Might a faction in Britain's foreign policy community now be seeking to destroy the EU? Is it possible? Split what's left of the continent between the City of London and the Kremlin?
I thought the following photo was interesting. The way Le Pen holds her mouth to emphasise what she's saying. Who does she remind you of?
@Peston: Malta PM reiterates all EU government heads agree that Brexit deal must be worse for Britain than current EU membership
Given that no deal at all would still be better than current EU membership that strikes me as a deluded statement.
At the risk of repetition and becoming even more boring than normal, the EU is a membership organisation. The assumption behind any membership organisation is that the benefits accruing to the members outweigh the costs and obligations of membership. Equally, if a member leaves it's because they have decided that they don't. But they don't expect to get the benefits either. That's why a Hard Brexit has always been the most likely outcome.
Might a faction in Britain's foreign policy community now be seeking to destroy the EU? Is it possible? Split what's left of the continent between the City of London and the Kremlin?
I thought the following photo was interesting. The way Le Pen holds her mouth to emphasise what she's saying. Who does she remind you of?
@Peston: Malta PM reiterates all EU government heads agree that Brexit deal must be worse for Britain than current EU membership
Given that no deal at all would still be better than current EU membership that strikes me as a deluded statement.
So lets just trigger Article 50 - and put no Brussels meetings in the diary. We'll go with WTO guys.
The let's see who blinks first.
It's what we should have done in the first place. What is it that we're so desperate not to lose here? Our inviolable right to be sold a lot more stuff than we're selling? It's a risible con.
@Peston: Malta PM reiterates all EU government heads agree that Brexit deal must be worse for Britain than current EU membership
And that is the basis of a deal. They value economics more than we value sovereignty
It must require a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for people who view the Euro as a disastrous political project to bank on the same organisation to put economics above any higher values when it comes to negotiating with us.
If you want to try to understand why Theresa May will not give a running commentary just look how Sky have latched onto the note exposed in Downing Street and Faisal Islam and his colleagues having one of their over the top analysis of the contents virtually every half hour, day by day.
@Peston: Malta PM reiterates all EU government heads agree that Brexit deal must be worse for Britain than current EU membership
Given that no deal at all would still be better than current EU membership that strikes me as a deluded statement.
So lets just trigger Article 50 - and put no Brussels meetings in the diary. We'll go with WTO guys.
The let's see who blinks first.
No. For two reasons. Firstly because, whilst getting no deal would still be better than staying in the EU, it is not the best we could hope for. We have nothing to lose from doing this properly and much to gain.
Secondly because the Malta PM is talking rubbish. The EU countries want the best deal they can get for themselves and punishment makes that less likely. This is just bluster like so much else that has come out of the EU since the referendum.
What are we to make of this? re -Richmond by-election.. The following comment has appeared on the Vote UK Forum ‘“The feedback I’m getting from old Conservative hands working for Zac Goldsmith is that he, and the Conservative Party, have jointly blown it in the particular circumstances of this by-election, and the Lib Dems look like they are heading for victory.”
If correct , the Tory majority will drop to 10 and so further erode the prospects of boundary changes being approved.
On Trump's dead cat flag burnings, is there a point where it will just start to be ignored, even if he is the president? No one really pays attention anymore if Katie Hopkins tweets about wanting refugees to drown. At some point there's a diminishing return, surely?
ICM in recent months has moved to Online polling , so care needs to be taken when making comparisons with its former telephone polls.ICM has had a tendency to understate Labour – even in 1997 it was the only pollster to give Labour a smaller lead than reflectef in the actual outcome. A few commentators also have suggested that they – together with other pollsters – may have overadjusted for their 2015 polling debacle.
Who are these commentators and can you provide links please ?
They would be Justin 125,126 and 127 of this parish .
On Trump's dead cat flag burnings, is there a point where it will just start to be ignored, even if he is the president? No one really pays attention anymore if Katie Hopkins tweets about wanting refugees to drown. At some point there's a diminishing return, surely?
Dunno, he's very good at this.
The thing about the flag burning is that it only takes one protester per protest to take the bait and set a flag on fire and he can reuse it whenever he wants.
Seriously - look at his stuff in Art of the Deal - it's all there - every tactic and play. And the MSM fall straight into his trap.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
The most chilling aspect of that tweet is Trump's inference that the stripping of citizenship is a punishment equivalent to a year in prison. Followed though, that would lead to a lot of non-people.
And if one looks as the 'taking it seriously, not literally' aspect - your point dissolves.
I'm getting to the point where explaining this repeatedly is just pointless. I've been at it for months and roundly rubbished - and still the prevailing attitude is that Trump is an idiot. When someone was right, does the groupthink of such a supposedly sophisticated readership stop and think? Like Hell it does. It carries on with it's blue blanket, rather than inspect itself.
What's the evidence that Trump is an idiot? I'm not seeing anything bar a load of prejudice masquerading as Acceptable Viewpoint amongst the vast majority of PBers reinforcing itself.
Urgh. I'm bored of trying to help others who haven't spent hundreds of hours trying to understand it. They aren't listening.
Ironic that you say you're bored of people of people not listening, and then put up the straw man of Trump-as-idiot. Where have I said that Trump is an idiot?
I might add that I don't share your willingness to wave away what Trump 'literally' said (in favour of 'taking it seriously but not literally', whatever that means); we should take what politicians say literally: it forms the basis of their mandate and how we hold them to account.
We could have a deal where we no longer enjoy the expert advice of the EU Commission and instead have to think for ourselves. A worse deal in the eyes of the EU?
It is almost like they haven't grasped the Leavers think that OUT is better than any IN deal.
The broadcast media has continued with a daily anti Brexit and Government onslaught for months but still today's poll gives a 16% conservative lead. I do not support UKIP at all but I do think Paul Nuttall will devastate labour in their heartlands with his scouse accent and appeal to the WWC vote.
Boulton said on Sky this morning that a poll showed that 65% dismiss the opinion of the MSM and it does make you think that they do need to re-calibrate their reporting if they want to be listened to at all
I watch Sky for 10 mins a day now about 7am. It's awful. The sterile set, antiseptic hosts and dull. I swap to FreeSat 159 to Yesterday channel as my default just to make a point. At least I trust them to report news 70yrs old.
I watched Sky all the time for a several years - it's no better than BBC now. What a pity that there's nothing I can tune into that isn't an endless diet of Trump Hate, Despite Brexit or Pro Immigration/ClimateChange cobblers. Why would I want to endure this propaganda masquerading as news?
And the whole #FakeNews censorship thing has made me recoil. Liberal MSM want to defame other outlets as fake?!? They're riddled with it and I'm appalled.
It's their desperate attempt to shut down alternative voices that challenge their monopoly. Twitter and Facebook all backed Hillary - and they've censored too many pro-conservative memes for it to be an accident. Shame on them. I hope they get a Standard Oil break-up as monopolies.
What are we to make of this? re -Richmond by-election.. The following comment has appeared on the Vote UK Forum ‘“The feedback I’m getting from old Conservative hands working for Zac Goldsmith is that he, and the Conservative Party, have jointly blown it in the particular circumstances of this by-election, and the Lib Dems look like they are heading for victory.”
If correct , the Tory majority will drop to 10 and so further erode the prospects of boundary changes being approved.
