a Clinton lead there of something like 6% rather than the tiny Trump lead shown by 538.
If the polling averages for Florida and North Carolina were adjusted by even half that amount, Clinton would win those states comfortably. She would even come close in Georgia.Nate Silver has talked in general terms about the possibility of there being a polling error that's peculiar to Nevada, but isn't this quite crucial? If there is an error of that size in Nevada, and if there's anything like a comparable error in Florida and North Carolina, then Trump has lost, hasn't he?
But isn't NV special, in the sense of large latino vote? May apply to FL, but surely not NC?
1. Are the polls systemically weighting correctly? If so, Hillary wins. 2. Will Trump's former non-voters turn out? 3. Has Hillary bagged enough already in early voting? 4. How good a guide to the results are the early voting breakdowns by party alignment? 5. Will Obama's then-new voters from 2008 and 2012 turn out again? 6. What was Trump doing in Minnesota? 7. Can Trump flip states far enough out of place to make up for missing Pennsylvania? 8. Will Trump miss Pennsylvania? 9. Can Hillary pull off a surprise? 10. Utah. What's going on there and how big a spanner can it throw in the works? 11. Will any EC voters go rogue? 12. If so, how? 13. How close does Trump have to get before he doesn't accept the result? 14. OK, I should have gone for a smaller number than twenty. 16. You're not really counting this far are you? 19. Leicester - what's happened to them this year? 20. Will there be another Black Swan before Tuesday night?
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
What odds will you give on the EU consisting of at least its current constituent members in five years time?* Quite big I'd imagine?
*Minus the UK of course.
So iam thinking Italy and Spain will leave the euro within two to three years. Hungary three to five. Trouble is they will still call themselves the EU. I will bet three or more will leave the Euro zone within three years.
So we're off 'the EU won't exist in 5 years' schtick.
No thats unfair.
The Holy Roman Empire existed in name ony for centuries after it had effectively ceased to exist.
The EU wil do the same. At the end the Waloons, the Dutch and the Polish will still claimt be the EU. And that will be in 2025.
'There will be no EU in five years time.'
'Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.'
Your quotes, chief.
It's astounding the number of people on here who shoot their mouths off then find ways to squirm out of backing it up with a bet.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
The thing is, if the early voting indications in Nevada are taken at face value, there will be a Clinton lead there of something like 6% rather than the tiny Trump lead shown by 538.
If the polling averages for Florida and North Carolina were adjusted by even half that amount, Clinton would win those states comfortably. She would even come close in Georgia.Nate Silver has talked in general terms about the possibility of there being a polling error that's peculiar to Nevada, but isn't this quite crucial? If there is an error of that size in Nevada, and if there's anything like a comparable error in Florida and North Carolina, then Trump has lost, hasn't he?
Even in Nevada Hispanics make up only 20% of the population, let alone voters. Almost half of Hispanics are concentrated in California or Texas. High Hispanic turnout is good for Hillary in Colorado, Arizona,Nevada and Florida but the white working class still make up close to 40% of America and are disproportionally concentrated in the Midwest and the swing states there as well as Pennsylvania
#VoteHillary @ladygaga 4h4 hours ago Young people listen up. We need to mobilize now, #VoteHillary and stop this dangerous man from continuing to divide and wreck our democracy.
Whilst I understand wanting to stop Trump, Trump is only a candidate because America is already divided. It's not like everything was just fine and then along came Donald Trump to screw it up.
Hmm. It take your point, but also I'm with Thomas Carlyle. I don't think history is entirely shaped by impersonal forces. However deplorable Trump may be, he is something a lot more than just the product of the political environment.
This latest FBI letter is likely to have no effect on how anyone votes; or if it has an effect, it will persuade more people to vote for Trump, because of the mention of Clinton's name in the media next to words such as "emails", "criminal", "investigation", and "FBI". As any serious advertiser knows, negation doesn't register well with the unconscious. Selling Trump solely on the basis of this letter is unwise.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
The thing is, if the early voting indications in Nevada are taken at face value, there will be a Clinton lead there of something like 6% rather than the tiny Trump lead shown by 538.
