Over 3.5 million people drive trucks for a living in the US.
I know people who drive delivery vehicles. A key part of their work is delivering - unloading a parcel/pallet and delivering it to the final destination.
Have the driverless vehicles got that part covered, too?
Looks like Trump's first foreign policy decision might be, cruelly and sadly, the right decision, and better than anything Obama did in 8 years of feeble liberal dithering
Not a nice decision, but not a stupid one. A shell-shocked, progressive and very intelligent American physician and professor was telling me after the result how afraid he was that Trump was going to get America blown up. But Clinton's course seemed much more likely to put the US on collision course with Russia, which carried a small but non-zero chance of serious fall-out, over a not particularly important part of the Middle East to boot.
Moreover, Trump going all-out for making America (and North America more generally if he can push the Keystone pipeline through) the world's energy powerhouse might be a strategic masterstroke. It renders much more of the Middle East into "not particularly important" territory, eliminating a major source of global instability. There might still be wars there, but to heck with them - the civil wars in Sri Lanka and Sudan and various other parts of Africa have all been far bloodier than Palestine, the Aceh/Indonesia and Moro/Philippines conflicts have not been very pleasant either, but Western governments have mostly stuck to high-sounding words rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives intervening. Might also limit funds for the export of Islamic extremism. Potentially a big win.
If it keeps oil and gas prices down it puts a lid on Russian resurgence - stops them being able to afford becoming a superpower again. And if Europe becomes less dependent on Russian gas as a result, that's another security plus for the West as a whole.
Obviously from a green point of view there are disadvantages to the scheme. But the world's most powerful nation can clearly afford to indulge in some hypocrisy from time to time - one of the great incentives to seek power in the first place.
Looks like Trump's first foreign policy decision might be, cruelly and sadly, the right decision, and better than anything Obama did in 8 years of feeble liberal dithering
Hear, hear. Also note the 'beautiful' letter from Putin. We might finally get the real end of the Cold War.
As I've said, I'm really not sure why we are antagonising Putin, yet succouring Erdogan. Putin is no threat to a properly armed and defended NATO. He will attack others and expand Russia elsewhere. Let him do it. Because he will attack south.
Our mortal cultural enemy, within and without, is revolutionary Islamism. It needs to be purged from western societies and corralled in the theocratic toilets of the Middle East until its fervour has died.
For that to happen, tyrannical but secular strongmen in the Mid East are a good thing, in the short to medium term. For us. And for the world. And probably for most people (especially women) in the Middle East.
Looks like Trump's first foreign policy decision might be, cruelly and sadly, the right decision, and better than anything Obama did in 8 years of feeble liberal dithering
Hear, hear. Also note the 'beautiful' letter from Putin. We might finally get the real end of the Cold War.
As I've said, I'm really not sure why we are antagonising Putin, yet succouring Erdogan. Putin is no threat to a properly armed and defended NATO. He will attack others and expand Russia elsewhere. Let him do it. Because he will attack south.
Our mortal cultural enemy, within and without, is revolutionary Islamism. It needs to be purged from western societies and corralled in the theocratic toilets of the Middle East until its fervour has died.
For that to happen, tyrannical but secular strongmen in the Mid East are a good thing, in the short to medium term. For us. And for the world. And probably for most people (especially women) in the Middle East.
Looks like Trump's first foreign policy decision might be, cruelly and sadly, the right decision, and better than anything Obama did in 8 years of feeble liberal dithering
Hear, hear. Also note the 'beautiful' letter from Putin. We might finally get the real end of the Cold War.
As I've said, I'm really not sure why we are antagonising Putin, yet succouring Erdogan. Putin is no threat to a properly armed and defended NATO. He will attack others and expand Russia elsewhere. Let him do it. Because he will attack south.
Our mortal cultural enemy, within and without, is revolutionary Islamism. It needs to be purged from western societies and corralled in the theocratic toilets of the Middle East until its fervour has died.
For that to happen, tyrannical but secular strongmen in the Mid East are a good thing, in the short to medium term. For us. And for the world. And probably for most people (especially women) in the Middle East.
Er....what did Saddam do wrong ?
Another Tony f***up
From a straight anti-revolutionay Islamist position, removing Saddam was about the worst thing one could do. His 'religion' was him! In a sense, the problem was not Saddam himself but the fact of his psychopathic sons and heirs.
Looks like Trump's first foreign policy decision might be, cruelly and sadly, the right decision, and better than anything Obama did in 8 years of feeble liberal dithering
Not a nice decision, but not a stupid one. A shell-shocked, progressive and very intelligent American physician and professor was telling me after the result how afraid he was that Trump was going to get America blown up. But Clinton's course seemed much more likely to put the US on collision course with Russia, which carried a small but non-zero chance of serious fall-out, over a not particularly important part of the Middle East to boot.
Moreover, Trump going all-out for making America (and North America more generally if he can push the Keystone pipeline through) the world's energy powerhouse might be a strategic masterstroke. It renders much more of the Middle East into "not particularly important" territory, eliminating a major source of global instability. There might still be wars there, but to heck with them - the civil wars in Sri Lanka and Sudan and various other parts of Africa have all been far bloodier than Palestine, the Aceh/Indonesia and Moro/Philippines conflicts have not been very pleasant either, but Western governments have mostly stuck to high-sounding words rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives intervening. Might also limit funds for the export of Islamic extremism. Potentially a big win.
If it keeps oil and gas prices down it puts a lid on Russian resurgence - stops them being able to afford becoming a superpower again. And if Europe becomes less dependent on Russian gas as a result, that's another security plus for the West as a whole.
Obviously from a green point of view there are disadvantages to the scheme. But the world's most powerful nation can clearly afford to indulge in some hypocrisy from time to time - one of the great incentives to seek power in the first place.
The thing is it's not really obvious anyone else had a plan that got you to any other outcome. I mean, Hillary would have made him hold elections and let him rig them, but what's the practical difference?
Mr Trump told the Journal it was his hour-and-a-half meeting with Mr Obama that had made him reconsider his calls for an all-out repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
Mr Trump told the Journal it was his hour-and-a-half meeting with Mr Obama that had made him reconsider his calls for an all-out repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
Mr Trump told the Journal it was his hour-and-a-half meeting with Mr Obama that had made him reconsider his calls for an all-out repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
Could fixing Obamacare allow him to expand his base and capture more working class votes? Theresa May style populism, turning the left into a protest group. I'm not sure how he'd get any improvements through Congress though, even if he went so far as to include provisions in the legislation to deport any illegal immigrants found to be using hospitals.
Mr Trump told the Journal it was his hour-and-a-half meeting with Mr Obama that had made him reconsider his calls for an all-out repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
Could fixing Obamacare allow him to expand his base and capture more working class votes? Theresa May style populism, turning the left into a protest group. I'm not sure how he'd get any improvements through Congress though, even if he went so far as to include provisions in the legislation to deport any illegal immigrants found to be using hospitals.
I don't know if fixing it will expand his support but blowing it up would contract it.
The populist move would be to ditch the wonkish free-market clevers like the exchanges and just expand Medicare and Medicaid. Also I think he said he'll liberalize pharmaceticals so his voters won't have to buy them from Canada via companies that sent them spam. There's a lot of room to cut drug prices. It's low-hanging fruit that Obama left there to honour the deal he made with drug companies to get them to let ObamaCare through.
I wonder whether Trump is being conciliatory on Obamacare and pressing charges against Hillary because he knows he's on course to lose the popular vote by quite a heavy margin? He's now on 47.16% which is lower than the 47.20% which Romney polled in 2012.
I wonder whether Trump is being conciliatory on Obamacare and pressing charges against Hillary because he knows he's on course to lose the popular vote by quite a heavy margin? He's now on 47.16% which is lower than the 47.20% which Romney polled in 2012.