The way things are going for labour they will be destroyed, boundary changes or not
@Peston: Malta PM reiterates all EU government heads agree that Brexit deal must be worse for Britain than current EU membership
And that is the basis of a deal. They value economics more than we value sovereignty
It must require a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for people who view the Euro as a disastrous political project to bank on the same organisation to put economics above any higher values when it comes to negotiating with us.
Fair enough - may be economics was my interpretation.
If each side values things differently then there is scope for an agreement that both sides like (a "win-win" although I hate the term).
For example, the UK has for centuries used our wealth to persuade European partners to assist us. We might choose to transfer some of that surplus wealth (or security assistance, or intelligence assistance) to Europe in return for other benefits (e.g. restrictions on free movement)
This Trump playing the media approach. I quite like the idea of Presidents behaving, for want of a better word, Presidentially. Precious little evidence of that.
Might a faction in Britain's foreign policy community now be seeking to destroy the EU? Is it possible?
I believe it has been our foreign policy objective for about 500 years to not let a dominant power emerge in continental Europe. Anyone who tried - we piled in on the other side. Successfully every time until the 1970s. Now maybe Sir Humphrey was right and we joined the EU in order to shaft it. But it seems in recent decades some stupid or unthinking or unpatriotic politicians ascended to power and forget about our national interest. The people kindly reminded them.
What are we to make of this? re -Richmond by-election.. The following comment has appeared on the Vote UK Forum ‘“The feedback I’m getting from old Conservative hands working for Zac Goldsmith is that he, and the Conservative Party, have jointly blown it in the particular circumstances of this by-election, and the Lib Dems look like they are heading for victory.”
If correct , the Tory majority will drop to 10 and so further erode the prospects of boundary changes being approved.
That would be amusing, doubt it will happen but funny nonetheless.
On Trump's dead cat flag burnings, is there a point where it will just start to be ignored, even if he is the president? No one really pays attention anymore if Katie Hopkins tweets about wanting refugees to drown. At some point there's a diminishing return, surely?
No, not on Twitter. Trump literally couldn't type fast enough to keep up with Twitter's appetite for being offended.
I mean David, why didn't you blackball him when you had the chance and spare all us from him becoming an MP?
I suspect that he would have become an MP even had he not been selected in Shipley.
But to defend him in general, I think parliament benefits from having a few awkward squad MPs from all sides (although *only* a few - the place would be unmanageable with 100). Inevitably, awkward-squad MPs will say things from time to time that lots of people will disagree with. But better that that everyone nodding along like donkeys. They are, after all, sometimes right.
Might a faction in Britain's foreign policy community now be seeking to destroy the EU? Is it possible? Split what's left of the continent between the City of London and the Kremlin?
I thought the following photo was interesting. The way Le Pen holds her mouth to emphasise what she's saying. Who does she remind you of?
This talk of dominoes. If it continues and grows, then that's a tick for one of my indicators for investing in Le Pen.
Terrible editing in the Torygraph doesn't know the meaning of the word "clockwise" under the images. Going clockwise from the Top Left means that Grillo comes before Wilders not the other way around.
And yet Plato tapped into the American psyche a lot better than the rest of us, especially in the "blue" flyover states that delivered the Trump victory. She's been right more often than you this year, I think it's time to put up or shut up.
"And yet Plato tapped into the American psyche a lot better than the rest of us, especially in the "blue" flyover states that delivered the Trump victory. "
How, pray, do you think she did that? By reading, thinking, and applying intelligence, or just following a few alt-right websites and spamming their contents without reading?
Now she's creating strawmen in every post to knock down.
Perhaps you ought to follow the advice you give in your last line.
Whatever it was, she understands how ignored Americans feel a lot better than you or I. You're just bitter that she was proved right after you tried so hard to discredit her before the election and have stupidly continued to since Trump won exactly where Plato was pointing out he would win for months.
As I said, it's put up or shut up time. I don't know what kind of President Mr Trump will be, but I'm not going to be blindsided in the same manner again, if posters can give me insight into a situation I find difficult to understand then I don't particularly want them silenced by bitter people.
Thanks. That makes me hope some of my efforts aren't entirely wasted.
"Whatever it was, she understands how ignored Americans feel a lot better than you or I."
No, she doesn't. Picking a side and spamming about it does not imply knowledge or understanding.
"You're just bitter that she was proved right "
No. I think it's dangerous to take her as some form of sage when she hasn't shown any intelligence with her view. There was no insight, because often her spammed links did not back up the two or three word conclusion she'd give. She did the same over Leadsom.
You know computers, so you know the concept of GIGO. I'd say it applies in the case of her posts about the election.
I'm not bitter; far from, in fact. I haven't blocked anyone, and will continue to give my point of view on things. And I have no intention of silencing Plato, even if she blocks me and other who dare to give a contrary view.
As it happens, I find her jump to the right since the 2015 election funny. Then she was a Cameoronite, fighting for a Conservative victory. Now she's a UKIP donor and devout admirer of the alt-right. Quite a shift.
Plato posted exactly why she thought Trump would win and exactly how Trump's missteps were playing in middle America. Everyone else dismissed it and in the old world of betting shops most of us woild have been properly buggered. It's only because we know how to interpret early results on PB that most of us came out on top for the night.
Which is what this all boils down to, betting. You've constantly been shitting on Plato since Trump won and it has been quite personal in some cases, if we have someone here with better insight into a situation we have a lesser understanding of then we shouldn't seek to silence them as you are clearly attempting to do, despite protestations of the opposite.
Whatever her political journey may be, it is irrelevant to me. No offence to Plato, it's just her personal choice who to vote for and donate to, I'm not going judge her on anything so trivial.
Plato was gullibly repeating any false news that she found in the alt.right tinfoilosphere, uncritically and without insight. The only utility of this was to flag up how equally gullible a large part of America is!
Might a faction in Britain's foreign policy community now be seeking to destroy the EU? Is it possible? Split what's left of the continent between the City of London and the Kremlin?
I thought the following photo was interesting. The way Le Pen holds her mouth to emphasise what she's saying. Who does she remind you of?
This talk of dominoes. If it continues and grows, then that's a tick for one of my indicators for investing in Le Pen.
On the other hand, The Telegraph has predicted the imminent demise of the Euro for at least the last six years, and probably more like 18.
I think you're better off looking at people changing their minds. The Telegraph (especially Ambrose Evans-Pritchard) and The Mail remain constant in one direction, The Guardian in another.
Look to those in the middle and see when they change their views, otherwise you're just basking in the glow of confirmation bias.
The broadcast media has continued with a daily anti Brexit and Government onslaught for months but still today's poll gives a 16% conservative lead. I do not support UKIP at all but I do think Paul Nuttall will devastate labour in their heartlands with his scouse accent and appeal to the WWC vote.
Boulton said on Sky this morning that a poll showed that 65% dismiss the opinion of the MSM and it does make you think that they do need to re-calibrate their reporting if they want to be listened to at all
I watch Sky for 10 mins a day now about 7am. It's awful. The sterile set, antiseptic hosts and dull. I swap to FreeSat 159 to Yesterday channel as my default just to make a point. At least I trust them to report news 70yrs old. I watched Sky all the time for a several years - it's no better than BBC now. What a pity that there's nothing I can tune into that isn't an endless diet of Trump Hate, Despite Brexit or Pro Immigration/ClimateChange cobblers. Why would I want to endure this propaganda masquerading as news?............