If the polling averages for Florida and North Carolina were adjusted by even half that amount, Clinton would win those states comfortably. She would even come close in Georgia.Nate Silver has talked in general terms about the possibility of there being a polling error that's peculiar to Nevada, but isn't this quite crucial? If there is an error of that size in Nevada, and if there's anything like a comparable error in Florida and North Carolina, then Trump has lost, hasn't he?
I think the only sensible action for an American voter is to vote for the candidate with the best running mate.
Then work tirelessly to have the winning candidate impeached, which shouldn't be too hard. With luck you can get the winner to stand aside before inauguration in January.
Comments
Pensions existed before the EU
Democracy existed before the EU
Trump is going to drift out...I spent an hour going through the polls and he should be more like 9/1.....Andy JS he's the man...Kentucky and Indiana on election night.. first to call and big Trump wins....and then bam...
My average bet on her is @ 1.48
Brown and Blair will still be culpable for everything though.
On topic: The email server issue is likely to return after the election. Clinton is not out of the woods yet, it will just have to wait.
You do not appear to understand that the post war structure was - EEC does the economic bit, NATO does the security bit. Despite the French flounce on NATO (walking away from influence etc), they held the same view as the UK - keep the military stuff with NATO.
Inside the EU, the member states largely did their own thing, with on and off pushing and shoving from France and the UK - as the nuclear, expeditionary capable powers.
In fact the attempts inside the EU to move into the security area have arguably been destabilising - see Ukraine etc.
I think the odds disparity for the correlation is high enough anyhow.
Of course you can lose both but the chances aren't SOOO high. (Trump will smash into Evens if he wins New Hampshre methinks tbh)
There will be no EU in five years time.
"I am not a betting man normally" but that seems like very easy money. Want a bet on it?
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia.
I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
(As for Ukraine, it was the prospect of NATO membership that was truly destabilising so blaming the EU is a bit rich.)
I go to bed slightly more optimistic tonight. NV early voting looking very good. Possible huge turnout of latinos in several states. FBI on the retreat. FL too close to call (without which Trump has a mountain to climb).
For comic value - the head of the ICPC (precursor to Interpol) was, in 1940, this blossom -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Heydrich
Next would be Colorado on the 538 model, although you could maybe suggest Pennsylvania or even Michigan (#2 and #3) are more realistic.
daniel a. smith @electionsmith 12m12 minutes ago
Black turnout is sky-rocking in Florida, w "Souls to Polls" still to be counted. 564k blacks have voted EIP. In '12, total 539k voted EIP
Rinse and repeat ....
Anyway @Gettingbetter suggested Clinton @ 1.5 last thread and he is a serious bettor.
If they go blue....
The point remains - Europe wasn't the essential *security* structure of the post war world in Western Europe. NATO was/is.
*Minus the UK of course.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
666 minutes ....
The devil will be in the detail ....
The only states I am unsure about now are Arizona and Ohio....I think the rest are predicatable...
What I hold against it is something that I think also dashes another potential "seeing the point of the EU then wanting to jump back in again" scenario - suppose we end up signing up to various aspects of cooperation until, like Norway, we have thoroughly dipped our feet back into the water. I do reckon if we ever reached that kind of half-in, half-out stage then Britain would be far more likely than Norway has proven to make the leap at some point - our political system is capable of decisive swings in a way their more proportional, coalition-based system is not. Leave "only needed to win once" - until Rejoin manage to win once!
(Incidentally, if Britain were to change its voting system and end up with a political realignment in which there are a series of coalitions of pro- and anti-EU parties, then I suspect like Norway we'd end up frozen over the decision. For various reasons, not least the self-interest of major parties, I think such voting reform is highly unlikely.)