People always talked about US hegemony declining and being replaced by China. It was always a kind-of academic, futuristic kind of thing. But this is it.
I wonder whether Trump is being conciliatory on Obamacare and pressing charges against Hillary because he knows he's on course to lose the popular vote by quite a heavy margin? He's now on 47.16% which is lower than the 47.20% which Romney polled in 2012.
I suspect it would have happened regardless.
I don't think he cares about the popular vote. He's won the EC. He's going to be POTUS. For the moment anyway, he's going to do what suits him. I do wonder, though, if he's one of those 'decision makers' whose decision is in line with opinion of the last person to whom he talked.
It was May who delayed A50 invitation to " early in the new year " then let things slip further at conference by saying " by the end of March. ". The judiciary has acvmdated this s entirely by allowing a leapfrogging order and clearing Supreme Court diaries. It doesn't take very long a all to rush through a short A50 Act. The fact is the court case suits May perfectly. #1 It makes it look like men in whigs are delaying things not her. #2 It fires up the Brevity base which she's appropriated. #3 It fills the gap she's created.
I'm not criticizing May for delaying A50. If only it could be delayed longer for better planning and to get the French/German elections out of the way. Nor can I blame her for playing to the Gallery. She's a politician. But broadly the A50 case doesn't delay notification any longer than May already had.
An excellent piece by the handsome and erudite @Alistairmeeks It suits up why a non lawyer I donated to the Crowdfunding of an interested party in this case. ( Which has raised £320k + to date ) It's about the Crown Pereogative. As a liberal I'm obsessed by checks and balances on power. The government has for short term political purposes put a chunk of what's left of the Crown Prerogative on the chopping block. If we lose the case nothing changes. If we win it's another step in the long war since Magna Carta to limit the executives arbitrary power in this land and make it subject to the people's assembly. I read the full judgement from the High Court. As a non specialist liberal geek it made me cream my pants.
As for why the government is being so superficially stupid apart from my first post @RichardNabavi answer the main reason well. Parliament can't decide what Brevity means because what Brexit means will be decided by 28 governments not just ours. Every Red Line Parliament adds to the A50 bill just makes the negotiations even more fiendishly complex and like to collapse.
The thing is if you really want democratic control of this via binary referendum then the options were Remain vs Hard and Total Brexit. Both of those can be described and delivered unilaterally. As soon as you want anything between those too options to lose control to complex and lengthy negotiations.
The government is rightly terrified of what the mob will do when it realises the referendum it's self was a lie not just the campaign's.
Mr Trump told the Journal it was his hour-and-a-half meeting with Mr Obama that had made him reconsider his calls for an all-out repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
In socio-economic terms Trump's base has a different slant to a traditional republican president (and is likely to be less easily bought off with the religious-conservative stuff than before), and Obama will know who the beneficiaries of Obamacare are - more Miliband's squeezed middle than the people right at the bottom.
The differences between Trump's agenda and the mainstream republicans are going to make for an interesting story.
On topic - a superb article. One of the best ever on here. Not having scrolled, though, I suspect the usual suspects will not have understood it or are wilfully misrepresenting it.
Shortened version: Theresa May's government - mediocre to its core, at best - does not know what it's doing.
People always talked about US hegemony declining and being replaced by China. It was always a kind-of academic, futuristic kind of thing. But this is it.
Yep - and Brexit means the UK will have to choose a side.
Looks like Trump's first foreign policy decision might be, cruelly and sadly, the right decision, and better than anything Obama did in 8 years of feeble liberal dithering
Hear, hear. Also note the 'beautiful' letter from Putin. We might finally get the real end of the Cold War.
As I've said, I'm really not sure why we are antagonising Putin, yet succouring Erdogan. Putin is no threat to a properly armed and defended NATO. He will attack others and expand Russia elsewhere. Let him do it. Because he will attack south.
Our mortal cultural enemy, within and without, is revolutionary Islamism. It needs to be purged from western societies and corralled in the theocratic toilets of the Middle East until its fervour has died.
For that to happen, tyrannical but secular strongmen in the Mid East are a good thing, in the short to medium term. For us. And for the world. And probably for most people (especially women) in the Middle East.
If Trump hadn't talked about pulling out of NATO that would make sense.
On topic - a superb article. One of the best ever on here. Not having scrolled, though, I suspect the usual suspects will not have understood it or are wilfully misrepresenting it.
Shortened version: Theresa May's government - mediocre to its core, at best - does not know what it's doing.
They cannot agree amongst themselves about hard vs soft Brexit, so cannot start negotiations.
On topic - a superb article. One of the best ever on here. Not having scrolled, though, I suspect the usual suspects will not have understood it or are wilfully misrepresenting it.
Shortened version: Theresa May's government - mediocre to its core, at best - does not know what it's doing.
The list of Trump's potential key allies and advisors being floated around also looks mediocre. Mediocrity is the order of the day, 'elite' leaders like Cameron and Clinton not having come out of recent events so well.
The judiciary are not our Gods. The government has no obligation to chastise the Press on their behalf.
Some sections of the legal profession have a ludicrously exaggerated opinion of their own righteousness.
Agreed. Fuck the lawyers. Who do they think they are?
The idea Baron "European Law Institute" Thomas was some saintly neutral observer on Brexit was just ludicrous.
People like him - and Meeks - should be ritually flailed with hideously bent cucumbers, then sealed in a Burton beer barrel and sent rolling down the Thames, in the "general direction" of Europe, which they seem to love so much.
More and more the right is the left. It's fascinating to see.
Looks like Trump's first foreign policy decision might be, cruelly and sadly, the right decision, and better than anything Obama did in 8 years of feeble liberal dithering
Hear, hear. Also note the 'beautiful' letter from Putin. We might finally get the real end of the Cold War.
As I've said, I'm really not sure why we are antagonising Putin, yet succouring Erdogan. Putin is no threat to a properly armed and defended NATO. He will attack others and expand Russia elsewhere. Let him do it. Because he will attack south.
Our mortal cultural enemy, within and without, is revolutionary Islamism. It needs to be purged from western societies and corralled in the theocratic toilets of the Middle East until its fervour has died.
For that to happen, tyrannical but secular strongmen in the Mid East are a good thing, in the short to medium term. For us. And for the world. And probably for most people (especially women) in the Middle East.
If Trump hadn't talked about pulling out of NATO that would make sense.
But he won't. In 24 hours we already have not abolishing Obamacare as a U-turn, and we are clearly not going to get a huge new wall in the sense that he proposed it. When you are in charge of a large organisation with complicated internal mechanics facing a wide array of equally complicated external challenges, the only way to succeed is to focus all your energies and capital on two or three key things and pursue them relentlessly until they are done. Everything else then becomes part of business as usual and will go wherever it would have gone anyway. If you don't focus in this way, then you're just flailing around and actually nothing changes (from where the 'machine' would have let it go anyway).
The question therefore is what the two or three things he really wants to achieve are going to be. The domestic infrastructure programme is clearly going to be one.
They are the most open and rational of all about their strategy. They would not vote for a second referendum. They virtually alone in the Commons opposed the first one!
They will not vote for article 50. Why should they? Every single one of their constituencies voted remain as did the country they represent decisively.
Their First Minister has laid out their terms clearly - single market for Scotland, equal treatment for Europeans in Scotland and no removal of rights of workers and citizens currently guaranteed by European laws.
"That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Scottish National Party."
No it is just stating what their position is. You can be confident that they will not take instruction from Tim Farron.
The judiciary are not our Gods. The government has no obligation to chastise the Press on their behalf.
Some sections of the legal profession have a ludicrously exaggerated opinion of their own righteousness.
Agreed. Fuck the lawyers. Who do they think they are?