The Remainers are clearly in control of the main broadcast media, BBC, ITV, Sky and C4. I rely on it less and less. The influence of the Guardian is becoming more dominant. No wonder people trust the media less for their news.
Meanwhile been cheered up by daughter's 3rd year Uni results.
Might a faction in Britain's foreign policy community now be seeking to destroy the EU? Is it possible? Split what's left of the continent between the City of London and the Kremlin?
I thought the following photo was interesting. The way Le Pen holds her mouth to emphasise what she's saying. Who does she remind you of?
This talk of dominoes. If it continues and grows, then that's a tick for one of my indicators for investing in Le Pen.
Terrible editing in the Torygraph doesn't know the meaning of the word "clockwise" under the images. Going clockwise from the Top Left means that Grillo comes before Wilders not the other way around.
Brexit will be a forgotten sideshow when the French vote LePen next spring. Europe Union will be over and the chaos will be astounding.
I do think Paul Nuttall will devastate labour in their heartlands with his scouse accent
LOL!
Selective quote - I said 'scouse accent and appeal to the WWC vote'
I think the Scouse accent regularly comes second (behind Brummie) as the most disliked in the UK, so Nuttall would probably be better employed promoting his anti-immigrant, pro-hanging & Jock bashing agenda while toning down his lobscouse slurring.
"Whatever it was, she understands how ignored Americans feel a lot better than you or I."
No, she doesn't. Picking a side and spamming about it does not imply knowledge or understanding.
"You're just bitter that she was proved right "
No. I think it's dangerous to take her as some form of sage when she hasn't shown any intelligence with her view. There was no insight, because often her spammed links did not back up the two or three word conclusion she'd give. She did the same over Leadsom.
You know computers, so you know the concept of GIGO. I'd say it applies in the case of her posts about the election.
I'm not bitter; far from, in fact. I haven't blocked anyone, and will continue to give my point of view on things. And I have no intention of silencing Plato, even if she blocks me and other who dare to give a contrary view.
As it happens, I find her jump to the right since the 2015 election funny. Then she was a Cameoronite, fighting for a Conservative victory. Now she's a UKIP donor and devout admirer of the alt-right. Quite a shift.
Plato posted exactly why she thought Trump would win and exactly how Trump's missteps were playing in middle America. Everyone else dismissed it and in the old world of betting shops most of us woild have been properly buggered. It's only because we know how to interpret early results on PB that most of us came out on top for the night.
Which is what this all boils down to, betting. You've constantly been shitting on Plato since Trump won and it has been quite personal in some cases, if we have someone here with better insight into a situation we have a lesser understanding of then we shouldn't seek to silence them as you are clearly attempting to do, despite protestations of the opposite.
Whatever her political journey may be, it is irrelevant to me. No offence to Plato, it's just her personal choice who to vote for and donate to, I'm not going judge her on anything so trivial.
LOL about 'personal'! Plato can give as good as she gets. But leaving that to one side, if you are betting you need good information, and to be able to analyse, discuss and criticise that information - which is exactly what we do with polls and other events on here. I'm pointing out that, to my mind at least, Plato's information was on the whole not useful; partly because it was often not truthful.
Worse, when the inaccuracies were pointed out, then she would not respond and just continue sometimes with the same information. This was not debatable stuff: it was actual facts.
I'm not trying to silence Plato (though it sounds like you're trying to silence me); I'm just pointing out there was precious little 'insight' in her posts. Just cheerleading propaganda for one side. I'm glad if you found that useful.
@Peston: Malta PM reiterates all EU government heads agree that Brexit deal must be worse for Britain than current EU membership
And that is the basis of a deal. They value economics more than we value sovereignty
It must require a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for people who view the Euro as a disastrous political project to bank on the same organisation to put economics above any higher values when it comes to negotiating with us.
Fair enough - may be economics was my interpretation.
If each side values things differently then there is scope for an agreement that both sides like (a "win-win" although I hate the term).
For example, the UK has for centuries used our wealth to persuade European partners to assist us. We might choose to transfer some of that surplus wealth (or security assistance, or intelligence assistance) to Europe in return for other benefits (e.g. restrictions on free movement)
We don't have surplus wealth. And I don't think the other two are particularly tempting. And can you explain to me why we should pay a fee to an organisation we're not part of, for the privilege of stopping people from entering our own country, in order to maintain an economic situation where we are the net LOSER.
It is a farce. The EU can't believe it's luck that we seem to give a shit about leaving the 'free market'. The fact we might actually PAY for it too - I'm amazed they can keep a straight face.
"Whatever it was, she understands how ignored Americans feel a lot better than you or I."
No, she doesn't. Picking a side and spamming about it does not imply knowledge or understanding.
"You're just bitter that she was proved right "
No. I think it's dangerous to take her as some form of sage when she hasn't shown any intelligence with her view. There was no insight, because often her spammed links did not back up the two or three word conclusion she'd give. She did the same over Leadsom.
You know computers, so you know the concept of GIGO. I'd say it applies in the case of her posts about the election.
I'm not bitter; far from, in fact. I haven't blocked anyone, and will continue to give my point of view on things. And I have no intention of silencing Plato, even if she blocks me and other who dare to give a contrary view.
As it happens, I find her jump to the right since the 2015 election funny. Then she was a Cameoronite, fighting for a Conservative victory. Now she's a UKIP donor and devout admirer of the alt-right. Quite a shift.
Plato posted exactly why she thought Trump would win and exactly how Trump's missteps were playing in middle America. Everyone else dismissed it and in the old world of betting shops most of us woild have been properly buggered. It's only because we know how to interpret early results on PB that most of us came out on top for the night.
Which is what this all boils down to, betting. You've constantly been shitting on Plato since Trump won and it has been quite personal in some cases, if we have someone here with better insight into a situation we have a lesser understanding of then we shouldn't seek to silence them as you are clearly attempting to do, despite protestations of the opposite.
Whatever her political journey may be, it is irrelevant to me. No offence to Plato, it's just her personal choice who to vote for and donate to, I'm not going judge her on anything so trivial.
Plato was gullibly repeating any false news that she found in the alt.right tinfoilosphere, uncritically and without insight. The only utility of this was to flag up how equally gullible a large part of America is!
If any of that is true, it is but a small drop to the anti-Trump shock/horror/!!!!! items that have been posted again and again and again on here......
Is anyone offering odds on the next Italian Prime Minister?
If, so can I tip Pier Carlo Padoan or Carlo Calenda as high profile ministers in the Renzi government? As the DP will be keen to avoid new elections, one of these is likely to become the Theresa May of Italy.
ICM in recent months has moved to Online polling , so care needs to be taken when making comparisons with its former telephone polls.ICM has had a tendency to understate Labour – even in 1997 it was the only pollster to give Labour a smaller lead than reflectef in the actual outcome. A few commentators also have suggested that they – together with other pollsters – may have overadjusted for their 2015 polling debacle.
Who are these commentators and can you provide links please ?
I believe that John Curtice has raised this possibility - as has Anthony Wells of YouGov on his Polling Report site.
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
Should they resist it? it is a news story... President elect says x and it is controversial...
It sure would be nice though if they followed it with a rider saying "warning this man lies so frequently that it's best to disbelieve what he says until proven true"...
would the supreme court allow such a law anyway? Wouldn't flag burning come under first amendment rigths?
Most likely you're right, probably comes under free speech. The media in the US are being played massively by Trump, they're dancing along to his tune as they have done pretty much every day for the past eighteen months. It's hillarious to watch, especially as they appear not to have noticed the game they're playing.
