Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
Wouldn't the absence of a united EU front make negotiations pretty difficult? We need Europe to agree internally on a deal - if they're in total chaos surely that makes it harder - and more likely that not only will we leave without any kind of a deal... But in a disorderly fashion.
I think the logic from our Leaver friends is that if Europe sinks into an abyss then that is a job well done as far as we're concerned.
The two suspects are Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir, so we can probably expect the Guardian to focus on Alexandre Bissonnette and the Express on Mohamed Khadir.
Andrew Neil President Trump signs an executive order Monday morning requiring that for every new federal regulation implemented, two must be rescinded.
I agree with Nick (excellent piece, Mr Palmer). I suspect the length of Angela Merkel's price reflects in large part the manic hostility that so many Leavers hold toward her. 56% of the German public in a recent poll were satisfied with her performance. Those are not the ratings of a leader staring at defeat.
You think Betfair is invested with hostile Leavers?
My experience of traders has been the precise opposite. Worth remembering just how long it took Betfair to wake up to reality on referendum night.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
According to the tables provided, Charles probable cut-off is 85. He is currently 78 so that gives him another seven years. Depends how much Camilla smokes around him, I suppose.
I tbink that we have to allow for both monarch and heir to be very longlived. There are no known health issues with either, and while Charles loses a bit for being male, on the other hand BOTH of his parents are very longlived. He has extraordinary good genes for this!
I would have thought it kinder for all concerned for the Queen to abdicate, but I understand the reasons why she is shy of this. Declaring Charles as Prince Regent may be more fitting, and has precedent.
I agree that if it comes to it a regency will be more appropriate.
I suspect the limiting factor on Her Majesty's effective reign won't be her own lifespan but the Duke of Edinburgh's. He is in good health too so far as we know but he is five years older.
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
Wouldn't the absence of a united EU front make negotiations pretty difficult? We need Europe to agree internally on a deal - if they're in total chaos surely that makes it harder - and more likely that not only will we leave without any kind of a deal... But in a disorderly fashion.
We want a self-confident, successful EU with its member states marching in the same direction. It would feel less need to engage in trade silliness and would also develop into an even more lucrative market for UK exports. I do not understand how a break-up of the EU - something that would cause huge ructions in the markets, stifle demand and put countless investment decisions on hold - would be anything but very bad news for the UK.
WRT the proposed State Visit of President Trump, isn’t there likely to be something of a security risk. Not to the President himself, I’m sure he’ll be well protected, but to public order in general. Almost certainly the present furore will have died down but there’s a reasonable likelihood of something else occuring by then.
They had the same issues with the Bush state visit & handled it fine.......
Mr. Topping, the EU and Europe are not the same thing.
The abyss would be an undemocratic, unaccountable, opaque court of meddling bureaucratic eunuchs intent upon empire-building at the cost but without the consent of the vulgar masses. Not so much an iron curtain as a red tape curtain.
Miss Plato, ha, reminds me of the religious bickering in Byzantium.
Mr. Observer, if the break-up of the EU is inevitable then it happening sooner would be better as it would minimise the negative consequences both within and without the current member states.
Ed Miliband's phoenix act is one of the more baffling and unexpected developments of the already very weird past week.
Some of us were prepared for it.
I even chose his campaign song*. PBers with their fingers on the political pulse. "Ed Miliband may be Labour's best hope" is a phrase I'd never envisaged typing, even in jest.
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
Wouldn't the absence of a united EU front make negotiations pretty difficult? We need Europe to agree internally on a deal - if they're in total chaos surely that makes it harder - and more likely that not only will we leave without any kind of a deal... But in a disorderly fashion.
If it gets that bad, there won't be an EU to Leave from.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
Ed Miliband's phoenix act is one of the more baffling and unexpected developments of the already very weird past week.
Ed's leadership skills seem stellar when compared to Corbyn, who appears utterly uninterested in leading.