The idea Baron "European Law Institute" Thomas was some saintly neutral observer on Brexit was just ludicrous.
People like him - and Meeks - should be ritually flailed with hideously bent cucumbers, then sealed in a Burton beer barrel and sent rolling down the Thames, in the "general direction" of Europe, which they seem to love so much.
More and more the right is the left. It's fascinating to see.
A long journey east and a long journey west have the same destination.
I don't know, it's an incredibly strange fig leaf. Who does it appeal to?
I think we have to seriously consider the possibility that Trump just hadn't thought it through.
Nah - the GOP policy has always been to repeal Obamacare and to replace it with something else. It isn't possible just to have *nothing*
So all he's saying is "I'll keep the popular bits and get rid of the bits voters don't like". He's saying it in a direct fashion, so the media is getting all excited because they think in spin and u-turns.
Trump's voters will hear "I'm going to get rid of Obamacare, but don't worry you'll still have pre-existing conditions/children covered". They will like that.
Whether it is a possible/affordable is another question.
Looks like Trump's first foreign policy decision might be, cruelly and sadly, the right decision, and better than anything Obama did in 8 years of feeble liberal dithering
Hear, hear. Also note the 'beautiful' letter from Putin. We might finally get the real end of the Cold War.
As I've said, I'm really not sure why we are antagonising Putin, yet succouring Erdogan. Putin is no threat to a properly armed and defended NATO. He will attack others and expand Russia elsewhere. Let him do it. Because he will attack south.
Our mortal cultural enemy, within and without, is revolutionary Islamism. It needs to be purged from western societies and corralled in the theocratic toilets of the Middle East until its fervour has died.
For that to happen, tyrannical but secular strongmen in the Mid East are a good thing, in the short to medium term. For us. And for the world. And probably for most people (especially women) in the Middle East.
If Trump hadn't talked about pulling out of NATO that would make sense.
But he won't. In 24 hours we already have not abolishing Obamacare as a U-turn, and we are clearly not going to get a huge new wall in the sense that he proposed it. When you are in charge of a large organisation with complicated internal mechanics facing a wide array of equally complicated external challenges, the only way to succeed is to focus all your energies and capital on two or three key things and pursue them relentlessly until they are done. Everything else then becomes part of business as usual and will go wherever it would have gone anyway. If you don't focus in this way, then you're just flailing around and actually nothing changes (from where the 'machine' would have let it go anyway).
The question therefore is what the two or three things he really wants to achieve are going to be. The domestic infrastructure programme is clearly going to be one.
I am increasingly of the view that his main reason for running was to stymie legal actions - actual and future. In other words, he is Berlusconi.
Infrastructure spending is his one good idea. And it's one that is least likely to get past Congress.
According to Nate Silver, Hillary Clinton actually out-performed the opinion polls in a lot of states. Unfortunately for her they were states like California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Massachusetts, Oregon, New Jersey. Might explain why she's heading for a popular vote win.
According to Nate Silver, Hillary Clinton actually out-performed the opinion polls in a lot of states. Unfortunately for her they were states like California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Massachusetts, Oregon, New Jersey. Might explain why she's heading for a popular vote win.
Turns out the despised liberal elite candidate was more popular among Americans than the right wing, billionaire populist. It does put things into context.
Looks like Trump's first foreign policy decision might be, cruelly and sadly, the right decision, and better than anything Obama did in 8 years of feeble liberal dithering
Hear, hear. Also note the 'beautiful' letter from Putin. We might finally get the real end of the Cold War.
As I've said, I'm really not sure why we are antagonising Putin, yet succouring Erdogan. Putin is no threat to a properly armed and defended NATO. He will attack others and expand Russia elsewhere. Let him do it. Because he will attack south.
Our mortal cultural enemy, within and without, is revolutionary Islamism. It needs to be purged from western societies and corralled in the theocratic toilets of the Middle East until its fervour has died.
For that to happen, tyrannical but secular strongmen in the Mid East are a good thing, in the short to medium term. For us. And for the world. And probably for most people (especially women) in the Middle East.
If Trump hadn't talked about pulling out of NATO that would make sense.
But he won't. In 24 hours we already have not abolishing Obamacare as a U-turn, and we are clearly not going to get a huge new wall in the sense that he proposed it. When you are in charge of a large organisation with complicated internal mechanics facing a wide array of equally complicated external challenges, the only way to succeed is to focus all your energies and capital on two or three key things and pursue them relentlessly until they are done. Everything else then becomes part of business as usual and will go wherever it would have gone anyway. If you don't focus in this way, then you're just flailing around and actually nothing changes (from where the 'machine' would have let it go anyway).
The question therefore is what the two or three things he really wants to achieve are going to be. The domestic infrastructure programme is clearly going to be one.
I am increasingly of the view that his main reason for running was to stymie legal actions - actual and future. In other words, he is Berlusconi.
Infrastructure spending is his one good idea. And it's one that is least likely to get past Congress.
Berlusconi is probably the nearest comparison, for sure, and offers some clues as to what we may get, both good and bad.
On topic - a superb article. One of the best ever on here. Not having scrolled, though, I suspect the usual suspects will not have understood it or are wilfully misrepresenting it.
Shortened version: Theresa May's government - mediocre to its core, at best - does not know what it's doing.
Impression is of a government playing for time. But, there is a relevant point about needing to build up capacity within the civil service to enter in to such a negotiation process. That point should not be overlooked.
The longer this meanders in to the long grass the more problems there are. The people did vote for instant brexit, triggering article 50 on June 24, so in a democratic sense all this is betrayal of the result. That is what people are so understandably angry about.
Grim as it is for us remainers, the result has to be implemented and soon. There has to be a direct correlation between the referendum result and the process of leaving the EU. I don't think there is any meaningful 'soft brexit' option either. We are either in or out.
Its amazing. The 25% or so of people who were politically maligned for years for being obsessed about the EU have basically won and taken over the country. The dynamics of this situation are such that if you voted leave in the hope of a liberal/EEA type solution, i'm afraid to say that you've been totally and completely played. We're leaving, our relationship with the continent is going to change forever, and in the short term at least its going to be brutal.
On topic - a superb article. One of the best ever on here. Not having scrolled, though, I suspect the usual suspects will not have understood it or are wilfully misrepresenting it.
Shortened version: Theresa May's government - mediocre to its core, at best - does not know what it's doing.
Impression is of a government playing for time. But, there is a relevant point about needing to build up capacity within the civil service to enter in to such a negotiation process. That point should not be overlooked.
The longer this meanders in to the long grass the more problems there are. The people did vote for instant brexit, triggering article 50 on June 24, so in a democratic sense all this is betrayal of the result. That is what people are so understandably angry about.
Grim as it is for us remainers, the result has to be implemented and soon. There has to be a direct correlation between the referendum result and the process of leaving the EU. I don't think there is any meaningful 'soft brexit' option either. We are either in or out.
Its amazing. The 25% or so of people who were politically maligned for years for being obsessed about the EU have basically won and taken over the country. The dynamics of this situation are such that if you voted leave in the hope of a liberal/EEA type solution, i'm afraid to say that you've been totally and completely played. We're leaving, our relationship with the continent is going to change forever, and in the short term at least its going to be brutal.
Brexit clearly has to happen. But it also has to happen constitutionally. That Cameron lied to voters is no great surprise. But he definitely left a huge mess.
There are lots of cultural and geo-political concerns arising from both Trump and Brexit, but underneath everything is the global economy.
In 2007/8 it became clear that the western economies had overreached themselves and were dangerously reliant upon debt. Everyone looked at Japan, which had gone beyond the point of no return, and was only keeping the plates spinning with creative financial manipulation of a type that had been tried before.