Burning the US flag is legal IIRC, but it says something awful to a great many Americans, as burning the Union Jack does here.
It's a cultural war symbol - that's enormously important that eclipses how we feel about our flag [bar me here who flew one all year round].
@Peston: Malta PM reiterates all EU government heads agree that Brexit deal must be worse for Britain than current EU membership
And that is the basis of a deal. They value economics more than we value sovereignty
It must require a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for people who view the Euro as a disastrous political project to bank on the same organisation to put economics above any higher values when it comes to negotiating with us.
Fair enough - may be economics was my interpretation.
If each side values things differently then there is scope for an agreement that both sides like (a "win-win" although I hate the term).
For example, the UK has for centuries used our wealth to persuade European partners to assist us. We might choose to transfer some of that surplus wealth (or security assistance, or intelligence assistance) to Europe in return for other benefits (e.g. restrictions on free movement)
We don't have surplus wealth. And I don't think the other two are particularly tempting. And can you explain to me why we should pay a fee to an organisation we're not part of, for the privilege of stopping people from entering our own country, in order to maintain an economic situation where we are the net LOSER.
It is a farce. The EU can't believe it's luck that we seem to give a shit about leaving the 'free market'. The fact we might actually PAY for it too - I'm amazed they can keep a straight face.
Why are we net loser? It seems that as we send them less than they send us, we are the winners.
ICM in recent months has moved to Online polling , so care needs to be taken when making comparisons with its former telephone polls.ICM has had a tendency to understate Labour – even in 1997 it was the only pollster to give Labour a smaller lead than reflectef in the actual outcome. A few commentators also have suggested that they – together with other pollsters – may have overadjusted for their 2015 polling debacle.
Who are these commentators and can you provide links please ?
I believe that John Curtice has raised this possibility - as has Anthony Wells of YouGov on his Polling Report site.
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
Should they resist it? it is a news story... President elect says x and it is controversial...
It sure would be nice though if they followed it with a rider saying "warning this man lies so frequently that it's best to disbelieve what he says until proven true"...
would the supreme court allow such a law anyway? Wouldn't flag burning come under first amendment rigths?
Most likely you're right, probably comes under free speech. The media in the US are being played massively by Trump, they're dancing along to his tune as they have done pretty much every day for the past eighteen months. It's hillarious to watch, especially as they appear not to have noticed the game they're playing.
Burning the US flag is legal IIRC, but it says something awful to a great many Americans, as burning the Union Jack does here.
It's a cultural war symbol - that's enormously important that eclipses how we feel about our flag [bar me here who flew one all year round].
Reminds me of when Penn and teller appeared on the West Wing.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
Which is not on offer.
If it gets put to the people and it wins, then we tell the EU we're revoking our invocation of Article 50, sorry about that. Then they have to decide whether or not that's legitimate or not.
Plato was gullibly repeating any false news that she found in the alt.right tinfoilosphere, uncritically and without insight. The only utility of this was to flag up how equally gullible a large part of America is!
Again, whatever it was Americans were reading it all and taking it all in. I also don't like this idea that mainstream media is the only real news source. "Real" news sources report on official reports that tell us exactly what they want to tell people. It's a lot like fact checking websites, I don't particularly trust them either. Everyone has an agenda, to downplay something or to push other ideas.
Just over here anyone who is critical of unlimited immigration used to be labeled as racist (and still are to some degree). How long until reports into negatives of unlimited immigration are labeled as "fake news" because it goes against the "settled" agenda that immigration is all positive because the overall statistics which includes a millionaire American banker and part time Romanian worker on a litany of benefits says overall immigration is beneficial.
You can sneer as much as you like, but Trump won. It blindsided every single US commentator and the manner in which he won with WWC people has changed the game. The liberal consensus on what qualifies as "real news" and "fake news" got absolutely smashed. Maybe its time we opened out eyes.
We could have a deal where we no longer enjoy the expert advice of the EU Commission and instead have to think for ourselves. A worse deal in the eyes of the EU?
It is almost like they haven't grasped the Leavers think that OUT is better than any IN deal.
Just think how badly off London's pollution would be if we did not have the EU regulations and enforcement on diesel vehicles? .......... It takes the brilliance of the EU to administer the situation where lobbying from large companies results in regulations that can be easily gamed by the large companies and thousands will die early from the pollution. Ah but what about the lower carbon levels? Cough, cough, cough. If billions in fines will have to be paid by EU companies for this to the USA Govt, will there be billions paid to EU governments as well?
ICM in recent months has moved to Online polling , so care needs to be taken when making comparisons with its former telephone polls.ICM has had a tendency to understate Labour – even in 1997 it was the only pollster to give Labour a smaller lead than reflectef in the actual outcome. A few commentators also have suggested that they – together with other pollsters – may have overadjusted for their 2015 polling debacle.
Who are these commentators and can you provide links please ?
I believe that John Curtice has raised this possibility - as has Anthony Wells of YouGov on his Polling Report site.
@Peston: Malta PM reiterates all EU government heads agree that Brexit deal must be worse for Britain than current EU membership
And that is the basis of a deal. They value economics more than we value sovereignty
It must require a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for people who view the Euro as a disastrous political project to bank on the same organisation to put economics above any higher values when it comes to negotiating with us.
Fair enough - may be economics was my interpretation.
If each side values things differently then there is scope for an agreement that both sides like (a "win-win" although I hate the term).
For example, the UK has for centuries used our wealth to persuade European partners to assist us. We might choose to transfer some of that surplus wealth (or security assistance, or intelligence assistance) to Europe in return for other benefits (e.g. restrictions on free movement)
We don't have surplus wealth. And I don't think the other two are particularly tempting. And can you explain to me why we should pay a fee to an organisation we're not part of, for the privilege of stopping people from entering our own country, in order to maintain an economic situation where we are the net LOSER.
It is a farce. The EU can't believe it's luck that we seem to give a shit about leaving the 'free market'. The fact we might actually PAY for it too - I'm amazed they can keep a straight face.
We do have surplus wealth. We just p1ss an awful lot of it up the wall.
We have two options basically: (1) no fee, controlled immigration, commercial restrictions on freedom to operate in EU or (2) a fee, controlled immigration, fewer commercial restrictions
The fee is for fewer commercial restrictions, not for "the privilege of stopping people from entering our own country"
ICM in recent months has moved to Online polling , so care needs to be taken when making comparisons with its former telephone polls.ICM has had a tendency to understate Labour – even in 1997 it was the only pollster to give Labour a smaller lead than reflectef in the actual outcome. A few commentators also have suggested that they – together with other pollsters – may have overadjusted for their 2015 polling debacle.
Who are these commentators and can you provide links please ?
I believe that John Curtice has raised this possibility - as has Anthony Wells of YouGov on his Polling Report site.
So no links?
Allow me. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9765#comments "It’s also worth noting that ICM do tend to produce some of the most pro-Conservative voting intention figures – they have adopted a substantial number of changes since the polling errors of 2015 (switching to online, weighting by political knowledge, reallocating don’t knows differently and modelling turnout based on age and social class) which tend to produce the most pro-Conservative figures. That’s not to say they are wrong – in 2015 all the pollsters understated the Tory lead, so it’s very likely that in correcting those errors, changes will me made that produce more Conservative figures. We won’t know for sure until 2020 whether pollsters have gone too far in those corrections or not far enough."