Ed was often good at identifying problems; the problem lay in the sometimes silly solutions he proposed to the problems. Perhaps now he doesn't have to be leader, and with more experience, he can come up with some much-needed sensible policies for the party.
Charles's biggest problem is that he think his opinions matter and that he really is a leader of the nation. Humility and reserve is one thing his mother has probably spent her whole life trying to teach him, without much success. And there have been far too many instances of him shutting out in the cold those who've dared to disagree with him.
Next to HMQ he is almost bound to look a failure.
My biggest worry about William is that he's simply not all that bright. But it's luck-of-the-draw with monarchy, and boy oh boy have we been very, very lucky with Queen Elizabeth II.
My biggest worry about William is that he's simply not all that bright. But it's luck-of-the-draw with monarchy, and boy oh boy have we been very, very lucky with Queen Elizabeth II.
Ed Miliband's phoenix act is one of the more baffling and unexpected developments of the already very weird past week.
Ed's leadership skills seem stellar when compared to Corbyn, who appears utterly uninterested in leading.
Ed was often good at identifying problems; the problem lay in the sometimes silly solutions he proposed to the problems. Perhaps now he doesn't have to be leader, and with more experience, he can come up with some much-needed sensible policies for the party.
[Sunil utters a cough that sounds suspiciously like "Bacon butty"]
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
She wants to restore French sovereignty. That means severely weakening the EU as a political poroject. A generous Brexit deal (from a British POV) would do that. Plus her victory would generally sow fear, doubt and confusion in higher EU ranks. Panic, even. And they'd be much much keener on a stabilising generous Brexit where maximum trade is maintained etc
Indeed a Le Pen victory would change the context of Brexit so radically we might need a 2nd vote.
So Remoaners should be praying that Le Pen wins.
I don't think Le Pen - who thinks most of France's problems are due to it being too friendly to business - would be particularly good for the people of France or the UK.
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
Wouldn't the absence of a united EU front make negotiations pretty difficult? We need Europe to agree internally on a deal - if they're in total chaos surely that makes it harder - and more likely that not only will we leave without any kind of a deal... But in a disorderly fashion.
I think the logic from our Leaver friends is that if Europe sinks into an abyss then that is a job well done as far as we're concerned.
Count me out of that group, thank you. Who would buy our exotic cheeses, jams and bakewell tarts? God bless Mutti Merkel and all who sail with her, is my view.
Mr. Topping, the EU and Europe are not the same thing.
The abyss would be an undemocratic, unaccountable, opaque court of meddling bureaucratic eunuchs intent upon empire-building at the cost but without the consent of the vulgar masses. Not so much an iron curtain as a red tape curtain.
Miss Plato, ha, reminds me of the religious bickering in Byzantium.
Was that an answer to me or the first chapter of your new book?
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
And markets across Europe would tank, which given its importance to us as an export market would have extremely negative consequences for the UK.
Maybe. As I said, on balance I think that Fillon would be better. But US markets have hardly tanked on Trump's election.
Ed Miliband's phoenix act is one of the more baffling and unexpected developments of the already very weird past week.
Ed's leadership skills seem stellar when compared to Corbyn, who appears utterly uninterested in leading.
Ed was often good at identifying problems; the problem lay in the sometimes silly solutions he proposed to the problems. Perhaps now he doesn't have to be leader, and with more experience, he can come up with some much-needed sensible policies for the party.
It's a stretch but I suppose it is possible you are right.
However, what is his game (in political terms)? He does appear to be on manoeuvres...
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
Wouldn't the absence of a united EU front make negotiations pretty difficult? We need Europe to agree internally on a deal - if they're in total chaos surely that makes it harder - and more likely that not only will we leave without any kind of a deal... But in a disorderly fashion.
If it gets that bad, there won't be an EU to Leave from.
Inertia is the strongest force know to man. It's why the Ottoman empire and Byzantium and the Austro-Hungarian empires all lasted about 200 years longer than they should have done.