To avoid ending like Japan, the post-2008 strategy was supposed to be to use ZIRP & QE temporarily to stave off collapse, whilst focusing on getting public and personal finances back into some kind of balance.
Eight years later and the temporary measures show little signs of going away; meanwhile everyone has had enough of the hard graft of austerity. Just as Brexit has holed the so-called 'long-term economic plan' beneath the waterline, Trump is committed to spend on infrastructure, cut taxes for the rich and provide extra support for the poor. Like Reagan and Bush he is going to be another republican who borrows and spends. In the rest of Europe too, the mood is swinging away from austerity.
Which leaves us returning to Keynesian stimulus (noting in passing that Keynes's theory has two parts with over-spending supposed to be offset/repaid by cutting back in the good times), which might work if there was prospect of strong economic growth, in the past often fuelled by cheap imports from colonies and the third world. The likelihood of the modern world entering a strong new growth phase however appears remote, particularly with the drag being carried from the perilous state of the financial system.
It is easy to map out some sort of doom scenario; meanwhile experience suggests we can muddle along and patch things over for much longer than many people think. But i find it hard to see a happy ending?
On topic - a superb article. One of the best ever on here. Not having scrolled, though, I suspect the usual suspects will not have understood it or are wilfully misrepresenting it.
Shortened version: Theresa May's government - mediocre to its core, at best - does not know what it's doing.
Impression is of a government playing for time. But, there is a relevant point about needing to build up capacity within the civil service to enter in to such a negotiation process. That point should not be overlooked.
The longer this meanders in to the long grass the more problems there are. The people did vote for instant brexit, triggering article 50 on June 24, so in a democratic sense all this is betrayal of the result. That is what people are so understandably angry about.
Grim as it is for us remainers, the result has to be implemented and soon. There has to be a direct correlation between the referendum result and the process of leaving the EU. I don't think there is any meaningful 'soft brexit' option either. We are either in or out.
Its amazing. The 25% or so of people who were politically maligned for years for being obsessed about the EU have basically won and taken over the country. The dynamics of this situation are such that if you voted leave in the hope of a liberal/EEA type solution, i'm afraid to say that you've been totally and completely played. We're leaving, our relationship with the continent is going to change forever, and in the short term at least its going to be brutal.
Brexit clearly has to happen. But it also has to happen constitutionally. That Cameron lied to voters is no great surprise. But he definitely left a huge mess.
Agree, but the motivations for pursuing this legal process are undoubtedly with the intention of reversing or caveating the result. Like many on here I don't see why May and co don't just put a bill before parliament. It will pass based on 90% of tories and a clear majority of labour MP's.
Cameron has not only bequeathed a preventable disaster in terms of the referendum result, he has in all probability created the conditions for the break up of the UK. His domestic policy was a divisive shambles and the only actual achievement was the gay marriage and possibly the 2012 Olympics. In fairness to him though, in reality he was simply plugging a very leaky dam following the financial crash and agreement of previous governments to the expansion of the EU with ulimited immigration, which was bound to come apart at some point.
There are lots of cultural and geo-political concerns arising from both Trump and Brexit, but underneath everything is the global economy.
In 2007/8 it became clear that the western economies had overreached themselves and were dangerously reliant upon debt. Everyone looked at Japan, which had gone beyond the point of no return, and was only keeping the plates spinning with creative financial manipulation of a type that had been tried before.
To avoid ending like Japan, the post-2008 strategy was supposed to be to use ZIRP & QE temporarily to stave off collapse, whilst focusing on getting public and personal finances back into some kind of balance.
Eight years later and the temporary measures show little signs of going away; meanwhile everyone has had enough of the hard graft of austerity. Just as Brexit has holed the so-called 'long-term economic plan' beneath the waterline, Trump is committed to spend on infrastructure, cut taxes for the rich and provide extra support for the poor. Like Reagan and Bush he is going to be another republican who borrows and spends. In the rest of Europe too, the mood is swinging away from austerity.
Which leaves us returning to Keynesian stimulus (noting in passing that Keynes's theory has two parts with over-spending supposed to be offset/repaid by cutting back in the good times), which might work if there was prospect of strong economic growth, in the past often fuelled by cheap imports from colonies and the third world. The likelihood of the modern world entering a strong new growth phase however appears remote, particularly with the drag being carried from the perilous state of the financial system.
It is easy to map out some sort of doom scenario; meanwhile experience suggests we can muddle along and patch things over for much longer than many people think. But i find it hard to see a happy ending?
Something will give it some point. There is immense wealth in this world - both at a corporate and individual level - but it is held offshore and so doing nothing to help any but a tiny minority. Either that tiny minority begins to understand such a situation is not sustainable, or others make the decision for them.
I see SeanT misses the point that his favourite international figures, secular Middle Eastern Strongmen, create the conditions for Militant Islamism to grow.
Berlusconi is probably the nearest comparison, for sure, and offers some clues as to what we may get, both good and bad.
Yes, Berlusconi indeed. American political structure is different though. States have a lot of financial power and political influence, President is less influential in many ways. But he will get his views across because Trump has tapped into media very successful, where Silvio used his media empire to get others to do the talking for him. Under Berlusconi, Italy tanked. USA is in a better position that a moribund Italy, stymied by the EU led by a charismatic but selfish charlatan.
According to Nate Silver, Hillary Clinton actually out-performed the opinion polls in a lot of states. Unfortunately for her they were states like California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Massachusetts, Oregon, New Jersey. Might explain why she's heading for a popular vote win.
Sounds like Corbyn in his strongholds. A broader message is required to win, which makes you slightly less loved, but ultimately more votes.
There are lots of cultural and geo-political concerns arising from both Trump and Brexit, but underneath everything is the global economy.
In 2007/8 it became clear that the western economies had overreached themselves and were dangerously reliant upon debt. Everyone looked at Japan, which had gone beyond the point of no return, and was only keeping the plates spinning with creative financial manipulation of a type that had been tried before.
To avoid ending like Japan, the post-2008 strategy was supposed to be to use ZIRP & QE temporarily to stave off collapse, whilst focusing on getting public and personal finances back into some kind of balance.
Eight years later and the temporary measures show little signs of going away; meanwhile everyone has had enough of the hard graft of austerity. Just as Brexit has holed the so-called 'long-term economic plan' beneath the waterline, Trump is committed to spend on infrastructure, cut taxes for the rich and provide extra support for the poor. Like Reagan and Bush he is going to be another republican who borrows and spends. In the rest of Europe too, the mood is swinging away from austerity.
Which leaves us returning to Keynesian stimulus (noting in passing that Keynes's theory has two parts with over-spending supposed to be offset/repaid by cutting back in the good times), which might work if there was prospect of strong economic growth, in the past often fuelled by cheap imports from colonies and the third world. The likelihood of the modern world entering a strong new growth phase however appears remote, particularly with the drag being carried from the perilous state of the financial system.
It is easy to map out some sort of doom scenario; meanwhile experience suggests we can muddle along and patch things over for much longer than many people think. But i find it hard to see a happy ending?
Something will give it some point. There is immense wealth in this world - both at a corporate and individual level - but it is held offshore and so doing nothing to help any but a tiny minority. Either that tiny minority begins to understand such a situation is not sustainable, or others make the decision for them.
That is exactly why I am happy that I am not rich, nor a servant of the super rich. I'd be paralysed with fear over the historical vulnerability of my position.
Mr Trump told the Journal it was his hour-and-a-half meeting with Mr Obama that had made him reconsider his calls for an all-out repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
Could fixing Obamacare allow him to expand his base and capture more working class votes? Theresa May style populism, turning the left into a protest group. I'm not sure how he'd get any improvements through Congress though, even if he went so far as to include provisions in the legislation to deport any illegal immigrants found to be using hospitals.