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
There is a very clear destination: OUT
That's not a clear destination. It's a direction. Soft Brexit, hard Brexit, semi-soft Brexit? EEA membership? CETA-style? TTIP-style? CETA-plus? Swiss-EFTA-style? WTO rules? Not even WTO rules, why should we abide by rules set by a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats? Continue paying towards Single Market access? Retain some, most, all, none of Freedom of Movement? Customs union in? Or out? Adhere with Single Market legislation? Or not?
Unless you're saying that each and every one of those is equally acceptable to you and to every Leave voter?
It's up to the government to decide and then we pass judgement on them at the next general election
So the Government chooses to do whatever they like, then they put it in a blender with their performance on the economy, stance on welfare, curating of the Health Service, education policy, nuclear policy, defence policy, justice policy and police support, etc, etc, etc.
Following which we compare the poured out liquid with that from the Labour Party, have most of us choose dependent solely on which blender each liquid came out of anyway, the rest of us choose which liquid looks marginally the less palatable, filter that decision through FPTP in artificial constituencies such that whoever gets about 36-38% of the vote or higher "wins".
All the time we can't actually make a call on the choice of destination anyway because by now it's too late and we've got there anyway, regardless of the decision being chopped up and melded in with everything else in a decision based on whatever is marginally the less unpleasant.
This is more democratic than a referendum held explicitly and directly on the destination beforehand?
I might counter by saying that this is precisely how we got into the position where a referendum was so strongly desired in the first place...
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
Which is not on offer.
If it gets put to the people and it wins, then we tell the EU we're revoking our invocation of Article 50, sorry about that. Then they have to decide whether or not that's legitimate or not.
"Whatever it was, she understands how ignored Americans feel a lot better than you or I."
No, she doesn't. Picking a side and spamming about it does not imply knowledge or understanding.
"You're just bitter that she was proved right "
No. I think it's dangerous to take her as some form of sage when she hasn't shown any intelligence with her view. There was no insight, because often her spammed links did not back up the two or three word conclusion she'd give. She did the same over Leadsom.
You know computers, so you know the concept of GIGO. I'd say it applies in the case of her posts about the election.
I'm not bitter; far from, in fact. I haven't blocked anyone, and will continue to give my point of view on things. And I have no intention of silencing Plato, even if she blocks me and other who dare to give a contrary view.
As it happens, I find her jump to the right since the 2015 election funny. Then she was a Cameoronite, fighting for a Conservative victory. Now she's a UKIP donor and devout admirer of the alt-right. Quite a shift.
Plato posted exactly why she thought Trump would win and exactly how Trump's missteps were playing in middle America. Everyone else dismissed it and in the old world of betting shops most of us woild have been properly buggered. It's only because we know how to interpret early results on PB that most of us came out on top for the night.
Which is what this all boils down to, betting. You've constantly been shitting on Plato since Trump won and it has been quite personal in some cases, if we have someone here with better insight into a situation we have a lesser understanding of then we shouldn't seek to silence them as you are clearly attempting to do, despite protestations of the opposite.
Whatever her political journey may be, it is irrelevant to me. No offence to Plato, it's just her personal choice who to vote for and donate to, I'm not going judge her on anything so trivial.
Golly, Mr Jessop is angry.
I gave the grand total of about £20 to UKIP - SHOCKER. I'm a NAZI.
Ho hum. I bought a Things Can Only Get Better cassette tape from Labour in 1997. FIRING SQUAD.
There are some weird people on PB. When you know your target is deliberately ignoring you and still persist - that's stalking IMO. Why bother engaging with someone you know thinks you're a bit strange?
Might a faction in Britain's foreign policy community now be seeking to destroy the EU? Is it possible? Split what's left of the continent between the City of London and the Kremlin?
I thought the following photo was interesting. The way Le Pen holds her mouth to emphasise what she's saying. Who does she remind you of?
This talk of dominoes. If it continues and grows, then that's a tick for one of my indicators for investing in Le Pen.
On the other hand, The Telegraph has predicted the imminent demise of the Euro for at least the last six years, and probably more like 18.
I think you're better off looking at people changing their minds. The Telegraph (especially Ambrose Evans-Pritchard) and The Mail remain constant in one direction, The Guardian in another.
Look to those in the middle and see when they change their views, otherwise you're just basking in the glow of confirmation bias.
ICM in recent months has moved to Online polling , so care needs to be taken when making comparisons with its former telephone polls.ICM has had a tendency to understate Labour – even in 1997 it was the only pollster to give Labour a smaller lead than reflectef in the actual outcome. A few commentators also have suggested that they – together with other pollsters – may have overadjusted for their 2015 polling debacle.
Who are these commentators and can you provide links please ?
I believe that John Curtice has raised this possibility - as has Anthony Wells of YouGov on his Polling Report site.
So no links?
Allow me. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9765#comments "It’s also worth noting that ICM do tend to produce some of the most pro-Conservative voting intention figures – they have adopted a substantial number of changes since the polling errors of 2015 (switching to online, weighting by political knowledge, reallocating don’t knows differently and modelling turnout based on age and social class) which tend to produce the most pro-Conservative figures. That’s not to say they are wrong – in 2015 all the pollsters understated the Tory lead, so it’s very likely that in correcting those errors, changes will me made that produce more Conservative figures. We won’t know for sure until 2020 whether pollsters have gone too far in those corrections or not far enough."
@Peston: Malta PM reiterates all EU government heads agree that Brexit deal must be worse for Britain than current EU membership
And that is the basis of a deal. They value economics more than we value sovereignty
It must require a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for people who view the Euro as a disastrous political project to bank on the same organisation to put economics above any higher values when it comes to negotiating with us.
Fair enough - may be economics was my interpretation.
If each side values things differently then there is scope for an agreement that both sides like (a "win-win" although I hate the term).
For example, the UK has for centuries used our wealth to persuade European partners to assist us. We might choose to transfer some of that surplus wealth (or security assistance, or intelligence assistance) to Europe in return for other benefits (e.g. restrictions on free movement)
We don't have surplus wealth. And I don't think the other two are particularly tempting. And can you explain to me why we should pay a fee to an organisation we're not part of, for the privilege of stopping people from entering our own country, in order to maintain an economic situation where we are the net LOSER.
It is a farce. The EU can't believe it's luck that we seem to give a shit about leaving the 'free market'. The fact we might actually PAY for it too - I'm amazed they can keep a straight face.
Why are we net loser? It seems that as we send them less than they send us, we are the winners.
Look to those in the middle and see when they change their views, otherwise you're just basking in the glow of confirmation bias.
I am looking at you. Have you changed your mind yet, bearing in mind how quickly you react to new information?
Regarding what? I change my mind on almost everything every day. Often two or three times a day.
Regarding Brexit being a wise decision.
My view on Brexit is that we, as a country, are fundamentally unsuited to the EU. We have different legal and electoral systems from the rest of the continent: we are common law and first past the post; they are roman laws and coalitions. We have not had a fascist dictatorship nor been invaded. We have the channel, while (most of) the countries of the EU have incredibly porous borders.
We were only ever in the EU because of the economic benefits it was considered to give us. We never thought that tying the nations of Europe together "in ever closer union" was a goal worth striving for.
I do think we'll struggle in the next few years, as firms continue to postpone investment decisions. From being more optimistic than the OBR about 2017, I'm becoming increasingly negative. I wouldn't be surprised if we edged into recession in the second half of next year.