However, absent serious change in the EU, even rejoining from the "half-in" position still means taking a big plunge. Joining the euro. Depending on how far European centralisation has progressed, accepting Brussels or Frankfurt as a capital "above" London, and changing our concept of national identity. "More likely than Norway" may still mean "not very likely at all". I'm similarly unconvinced that a taste of federalism at the British level will persuade the electorate to transfer the centre of federal power overseas. If the EU changes its direction of travel on political union then tempting the electorate seems rather more feasible, but what sign of that? Alternatively, if the EU eventually constructs an associate tier of membership for bordering countries (Norway, Switzerland, Ukraine, in the long-run Turkey or the Caucasus) with lower requirements for integration, that sounds saleable.
I will bet three or more will leave the Euro zone within three years.
These numbers are in sharp contrast with those of 538.com who currently have Hillary winning 292 ECVs, just 46 ahead of Donald on 246.
So .... yes it'll be red and blue - all states allocated.
One bugger is a cliff hanger ....
#VoteHillary @ladygaga 4h4 hours ago
Young people listen up. We need to mobilize now, #VoteHillary and stop this dangerous man from continuing to divide and wreck our democracy.
This was a critical fact long before the Coal and Steel pact began to evolve from it's simple beginnings.
If this round-the-clock effort was done with the idea of saving Comey's career, I suspect they were wasting their time. ;-)
BW: "That's because you haven't been looking".
HA: "And because we haven't shown you".
Do I win both if it's exactly 1%
In retrospect it's easy to underestimate the political balancing act Adenauer had to perform but many things we take for granted were not at all inevitable. With reference to your quote, what interest did the Germans have in being kept down?
The reason I think she'll win anyway is that the Trump campaign seems to have lost focus in the final week in a way that suggests they're no longer a disciplined operation. The last polls are edging it her way, too.
I think my nose is close to your trail......
It appears 'The Good Wife' was a relatively restrained documentary on US politics..
If the polling averages for Florida and North Carolina were adjusted by even half that amount, Clinton would win those states comfortably. She would even come close in Georgia.Nate Silver has talked in general terms about the possibility of there being a polling error that's peculiar to Nevada, but isn't this quite crucial? If there is an error of that size in Nevada, and if there's anything like a comparable error in Florida and North Carolina, then Trump has lost, hasn't he?
GIN - on to more important topics - cold winter coming? Disrupted polar vortex and (weak) La Niña...
The Holy Roman Empire existed in name ony for centuries after it had effectively ceased to exist.
The EU wil do the same. At the end the Waloons, the Dutch and the Polish will still claimt be the EU. And that will be in 2025.
So Rod is no longer an ARSE denier....
1. Are the polls systemically weighting correctly? If so, Hillary wins.
2. Will Trump's former non-voters turn out?
3. Has Hillary bagged enough already in early voting?
4. How good a guide to the results are the early voting breakdowns by party alignment?
5. Will Obama's then-new voters from 2008 and 2012 turn out again?
6. What was Trump doing in Minnesota?
7. Can Trump flip states far enough out of place to make up for missing Pennsylvania?
8. Will Trump miss Pennsylvania?
9. Can Hillary pull off a surprise?
10. Utah. What's going on there and how big a spanner can it throw in the works?
11. Will any EC voters go rogue?
12. If so, how?
13. How close does Trump have to get before he doesn't accept the result?
14. OK, I should have gone for a smaller number than twenty.
16. You're not really counting this far are you?
19. Leicester - what's happened to them this year?
20. Will there be another Black Swan before Tuesday night?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6KwNnbBO1q4dDwC1r0rujdcNByLHpVI1O2WKpzNfV8/edit#gid=0
'Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia.
I am happy to bet but how do we define it.'
Your quotes, chief.
It's astounding the number of people on here who shoot their mouths off then find ways to squirm out of backing it up with a bet.
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/795390021494865920
Then work tirelessly to have the winning candidate impeached, which shouldn't be too hard. With luck you can get the winner to stand aside before inauguration in January.