I don't know if fixing it will expand his support but blowing it up would contract it.
The populist move would be to ditch the wonkish free-market clevers like the exchanges and just expand Medicare and Medicaid. Also I think he said he'll liberalize pharmaceticals so his voters won't have to buy them from Canada via companies that sent them spam. There's a lot of room to cut drug prices. It's low-hanging fruit that Obama left there to honour the deal he made with drug companies to get them to let ObamaCare through.
Expanding Medicaid and Medicare has no chance of getting through congress.
As far as I can see trump hasn't changed what he is saying on obamacare at all. Republican policy has always been to keep the good bits and get rid of the bad bits... They are pro having cake and pro eating it.
I see SeanT misses the point that his favourite international figures, secular Middle Eastern Strongmen, create the conditions for Militant Islamism to grow.
That, plus misguided western intervention.
Seeing Iran very slowly become more moderate, as these factors recede and a new generation starts to acquire influence, is one of the few positive trends in the Middle East.
But it is a slow and gradual process; meanwhile there is no evidence that any sort of Middle way between strongman and Islamism is sufficiently robust to withstand being pulled one way or the other (or, worst of all, an Islamic strongman - fear for Turkey). Cameron's imaginary army of 70,000 well armed moderates was one of the most pitiful instances of British foreign policy.
Reluctantly I think Trump is being realisitic; in the short term it really is a devil or blue sea choice; pretending a middle way that doesn't (yet) exist doesn't help anyone.
On topic - a superb article. One of the best ever on here. Not having scrolled, though, I suspect the usual suspects will not have understood it or are wilfully misrepresenting it.
Shortened version: Theresa May's government - mediocre to its core, at best - does not know what it's doing.
Impression is of a government playing for time. But, there is a relevant point about needing to build up capacity within the civil service to enter in to such a negotiation process. That point should not be overlooked.
The longer this meanders in to the long grass the more problems there are. The people did vote for instant brexit, triggering article 50 on June 24, so in a democratic sense all this is betrayal of the result. That is what people are so understandably angry about.
Grim as it is for us remainers, the result has to be implemented and soon. There has to be a direct correlation between the referendum result and the process of leaving the EU. I don't think there is any meaningful 'soft brexit' option either. We are either in or out.
Its amazing. The 25% or so of people who were politically maligned for years for being obsessed about the EU have basically won and taken over the country. The dynamics of this situation are such that if you voted leave in the hope of a liberal/EEA type solution, i'm afraid to say that you've been totally and completely played. We're leaving, our relationship with the continent is going to change forever, and in the short term at least its going to be brutal.
Brexit clearly has to happen. But it also has to happen constitutionally. That Cameron lied to voters is no great surprise. But he definitely left a huge mess.
Agree, but the motivations for pursuing this legal process are undoubtedly with the intention of reversing or caveating the result. Like many on here I don't see why May and co don't just put a bill before parliament. It will pass based on 90% of tories and a clear majority of labour MP's.
Cameron has not only bequeathed a preventable disaster in terms of the referendum result, he has in all probability created the conditions for the break up of the UK. His domestic policy was a divisive shambles and the only actual achievement was the gay marriage and possibly the 2012 Olympics. In fairness to him though, in reality he was simply plugging a very leaky dam following the financial crash and agreement of previous governments to the expansion of the EU with ulimited immigration, which was bound to come apart at some point.
Cameron was an appalling Prime Minister. Not sure the Olympics had much to do with him.
I see SeanT misses the point that his favourite international figures, secular Middle Eastern Strongmen, create the conditions for Militant Islamism to grow.
How anyone on here can seriously endorse Assad, Putin or Trump is beyond me. They are not absolutely good or evil, they exist somewhere on a scale between the two. Any dealings with them have to be based on caution, pragmatism and self interest.
Mr Trump told the Journal it was his hour-and-a-half meeting with Mr Obama that had made him reconsider his calls for an all-out repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
Could fixing Obamacare allow him to expand his base and capture more working class votes? Theresa May style populism, turning the left into a protest group. I'm not sure how he'd get any improvements through Congress though, even if he went so far as to include provisions in the legislation to deport any illegal immigrants found to be using hospitals.
I don't know if fixing it will expand his support but blowing it up would contract it.
The populist move would be to ditch the wonkish free-market clevers like the exchanges and just expand Medicare and Medicaid. Also I think he said he'll liberalize pharmaceticals so his voters won't have to buy them from Canada via companies that sent them spam. There's a lot of room to cut drug prices. It's low-hanging fruit that Obama left there to honour the deal he made with drug companies to get them to let ObamaCare through.
Expanding Medicaid and Medicare has no chance of getting through congress.
As far as I can see trump hasn't changed what he is saying on obamacare at all. Republican policy has always been to keep the good bits and get rid of the bad bits... They are pro having cake and pro eating it.
The rising pharma share prices suggest no one is anticipating cheaper drugs
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
If govt wins the case based on the revocable nature of an article 50 notification (reliant on Vienna Convention principles and confirmed by the ECJ) then the EU will make sure that the worst deal possible for both sides is all that can be reached, ensuring a second referendum or the potential for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
There are lots of cultural and geo-political concerns arising from both Trump and Brexit, but underneath everything is the global economy.
In 2007/8 it became clear that the western economies had overreached themselves and were dangerously reliant upon debt. Everyone looked at Japan, which had gone beyond the point of no return, and was only keeping the plates spinning with creative financial manipulation of a type that had been tried before.
To avoid ending like Japan, the post-2008 strategy was supposed to be to use ZIRP & QE temporarily to stave off collapse, whilst focusing on getting public and personal finances back into some kind of balance.
Eight years later and the temporary measures show little signs of going away; meanwhile everyone has had enough of the hard graft of austerity. Just as Brexit has holed the so-called 'long-term economic plan' beneath the waterline, Trump is committed to spend on infrastructure, cut taxes for the rich and provide extra support for the poor. Like Reagan and Bush he is going to be another republican who borrows and spends. In the rest of Europe too, the mood is swinging away from austerity.
Which leaves us returning to Keynesian stimulus (noting in passing that Keynes's theory has two parts with over-spending supposed to be offset/repaid by cutting back in the good times), which might work if there was prospect of strong economic growth, in the past often fuelled by cheap imports from colonies and the third world. The likelihood of the modern world entering a strong new growth phase however appears remote, particularly with the drag being carried from the perilous state of the financial system.
It is easy to map out some sort of doom scenario; meanwhile experience suggests we can muddle along and patch things over for much longer than many people think. But i find it hard to see a happy ending?
Something will give it some point. There is immense wealth in this world - both at a corporate and individual level - but it is held offshore and so doing nothing to help any but a tiny minority. Either that tiny minority begins to understand such a situation is not sustainable, or others make the decision for them.
I'm not sure there is vast wealth offshore... That to me sounds like the export paradox where the world as a whole exports 10-20% more than it imports...
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
If govt wins the case based on the revocable nature of an article 50 notification (reliant on Vienna Convention principles and confirmed by the ECJ) then the EU will make sure that the worst deal possible for both sides is all that can be reached, ensuring a second referendum or the potential for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
If govt wins the case based on the revocable nature of an article 50 notification (reliant on Vienna Convention principles and confirmed by the ECJ) then the EU will make sure that the worst deal possible for both sides is all that can be reached, ensuring a second referendum or the potential for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
"It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must." Boris Johnson, the chief Brexiteer argued the case for voting Leave, then getting a better deal from the EU.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
According to today's Telegraph, there are "more than 80" of them in the House of Commons. These 80 odd MPs seem to have a problem with the idea that they are not free to do as they please, but have had their wings clipped by the voters.
On topic - a superb article. One of the best ever on here. Not having scrolled, though, I suspect the usual suspects will not have understood it or are wilfully misrepresenting it.