But none of this alters the fact that the UK and the EU were in an unhappy marriage. We were never going to be happy as members of the EU. It is better to end an unhappy marriage than have it drag on both parties.
It's up to the government to decide and then we pass judgement on them at the next general election
So the Government chooses to do whatever they like, then they put it in a blender with their performance on the economy, stance on welfare, curating of the Health Service, education policy, nuclear policy, defence policy, justice policy and police support, etc, etc, etc.
Following which we compare the poured out liquid with that from the Labour Party, have most of us choose dependent solely on which blender each liquid came out of anyway, the rest of us choose which liquid looks marginally the less palatable, filter that decision through FPTP in artificial constituencies such that whoever gets about 36-38% of the vote or higher "wins".
All the time we can't actually make a call on the choice of destination anyway because by now it's too late and we've got there anyway, regardless of the decision being chopped up and melded in with everything else in a decision based on whatever is marginally the less unpleasant.
This is more democratic than a referendum held explicitly and directly on the destination beforehand?
I might counter by saying that this is precisely how we got into the position where a referendum was so strongly desired in the first place...
It's the system we've got and it works pretty well on balance.
If you don't like it campaign to change it. Don't stop it working in some petulant outburst.
On Trump's dead cat flag burnings, is there a point where it will just start to be ignored, even if he is the president? No one really pays attention anymore if Katie Hopkins tweets about wanting refugees to drown. At some point there's a diminishing return, surely?
If Katie H was going to be POTUS, attention would be paid to her.
Might a faction in Britain's foreign policy community now be seeking to destroy the EU? Is it possible? Split what's left of the continent between the City of London and the Kremlin?
I thought the following photo was interesting. The way Le Pen holds her mouth to emphasise what she's saying. Who does she remind you of?
This talk of dominoes. If it continues and grows, then that's a tick for one of my indicators for investing in Le Pen.
... The Telegraph has predicted the imminent demise of the Euro for at least the last six years, and probably more like 18...
When something can't go on forever it won't. AEP's problem is that he recognises the fact of the Superstate or Split dilemma for the EU and the Euro - but can't predict at all the timing. I think he perhaps underestimates the sheer bloody minded stubbornness of the EU elite's determination to see the Project through at whatever cost.
Might a faction in Britain's foreign policy community now be seeking to destroy the EU? Is it possible? Split what's left of the continent between the City of London and the Kremlin?
I thought the following photo was interesting. The way Le Pen holds her mouth to emphasise what she's saying. Who does she remind you of?
This talk of dominoes. If it continues and grows, then that's a tick for one of my indicators for investing in Le Pen.
On the other hand, The Telegraph has predicted the imminent demise of the Euro for at least the last six years, and probably more like 18.
I think you're better off looking at people changing their minds. The Telegraph (especially Ambrose Evans-Pritchard) and The Mail remain constant in one direction, The Guardian in another.
Look to those in the middle and see when they change their views, otherwise you're just basking in the glow of confirmation bias.
Interestingly, The Economist recommends backing No, and most of my (centre right, pro-EU) Italian friends are voting No in the referendum. Why? Because they worry about Five Star, and they think the current bicameral system would limit Grillo's power were he to be elected in Italy.
This Trump playing the media approach. I quite like the idea of Presidents behaving, for want of a better word, Presidentially. Precious little evidence of that.
Trump says that Stein is only calling election fraud to line her pockets and that he only lost the popular vote because of widespread cheating against him in places like California. He's la-la.
Seriously - look at his stuff in Art of the Deal - it's all there - every tactic and play. And the MSM fall straight into his trap.
As Sherlock said, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
He didn't get this far and control the supposed media pundits and experts like this by accident.
If one stops assuming he's an idiot - who happens to have become a billionaire with a 14yr run as a reality star and now POTUS Elect - it all makes sense. Dump the prejudice and look at the evidence.
It's gobsmackingly obviously to me and has been for many months. Confirmation bias is a hugely strong pull for everyone - however Trump has shown a dozens times or more that he's playing a superior game - be it ground war, passion, policy, killing opponents off, driving the media narrative...
The most chilling aspect of that tweet is Trump's inference that the stripping of citizenship is a punishment equivalent to a year in prison. Followed though, that would lead to a lot of non-people.
And if one looks as the 'taking it seriously, not literally' aspect - your point dissolves.
I'm getting to the point where explaining this repeatedly is just pointless. I've been at it for months and roundly rubbished - and still the prevailing attitude is that Trump is an idiot. When someone was right, does the groupthink of such a supposedly sophisticated readership stop and think? Like Hell it does. It carries on with it's blue blanket, rather than inspect itself.
What's the evidence that Trump is an idiot? I'm not seeing anything bar a load of prejudice masquerading as Acceptable Viewpoint amongst the vast majority of PBers reinforcing itself.
Urgh. I'm bored of trying to help others who haven't spent hundreds of hours trying to understand it. They aren't listening.
Ironic that you say you're bored of people of people not listening, and then put up the straw man of Trump-as-idiot. Where have I said that Trump is an idiot?
I might add that I don't share your willingness to wave away what Trump 'literally' said (in favour of 'taking it seriously but not literally', whatever that means); we should take what politicians say literally: it forms the basis of their mandate and how we hold them to account.
You know I love you, and that isn't the point I was making. I'll forgive you again. It's very plain that I wasn't being personal re you.
Is anyone offering odds on the next Italian Prime Minister?
If, so can I tip Pier Carlo Padoan or Carlo Calenda as high profile ministers in the Renzi government? As the DP will be keen to avoid new elections, one of these is likely to become the Theresa May of Italy.
The former seems like a good bet to get the support of the EU in forming a "technocratic" administration. That could backfire spectacularly if they deal with the banking problems by bailing in depositors in any numbers, though.
And, of course, there's the huge volume of Star Wars puns we'll have to look forward to on this site.
ICM in recent months has moved to Online polling , so care needs to be taken when making comparisons with its former telephone polls.ICM has had a tendency to understate Labour – even in 1997 it was the only pollster to give Labour a smaller lead than reflectef in the actual outcome. A few commentators also have suggested that they – together with other pollsters – may have overadjusted for their 2015 polling debacle.
Who are these commentators and can you provide links please ?
I believe that John Curtice has raised this possibility - as has Anthony Wells of YouGov on his Polling Report site.
So no links?
Allow me. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9765#comments "It’s also worth noting that ICM do tend to produce some of the most pro-Conservative voting intention figures – they have adopted a substantial number of changes since the polling errors of 2015 (switching to online, weighting by political knowledge, reallocating don’t knows differently and modelling turnout based on age and social class) which tend to produce the most pro-Conservative figures. That’s not to say they are wrong – in 2015 all the pollsters understated the Tory lead, so it’s very likely that in correcting those errors, changes will me made that produce more Conservative figures. We won’t know for sure until 2020 whether pollsters have gone too far in those corrections or not far enough."
Ta.
Sorry TSE , I was not being awkward but simply had no links immediately to refer you to. I certainly knew that I had not invented or dreamt this! I note too that you have alluded to Tory support in Scotland impacting on headline national polling figures. I have myself pointed this out a few times - and even been accused of 'spin' for having done so.
The broadcast media has continued with a daily anti Brexit and Government onslaught for months but still today's poll gives a 16% conservative lead. I do not support UKIP at all but I do think Paul Nuttall will devastate labour in their heartlands with his scouse accent and appeal to the WWC vote.
Boulton said on Sky this morning that a poll showed that 65% dismiss the opinion of the MSM and it does make you think that they do need to re-calibrate their reporting if they want to be listened to at all
I watch Sky for 10 mins a day now about 7am. It's awful. The sterile set, antiseptic hosts and dull. I swap to FreeSat 159 to Yesterday channel as my default just to make a point. At least I trust them to report news 70yrs old. I watched Sky all the time for a several years - it's no better than BBC now. What a pity that there's nothing I can tune into that isn't an endless diet of Trump Hate, Despite Brexit or Pro Immigration/ClimateChange cobblers. Why would I want to endure this propaganda masquerading as news?............
The Remainers are clearly in control of the main broadcast media, BBC, ITV, Sky and C4. I rely on it less and less. The influence of the Guardian is becoming more dominant. No wonder people trust the media less for their news.
Meanwhile been cheered up by daughter's 3rd year Uni results.
Is anyone offering odds on the next Italian Prime Minister?
If, so can I tip Pier Carlo Padoan or Carlo Calenda as high profile ministers in the Renzi government? As the DP will be keen to avoid new elections, one of these is likely to become the Theresa May of Italy.
What do you think the chances are of the M5S winning the next elections in 2018 (assuming the referendum vote fails as seems likely)?
I'm crying with laughter. This is such fabulous media clickbait. None of the networks will resist it. Another newscycle pwned.
Seriously, if you're still thinking he's daft - get a brain transplant. He's dragged every GOP opponent onto his ground and killed them. Now he's doing it every few hours on Twitter to the MSM.
It's hilarious.
Donald J Trump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
Who is going to defend flag burning?!
Should they resist it? it is a news story... President elect says x and it is controversial...
It sure would be nice though if they followed it with a rider saying "warning this man lies so frequently that it's best to disbelieve what he says until proven true"...
would the supreme court allow such a law anyway? Wouldn't flag burning come under first amendment rigths?
Most likely you're right, probably comes under free speech. The media in the US are being played massively by Trump, they're dancing along to his tune as they have done pretty much every day for the past eighteen months. It's hillarious to watch, especially as they appear not to have noticed the game they're playing.
Burning the US flag is legal IIRC, but it says something awful to a great many Americans, as burning the Union Jack does here.
It's a cultural war symbol - that's enormously important that eclipses how we feel about our flag [bar me here who flew one all year round].
Reminds me of when Penn and teller appeared on the West Wing.
What UKIP would have done and the LibDems are doing is not equivalent.
UKIP would have continued to campaign to leave. That is fine in a democratic society.
The LibDems are calling to ignore the will of the people. What they should be do is to make the case to remain, but not to try and frustrate the decision of the people. Work with it, make it as palatable as possible, try to change minds, but don't frustrate (e.g. vote against Article 50)
Ah - having lost the referendum, how would campaigning for the losing option differ from "we want the UK to do the option just rejected in the referendum"? The Lib Dems are calling for a further referendum on the destination and campaigning for that.
Or is it an example of one of those irregular verbs? - I continue to campaign for the UK to do what I believe regardless of it just having lost, in which is fine in a democratic society. - You are moaning about the result and should just get on board with the result - He is trying to frustrate the decision of the people, the quisling.
"I will vote against Article 50" sounds very much like "F U, voters"
... if there is no referendum on destination. So, not.
Which is not on offer.
If it gets put to the people and it wins, then we tell the EU we're revoking our invocation of Article 50, sorry about that. Then they have to decide whether or not that's legitimate or not.
So we lose control of our own destiny?
If they say no, then we can't have that deal because it requires agreement from both sides. As does any other deal they give us. We can't demand they give us any particular deal. We are circumscribed by reality and the rest of the world then as much as in all other cases.
If they say no, then the second choice option has to be invoked instead, whether that's the deal we were previously offered or hard exit.
I gave the grand total of about £20 to UKIP - SHOCKER. I'm a NAZI.
Ho hum. I bought a Things Can Only Get Better cassette tape from Labour in 1997. FIRING SQUAD.
There are some weird people on PB. When you know your target is deliberately ignoring you and still persist - that's stalking IMO. Why bother engaging with someone you know thinks you're a bit strange?
LOL. I never made you to be a Nazi - whether capitalised or not. And I'm not stalking you; it's not something I'd do. But neither will I shut up when you post information I know to be inaccurate. It's almost as if you desire a safe space in which to post, with no criticism of your posts allowed.
I didn't realise you thought of me as a bit strange. You might be right, though I guess most of us on here are strange in one way or another.
My point about the UKIP donation was the inconsistency between being a Conservative member and giving one of their rivals a donation, and as an indication of your swing to the hard right.
So in one post you called me weird, a stalker, a bit strange, and accused me of calling you a Nazi. Add this in to your previous nastiness of using my illness against me.
It's up to the government to decide and then we pass judgement on them at the next general election
So the Government chooses to do whatever they like, then they put it in a blender with their performance on the economy, stance on welfare, curating of the Health Service, education policy, nuclear policy, defence policy, justice policy and police support, etc, etc, etc.
Following which we compare the poured out liquid with that from the Labour Party, have most of us choose dependent solely on which blender each liquid came out of anyway, the rest of us choose which liquid looks marginally the less palatable, filter that decision through FPTP in artificial constituencies such that whoever gets about 36-38% of the vote or higher "wins".
All the time we can't actually make a call on the choice of destination anyway because by now it's too late and we've got there anyway, regardless of the decision being chopped up and melded in with everything else in a decision based on whatever is marginally the less unpleasant.
This is more democratic than a referendum held explicitly and directly on the destination beforehand?
I might counter by saying that this is precisely how we got into the position where a referendum was so strongly desired in the first place...
It's the system we've got and it works pretty well on balance. That's your opinion and very arguable
If you don't like it campaign to change it. Don't stop it working in some petulant outburst.
Sure. I don't believe that a referendum stops it working, whether in petulant outburst or not. If a referendum is unacceptable, then it was unacceptable on June 23rd just as much. I don't see that having a referendum on destination stops the entire electoral system of the UK from working going forwards, to be honest.
If "stopping it working" refers to voting against the Government of the day on laying down a Bill (ie voting in opposition), then it's been "not working" for centuries.
Comments
I thought the following photo was interesting. The way Le Pen holds her mouth to emphasise what she's saying. Who does she remind you of?
Anyone who thinks I'm talking rubbish, please read this article in the Torygraph first.
This talk of dominoes. If it continues and grows, then that's a tick for one of my indicators for investing in Le Pen.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/29/germans-want-merkel-to-take-tough-line-with-uk-over-brexit-poll-finds?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Perhaps not.
Secondly because the Malta PM is talking rubbish. The EU countries want the best deal they can get for themselves and punishment makes that less likely. This is just bluster like so much else that has come out of the EU since the referendum.
re -Richmond by-election.. The following comment has appeared on the Vote UK Forum
‘“The feedback I’m getting from old Conservative hands working for Zac Goldsmith is that he, and the Conservative Party, have jointly blown it in the particular circumstances of this by-election, and the Lib Dems look like they are heading for victory.”