Shortened version: Theresa May's government - mediocre to its core, at best - does not know what it's doing.
Impression is of a government playing for time. But, there is a relevant point about needing to build up capacity within the civil service to enter in to such a negotiation process. That point should not be overlooked.
The longer this meanders in to the long grass the more problems there are. The people did vote for instant brexit, triggering article 50 on June 24, so in a democratic sense all this is betrayal of the result. That is what people are so understandably angry about.
Grim as it is for us remainers, the result has to be implemented and soon. There has to be a direct correlation between the referendum result and the process of leaving the EU. I don't think there is any meaningful 'soft brexit' option either. We are either in or out.
Its amazing. The 25% or so of people who were politically maligned for years for being obsessed about the EU have basically won and taken over the country. The dynamics of this situation are such that if you voted leave in the hope of a liberal/EEA type solution, i'm afraid to say that you've been totally and completely played. We're leaving, our relationship with the continent is going to change forever, and in the short term at least its going to be brutal.
"The people did vote for instant brexit, triggering article 50 on June 24, so in a democratic sense all this is betrayal of the result." How do you know that?
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
If govt wins the case based on the revocable nature of an article 50 notification (reliant on Vienna Convention principles and confirmed by the ECJ) then the EU will make sure that the worst deal possible for both sides is all that can be reached, ensuring a second referendum or the potential for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
Who are you to tell politicians their role?
It is perfectly legitimate for any elected representative to try and steer Brexit toward the sort of exit that they believe is in the country's best interests. It is rather less legitimate for a government that has no mandate, as far as the nature of Brexit is concerned, to try and determine this itself behind closed doors and without any regard to the views of parliament.
It is also legitimate - in a free and open democracy - for a politician to argue that something or someone is wrong - even after it has been voted for or the person has been elected.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I regard the Referendum as being a point in his favour.
And let's face it. We are always going to vote to Leave at some point. 70% of the voters wanted Less Europe, never saw themselves as EU citizens, felt no guilt over WWII, and didn't want to merge into a new nation. We were a bad fit for people who thought otherwise.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
And that's why the Government are doing it?
They could have ended the court case last week, but have chosen to pursue it.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
The judiciary are not our Gods. The government has no obligation to chastise the Press on their behalf.
Some sections of the legal profession have a ludicrously exaggerated opinion of their own righteousness.
Agreed. Fuck the lawyers. Who do they think they are?
The idea Baron "European Law Institute" Thomas was some saintly neutral observer on Brexit was just ludicrous.
People like him - and Meeks - should be ritually flailed with hideously bent cucumbers, then sealed in a Burton beer barrel and sent rolling down the Thames, in the "general direction" of Europe, which they seem to love so much.
More and more the right is the left. It's fascinating to see.
And the reverse. Vernon Bogdanor has commented how left wing opponents of Brexit have dusted down all the old arguments against widening the franchise that were used in the 19th century.
Lets make it simple for the thickos. As a Leaver, I'll include myself in this.
The judiciary interpret the law. Parliament make it on behalf on the people. A referendum asks the people to advise the MPs. The MPs agreed to ask for this advice. Did Parliament intend to ask the MPs to decide the Yes/No question? No, or they wouldn't have voted for the referendum to take place.
Interpretation of the law remains subjective. If it didn't, constitutional law experts would be pointless. We could use a computer programme.
Experts know the subject. If it is a science, they will be able to predict based on this knowledge. Economics is not a science, hence any predictions are heavily subjective - at times akin to Astrology. Were I an expert in Astrology, I might confidently predict your future, but ....
Even worse, science at times is subjective. That's why we try to remove any confounding factors. If that's not possible, our predictions remain subjective and why they fail at times. If we cannot test them or predict from them, they are not science, and experts are also in the dark.
It may be that the world is warming, it may be that emissions from man-made sources may be worsening this rise. But with so many confounding factors remaining, it it fails the two tests. So it is not settled. You may be happy with the precautionary principle, you may not be.
Now I'd suggest that the intention of the referendum was to settle the issue of IN/OUT. Parliament should vote, they can discuss if they wish but amendments and arguments are silly. They must vote to enact Article 50 and then they can argue about the merits of what type of exit is optimal, remembering that it takes two to tango and the EU will act politically, so tying the Government's hand is self-defeating.
Unfortunately, I suspect that is the aim of these legal challenges.
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
If govt wins the case based on the revocable nature of an article 50 notification (reliant on Vienna Convention principles and confirmed by the ECJ) then the EU will make sure that the worst deal possible for both sides is all that can be reached, ensuring a second referendum or the potential for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
Who are you to tell politicians their role?
It is perfectly legitimate for any elected representative to try and steer Brexit toward the sort of exit that they believe is in the country's best interests. It is rather less legitimate for a government that has no mandate, as far as the nature of Brexit is concerned, to try and determine this itself behind closed doors and without any regard to the views of parliament.
It is also legitimate - in a free and open democracy - for a politician to argue that something or someone is wrong - even after it has been voted for or the person has been elected.
Elected politicians lose that legitimacy when their actions are clearly to prevent a Brexit of any type along the Mohs scale. They are saying their judgment is better than that of the voters. If they think that, then call a by-election and ask the voters to give them a mandate to be a contrarian.
Looks like Trump's first foreign policy decision might be, cruelly and sadly, the right decision, and better than anything Obama did in 8 years of feeble liberal dithering
Hear, hear. Also note the 'beautiful' letter from Putin. We might finally get the real end of the Cold War.
As I've said, I'm really not sure why we are antagonising Putin, yet succouring Erdogan. Putin is no threat to a properly armed and defended NATO. He will attack others and expand Russia elsewhere. Let him do it. Because he will attack south.
Our mortal cultural enemy, within and without, is revolutionary Islamism. It needs to be purged from western societies and corralled in the theocratic toilets of the Middle East until its fervour has died.
For that to happen, tyrannical but secular strongmen in the Mid East are a good thing, in the short to medium term. For us. And for the world. And probably for most people (especially women) in the Middle East.
If Trump hadn't talked about pulling out of NATO that would make sense.
But he won't. In 24 hours we already have not abolishing Obamacare as a U-turn, and we are clearly not going to get a huge new wall in the sense that he proposed it. When you are in charge of a large organisation with complicated internal mechanics facing a wide array of equally complicated external challenges, the only way to succeed is to focus all your energies and capital on two or three key things and pursue them relentlessly until they are done. Everything else then becomes part of business as usual and will go wherever it would have gone anyway. If you don't focus in this way, then you're just flailing around and actually nothing changes (from where the 'machine' would have let it go anyway).
The question therefore is what the two or three things he really wants to achieve are going to be. The domestic infrastructure programme is clearly going to be one.
I am increasingly of the view that his main reason for running was to stymie legal actions - actual and future. In other words, he is Berlusconi.
Infrastructure spending is his one good idea. And it's one that is least likely to get past Congress.
Berlusconi is probably the nearest comparison, for sure, and offers some clues as to what we may get, both good and bad.
Racism, lawsuits & pussy grabbing, with bad hair? A winning formula.
The judiciary are not our Gods. The government has no obligation to chastise the Press on their behalf.
Some sections of the legal profession have a ludicrously exaggerated opinion of their own righteousness.
Agreed. Fuck the lawyers. Who do they think they are?
The idea Baron "European Law Institute" Thomas was some saintly neutral observer on Brexit was just ludicrous.
People like him - and Meeks - should be ritually flailed with hideously bent cucumbers, then sealed in a Burton beer barrel and sent rolling down the Thames, in the "general direction" of Europe, which they seem to love so much.
More and more the right is the left. It's fascinating to see.
That's why they're called revolutions. The revolutionary spirit enthuses 2016 as she did 1848 and 1989.
If every state had voted the same as last Tuesday, Clinton would have lost every presidential election from 1868 onwards. The worst she would have done would have been the 1912-1928 elections when the split would have been 204/327 and the best recent one would have been 1992-2000 when it would have been 237/301.
This is just accounting for shifts in the EVs due to population?
But surely a pretty meaningless comparison given that in many states (NM, AZ,AK, OK, HI) weren't in the union?
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Lets make it simple for the thickos. As a Leaver, I'll include myself in this.
The judiciary interpret the law. Parliament make it on behalf on the people. A referendum asks the people to advise the MPs. The MPs agreed to ask for this advice. Did Parliament intend to ask the MPs to decide the Yes/No question? No, or they wouldn't have voted for the referendum to take place.
Interpretation of the law remains subjective. If it didn't, constitutional law experts would be pointless. We could use a computer programme.
Experts know the subject. If it is a science, they will be able to predict based on this knowledge. Economics is not a science, hence any predictions are heavily subjective - at times akin to Astrology. Were I an expert in Astrology, I might confidently predict your future, but ....
Even worse, science at times is subjective. That's why we try to remove any confounding factors. If that's not possible, our predictions remain subjective and why they fail at times. If we cannot test them or predict from them, they are not science, and experts are also in the dark.
It may be that the world is warming, it may be that emissions from man-made sources may be worsening this rise. But with so many confounding factors remaining, it it fails the two tests. So it is not settled. You may be happy with the precautionary principle, you may not be.
Now I'd suggest that the intention of the referendum was to settle the issue of IN/OUT. Parliament should vote, they can discuss if they wish but amendments and arguments are silly. They must vote to enact Article 50 and then they can argue about the merits of what type of exit is optimal, remembering that it takes two to tango and the EU will act politically, so tying the Government's hand is self-defeating.
Unfortunately, I suspect that is the aim of these legal challenges.
This has the potential for being a real headache for Brexit.
If govt wins the case based on the for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
If the government argues that A50 is revocable they are complete idiots. That's what the anti-Brexiteers are trying to get them to do.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
Who are you to tell politicians their role?
It is perfectly legitimate for any elected representative to try and steer Brexit toward the sort of exit that they believe is in the country's best interests. It is rather less legitimate for a government that has no mandate, as far as the nature of Brexit is concerned, to try and determine this itself behind closed doors and without any regard to the views of parliament.
It is also legitimate - in a free and open democracy - for a politician to argue that something or someone is wrong - even after it has been voted for or the person has been elected.
Elected politicians lose that legitimacy when their actions are clearly to prevent a Brexit of any type along the Mohs scale. They are saying their judgment is better than that of the voters. If they think that, then call a by-election and ask the voters to give them a mandate to be a contrarian.
Elected politicians are doing the job they are elected to do. If the voters don't like it they can kick them out at a general election. That's how our parliamentary democracy works.
Brexit cannot be undone without the specific permission of voters.
Cameron is definitely the worst PM of my lifetime. So far.
I guess so.. he saw off Brown and Miliband, the rest of the country breathed a huge sigh of relief. Brown was a disaster and Miliband.. jeeez...
Cameron, the Bed-blocking Prime Minister, keeping Brown and Miliband from power being his legacy.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
I don't agree one bit. Dave did a good job. If you are talking brexit, blame the voters. Not having a referendum was no answer, sooner or later a vote would have to have happened. Any PM who refused it would get booted out.
Cameron promised a referendum vote, but it never seems to have crossed his mind that Brexit was a possible outcome. He was like a snooker player striding to the table, planning his way to a 147 break, but then missing the first easy colour.
Yeah but you were arguing his reputation was shattered.. that's clearly not true.
Comments
Moreover, Trump going all-out for making America (and North America more generally if he can push the Keystone pipeline through) the world's energy powerhouse might be a strategic masterstroke. It renders much more of the Middle East into "not particularly important" territory, eliminating a major source of global instability. There might still be wars there, but to heck with them - the civil wars in Sri Lanka and Sudan and various other parts of Africa have all been far bloodier than Palestine, the Aceh/Indonesia and Moro/Philippines conflicts have not been very pleasant either, but Western governments have mostly stuck to high-sounding words rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives intervening. Might also limit funds for the export of Islamic extremism. Potentially a big win.
If it keeps oil and gas prices down it puts a lid on Russian resurgence - stops them being able to afford becoming a superpower again. And if Europe becomes less dependent on Russian gas as a result, that's another security plus for the West as a whole.
Obviously from a green point of view there are disadvantages to the scheme. But the world's most powerful nation can clearly afford to indulge in some hypocrisy from time to time - one of the great incentives to seek power in the first place.
Nick Gourevitch – @nickgourevitch
@Taniel @HotlineJosh If exit polls to be believed, Clinton did worse with Latinos but better w/ whites in AZ (-34 to -14). Hard to believe
@nickgourevitch @Taniel @HotlineJosh Doubt. Mohave County, 86% white: 70% Romney, 74% Trump. Santa Cruz, 83% Hispanic: 30% Romney, 24% Trump
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37953528
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3929064/Is-Trump-DITCH-pledge-lock-President-elect-brushes-aside-question-appoint-special-prosecutor-Clinton.html
Predictions of the apocalypse may have been exaggerated!
I think we have to seriously consider the possibility that Trump just hadn't thought it through.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19
I don't know if fixing it will expand his support but blowing it up would contract it.
The populist move would be to ditch the wonkish free-market clevers like the exchanges and just expand Medicare and Medicaid. Also I think he said he'll liberalize pharmaceticals so his voters won't have to buy them from Canada via companies that sent them spam. There's a lot of room to cut drug prices. It's low-hanging fruit that Obama left there to honour the deal he made with drug companies to get them to let ObamaCare through.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-diplomacy-trade-idUSKBN1350S4
People always talked about US hegemony declining and being replaced by China. It was always a kind-of academic, futuristic kind of thing. But this is it.
I'm not criticizing May for delaying A50. If only it could be delayed longer for better planning and to get the French/German elections out of the way. Nor can I blame her for playing to the Gallery. She's a politician. But broadly the A50 case doesn't delay notification any longer than May already had.
The thing is if you really want democratic control of this via binary referendum then the options were Remain vs Hard and Total Brexit. Both of those can be described and delivered unilaterally. As soon as you want anything between those too options to lose control to complex and lengthy negotiations.
The government is rightly terrified of what the mob will do when it realises the referendum it's self was a lie not just the campaign's.
The differences between Trump's agenda and the mainstream republicans are going to make for an interesting story.
Shortened version: Theresa May's government - mediocre to its core, at best - does not know what it's doing.
The question therefore is what the two or three things he really wants to achieve are going to be. The domestic infrastructure programme is clearly going to be one.
So all he's saying is "I'll keep the popular bits and get rid of the bits voters don't like". He's saying it in a direct fashion, so the media is getting all excited because they think in spin and u-turns.
Trump's voters will hear "I'm going to get rid of Obamacare, but don't worry you'll still have pre-existing conditions/children covered". They will like that.
Whether it is a possible/affordable is another question.
Infrastructure spending is his one good idea. And it's one that is least likely to get past Congress.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donors-and-lobbyists-already-shaping-trumps-drain-the-swamp-administration/2016/11/11/d1c13704-a828-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html
https://twitter.com/steverattner/status/797122929368694784
The longer this meanders in to the long grass the more problems there are. The people did vote for instant brexit, triggering article 50 on June 24, so in a democratic sense all this is betrayal of the result. That is what people are so understandably angry about.
Grim as it is for us remainers, the result has to be implemented and soon. There has to be a direct correlation between the referendum result and the process of leaving the EU. I don't think there is any meaningful 'soft brexit' option either. We are either in or out.