If correct , the Tory majority will drop to 10 and so further erode the prospects of boundary changes being approved.
dead catflag burnings, is there a point where it will just start to be ignored, even if he is the president? No one really pays attention anymore if Katie Hopkins tweets about wanting refugees to drown. At some point there's a diminishing return, surely?The thing about the flag burning is that it only takes one protester per protest to take the bait and set a flag on fire and he can reuse it whenever he wants.
"I do think Paul Nuttall will devastate labour in their heartlands with his scouse accent."
Ukip gain Bootle?
I might add that I don't share your willingness to wave away what Trump 'literally' said (in favour of 'taking it seriously but not literally', whatever that means); we should take what politicians say literally: it forms the basis of their mandate and how we hold them to account.
I watched Sky all the time for a several years - it's no better than BBC now. What a pity that there's nothing I can tune into that isn't an endless diet of Trump Hate, Despite Brexit or Pro Immigration/ClimateChange cobblers. Why would I want to endure this propaganda masquerading as news?
And the whole #FakeNews censorship thing has made me recoil. Liberal MSM want to defame other outlets as fake?!? They're riddled with it and I'm appalled.
It's their desperate attempt to shut down alternative voices that challenge their monopoly. Twitter and Facebook all backed Hillary - and they've censored too many pro-conservative memes for it to be an accident. Shame on them. I hope they get a Standard Oil break-up as monopolies.
If each side values things differently then there is scope for an agreement that both sides like (a "win-win" although I hate the term).
For example, the UK has for centuries used our wealth to persuade European partners to assist us. We might choose to transfer some of that surplus wealth (or security assistance, or intelligence assistance) to Europe in return for other benefits (e.g. restrictions on free movement)
But to defend him in general, I think parliament benefits from having a few awkward squad MPs from all sides (although *only* a few - the place would be unmanageable with 100). Inevitably, awkward-squad MPs will say things from time to time that lots of people will disagree with. But better that that everyone nodding along like donkeys. They are, after all, sometimes right.
I think you're better off looking at people changing their minds. The Telegraph (especially Ambrose Evans-Pritchard) and The Mail remain constant in one direction, The Guardian in another.
Look to those in the middle and see when they change their views, otherwise you're just basking in the glow of confirmation bias.
Meanwhile been cheered up by daughter's 3rd year Uni results.
Worse, when the inaccuracies were pointed out, then she would not respond and just continue sometimes with the same information. This was not debatable stuff: it was actual facts.
I'm not trying to silence Plato (though it sounds like you're trying to silence me); I'm just pointing out there was precious little 'insight' in her posts. Just cheerleading propaganda for one side. I'm glad if you found that useful.
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/803592553832579072
https://twitter.com/iam_magazine/status/803585563861188609
It is a farce. The EU can't believe it's luck that we seem to give a shit about leaving the 'free market'. The fact we might actually PAY for it too - I'm amazed they can keep a straight face.
If, so can I tip Pier Carlo Padoan or Carlo Calenda as high profile ministers in the Renzi government? As the DP will be keen to avoid new elections, one of these is likely to become the Theresa May of Italy.
It's a cultural war symbol - that's enormously important that eclipses how we feel about our flag [bar me here who flew one all year round].
Then they have to decide whether or not that's legitimate or not.
Just over here anyone who is critical of unlimited immigration used to be labeled as racist (and still are to some degree). How long until reports into negatives of unlimited immigration are labeled as "fake news" because it goes against the "settled" agenda that immigration is all positive because the overall statistics which includes a millionaire American banker and part time Romanian worker on a litany of benefits says overall immigration is beneficial.
You can sneer as much as you like, but Trump won. It blindsided every single US commentator and the manner in which he won with WWC people has changed the game. The liberal consensus on what qualifies as "real news" and "fake news" got absolutely smashed. Maybe its time we opened out eyes.
We have two options basically: (1) no fee, controlled immigration, commercial restrictions on freedom to operate in EU or (2) a fee, controlled immigration, fewer commercial restrictions
The fee is for fewer commercial restrictions, not for "the privilege of stopping people from entering our own country"
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9765#comments
"It’s also worth noting that ICM do tend to produce some of the most pro-Conservative voting intention figures – they have adopted a substantial number of changes since the polling errors of 2015 (switching to online, weighting by political knowledge, reallocating don’t knows differently and modelling turnout based on age and social class) which tend to produce the most pro-Conservative figures. That’s not to say they are wrong – in 2015 all the pollsters understated the Tory lead, so it’s very likely that in correcting those errors, changes will me made that produce more Conservative figures. We won’t know for sure until 2020 whether pollsters have gone too far in those corrections or not far enough."
Following which we compare the poured out liquid with that from the Labour Party, have most of us choose dependent solely on which blender each liquid came out of anyway, the rest of us choose which liquid looks marginally the less palatable, filter that decision through FPTP in artificial constituencies such that whoever gets about 36-38% of the vote or higher "wins".
All the time we can't actually make a call on the choice of destination anyway because by now it's too late and we've got there anyway, regardless of the decision being chopped up and melded in with everything else in a decision based on whatever is marginally the less unpleasant.
This is more democratic than a referendum held explicitly and directly on the destination beforehand?
I might counter by saying that this is precisely how we got into the position where a referendum was so strongly desired in the first place...
@AndrewSparrow: Ed Balls will take part in Strictly Come Dancing’s 10th anniversary live tour in 2017 -
I gave the grand total of about £20 to UKIP - SHOCKER. I'm a NAZI.
Ho hum. I bought a Things Can Only Get Better cassette tape from Labour in 1997. FIRING SQUAD.
There are some weird people on PB. When you know your target is deliberately ignoring you and still persist - that's stalking IMO. Why bother engaging with someone you know thinks you're a bit strange?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/italian-referendum-constitutional-reform-matteo-renzi-far-right-populism-eurozone-a7443601.html
We were only ever in the EU because of the economic benefits it was considered to give us. We never thought that tying the nations of Europe together "in ever closer union" was a goal worth striving for.
I do think we'll struggle in the next few years, as firms continue to postpone investment decisions. From being more optimistic than the OBR about 2017, I'm becoming increasingly negative. I wouldn't be surprised if we edged into recession in the second half of next year.
But none of this alters the fact that the UK and the EU were in an unhappy marriage. We were never going to be happy as members of the EU. It is better to end an unhappy marriage than have it drag on both parties.
If you don't like it campaign to change it. Don't stop it working in some petulant outburst.
NEW THREAD
Interestingly, The Economist recommends backing No, and most of my (centre right, pro-EU) Italian friends are voting No in the referendum. Why? Because they worry about Five Star, and they think the current bicameral system would limit Grillo's power were he to be elected in Italy.
And, of course, there's the huge volume of Star Wars puns we'll have to look forward to on this site.
I note too that you have alluded to Tory support in Scotland impacting on headline national polling figures. I have myself pointed this out a few times - and even been accused of 'spin' for having done so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NymRecFWgAs
If they say no, then the second choice option has to be invoked instead, whether that's the deal we were previously offered or hard exit.
I didn't realise you thought of me as a bit strange. You might be right, though I guess most of us on here are strange in one way or another.
My point about the UKIP donation was the inconsistency between being a Conservative member and giving one of their rivals a donation, and as an indication of your swing to the hard right.
So in one post you called me weird, a stalker, a bit strange, and accused me of calling you a Nazi. Add this in to your previous nastiness of using my illness against me.
I think you'd better calm down.
Oh, and I'm not angry. I'm actually quite happy.