Its amazing. The 25% or so of people who were politically maligned for years for being obsessed about the EU have basically won and taken over the country. The dynamics of this situation are such that if you voted leave in the hope of a liberal/EEA type solution, i'm afraid to say that you've been totally and completely played. We're leaving, our relationship with the continent is going to change forever, and in the short term at least its going to be brutal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/11/if-you-voted-for-trump-because-hes-anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/?tid=sm_tw
In 2007/8 it became clear that the western economies had overreached themselves and were dangerously reliant upon debt. Everyone looked at Japan, which had gone beyond the point of no return, and was only keeping the plates spinning with creative financial manipulation of a type that had been tried before.
To avoid ending like Japan, the post-2008 strategy was supposed to be to use ZIRP & QE temporarily to stave off collapse, whilst focusing on getting public and personal finances back into some kind of balance.
Eight years later and the temporary measures show little signs of going away; meanwhile everyone has had enough of the hard graft of austerity. Just as Brexit has holed the so-called 'long-term economic plan' beneath the waterline, Trump is committed to spend on infrastructure, cut taxes for the rich and provide extra support for the poor. Like Reagan and Bush he is going to be another republican who borrows and spends. In the rest of Europe too, the mood is swinging away from austerity.
Which leaves us returning to Keynesian stimulus (noting in passing that Keynes's theory has two parts with over-spending supposed to be offset/repaid by cutting back in the good times), which might work if there was prospect of strong economic growth, in the past often fuelled by cheap imports from colonies and the third world. The likelihood of the modern world entering a strong new growth phase however appears remote, particularly with the drag being carried from the perilous state of the financial system.
It is easy to map out some sort of doom scenario; meanwhile experience suggests we can muddle along and patch things over for much longer than many people think. But i find it hard to see a happy ending?
Cameron has not only bequeathed a preventable disaster in terms of the referendum result, he has in all probability created the conditions for the break up of the UK. His domestic policy was a divisive shambles and the only actual achievement was the gay marriage and possibly the 2012 Olympics. In fairness to him though, in reality he was simply plugging a very leaky dam following the financial crash and agreement of previous governments to the expansion of the EU with ulimited immigration, which was bound to come apart at some point.
Yes, Berlusconi indeed. American political structure is different though. States have a lot of financial power and political influence, President is less influential in many ways. But he will get his views across because Trump has tapped into media very successful, where Silvio used his media empire to get others to do the talking for him. Under Berlusconi, Italy tanked. USA is in a better position that a moribund Italy, stymied by the EU led by a charismatic but selfish charlatan. Sounds like Corbyn in his strongholds. A broader message is required to win, which makes you slightly less loved, but ultimately more votes.
The populist move would be to ditch the wonkish free-market clevers like the exchanges and just expand Medicare and Medicaid. Also I think he said he'll liberalize pharmaceticals so his voters won't have to buy them from Canada via companies that sent them spam. There's a lot of room to cut drug prices. It's low-hanging fruit that Obama left there to honour the deal he made with drug companies to get them to let ObamaCare through.
Expanding Medicaid and Medicare has no chance of getting through congress.
As far as I can see trump hasn't changed what he is saying on obamacare at all. Republican policy has always been to keep the good bits and get rid of the bad bits... They are pro having cake and pro eating it.
Seeing Iran very slowly become more moderate, as these factors recede and a new generation starts to acquire influence, is one of the few positive trends in the Middle East.
But it is a slow and gradual process; meanwhile there is no evidence that any sort of Middle way between strongman and Islamism is sufficiently robust to withstand being pulled one way or the other (or, worst of all, an Islamic strongman - fear for Turkey). Cameron's imaginary army of 70,000 well armed moderates was one of the most pitiful instances of British foreign policy.
Reluctantly I think Trump is being realisitic; in the short term it really is a devil or blue sea choice; pretending a middle way that doesn't (yet) exist doesn't help anyone.
More controversial High Court news: Ron Dennis fails to prevent the possibility of board members to suspend him:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37957967
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/people-moving-to-uk-arent-taking-british-jobs-says-george-osborne?CMP=share_btn_tw
If govt wins the case based on the revocable nature of an article 50 notification (reliant on Vienna Convention principles and confirmed by the ECJ) then the EU will make sure that the worst deal possible for both sides is all that can be reached, ensuring a second referendum or the potential for Parliament to stop it.
If the ECJ rejects it, then it's possible that Parliament will insert a clause with a vote for the negotiating position, thereby trying the hands of the negotiators because to leave that position will then require a further vote.
How anyone cannot realise that the court case is a deliberate attempt to manufacture an opportunity for the result to be overturned surprises me. It's an attempt to delay in the hope of "events".
How this plays out may well affect how I end up voting in 2020.
It's very simple: the people have voted to leave, so leave we must.
It's the job of the government to execute on that as they see fit and to submit the results to the judgement of the people at the next General Election
It's the job of Parliament to scrutinise the government but not to tie their hands in negotiation.
The people have done their part. The government is trying to do their job (I'm not commenting on their ability or tactics). If Parliament would simply authorise the government to invoke A50 then it would all be fine. The problem is that we have too many self-aggrandising politicians who don't understand their role.
The way his reputation has gone from Decent Enough Chap to A Complete Walking Disaster during the course of 2016 is remarkable.
Boris Johnson, the chief Brexiteer argued the case for voting Leave, then getting a better deal from the EU.
How do you know that?
It is perfectly legitimate for any elected representative to try and steer Brexit toward the sort of exit that they believe is in the country's best interests. It is rather less legitimate for a government that has no mandate, as far as the nature of Brexit is concerned, to try and determine this itself behind closed doors and without any regard to the views of parliament.
It is also legitimate - in a free and open democracy - for a politician to argue that something or someone is wrong - even after it has been voted for or the person has been elected.
And let's face it. We are always going to vote to Leave at some point. 70% of the voters wanted Less Europe, never saw themselves as EU citizens, felt no guilt over WWII, and didn't want to merge into a new nation. We were a bad fit for people who thought otherwise.
They could have ended the court case last week, but have chosen to pursue it.
Lets make it simple for the thickos. As a Leaver, I'll include myself in this.
The judiciary interpret the law. Parliament make it on behalf on the people. A referendum asks the people to advise the MPs. The MPs agreed to ask for this advice. Did Parliament intend to ask the MPs to decide the Yes/No question? No, or they wouldn't have voted for the referendum to take place.
Interpretation of the law remains subjective. If it didn't, constitutional law experts would be pointless. We could use a computer programme.
Experts know the subject. If it is a science, they will be able to predict based on this knowledge. Economics is not a science, hence any predictions are heavily subjective - at times akin to Astrology. Were I an expert in Astrology, I might confidently predict your future, but ....
Even worse, science at times is subjective. That's why we try to remove any confounding factors. If that's not possible, our predictions remain subjective and why they fail at times. If we cannot test them or predict from them, they are not science, and experts are also in the dark.
It may be that the world is warming, it may be that emissions from man-made sources may be worsening this rise. But with so many confounding factors remaining, it it fails the two tests. So it is not settled. You may be happy with the precautionary principle, you may not be.
Now I'd suggest that the intention of the referendum was to settle the issue of IN/OUT. Parliament should vote, they can discuss if they wish but amendments and arguments are silly. They must vote to enact Article 50 and then they can argue about the merits of what type of exit is optimal, remembering that it takes two to tango and the EU will act politically, so tying the Government's hand is self-defeating.
Unfortunately, I suspect that is the aim of these legal challenges.
Lincoln and Trump are both charismatic Republican presidents. The similarities end there.
They'll probably all be BFF's by the Holidays!
Brexit cannot be undone without the specific permission of voters.