Mr. Topping, weirdly, there is a migration aspect in the second book of The Bloody Crown Trilogy. I first wrote it even before the migrant crisis kicked off, and it's not a perfect analogy, but it's still a bit unexpectedly contemporary.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
More of Sunil's nonsensical logic
Your Lefty non-sense of humour is showing
As I'm the only person who bothers to read your nonsense you should at least be polite
Charles's biggest problem is that he think his opinions matter and that he really is a leader of the nation. Humility and reserve is one thing his mother has probably spent her whole life trying to teach him, without much success. And there have been far too many instances of him shutting out in the cold those who've dared to disagree with him.
Next to HMQ he is almost bound to look a failure.
My biggest worry about William is that he's simply not all that bright. But it's luck-of-the-draw with monarchy, and boy oh boy have we been very, very lucky with Queen Elizabeth II.
@politicshome: Jeremy Corbyn: "Obviously impossible" for Labour MPs to stay in Shadow Cabinet if they defy whip on Article 50 vote http://bit.ly/2kGUlh1
@politicshome: Jeremy Corbyn: "Obviously impossible" for Labour MPs to stay in Shadow Cabinet if they defy whip on Article 50 vote http://bit.ly/2kGUlh1
But Tom Watson says anybody ejected will probably be back in the cabinet in a few months.
Ed Miliband's phoenix act is one of the more baffling and unexpected developments of the already very weird past week.
Ed's leadership skills seem stellar when compared to Corbyn, who appears utterly uninterested in leading.
Ed was often good at identifying problems; the problem lay in the sometimes silly solutions he proposed to the problems. Perhaps now he doesn't have to be leader, and with more experience, he can come up with some much-needed sensible policies for the party.
Ed is a good ideas man. A very good member of a back-room team. He's not a front man and I couldn't ever envisage him as PM. He messed up thinking he was capable of being the figurehead. Ambition won out over reality.
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
Wouldn't the absence of a united EU front make negotiations pretty difficult? We need Europe to agree internally on a deal - if they're in total chaos surely that makes it harder - and more likely that not only will we leave without any kind of a deal... But in a disorderly fashion.
If it gets that bad, there won't be an EU to Leave from.
Inertia is the strongest force know to man. It's why the Ottoman empire and Byzantium and the Austro-Hungarian empires all lasted about 200 years longer than they should have done.
Why might the Austro-Hungarian empire have fallen in 1718 (rather than 1918)? It only became "Austria-Hungary" in 1867. And much of its territory was gained after 1718.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
More of Sunil's nonsensical logic
Your Lefty non-sense of humour is showing
As I'm the only person who bothers to read your nonsense you should at least be polite
I am an avid Sunil fan. There are very few people on this site who are not worth at least a cursory glance. Even Scott occasionally comes up with a gem, despite his one-man mission to download the entire contents of Twitter onto pb.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
More of Sunil's nonsensical logic
Your Lefty non-sense of humour is showing
As I'm the only person who bothers to read your nonsense you should at least be polite
I am avid Sunil fan. There are very few people on this site who are not worth a cursory glance. Even Scott occasionally comes up with a gem, despite his one-man mission to download the entire contents of Twitter onto pb.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
Monarchy is a Lefty, SJW, socialist institution! "What are you on about, Sunil?" I hear you cry! Well, consider the following:
1) The hereditary principle: A feature of Lefty dynasties around the world, such as the Nehru-Gandhis in India, the Kennedys in the USA, the Benns in the UK, and the Kims in North Korea!
2) Jobs for life: A socialist principle if ever there was one! The monarch is in the job for his or her natural life!
3) Pomp and circumstance: parades and what-not are hallmarks of the old Soviet Red Square military parades, and are still, to this day, a key feature of the Kims' regime in North Korea!
So, my fellow PBers, SJWs or not, I put it to you that Monarchy smacks of Socialism!!
More of Sunil's nonsensical logic
Your Lefty non-sense of humour is showing
As I'm the only person who bothers to read your nonsense you should at least be polite
I am an avid Sunil fan. There are very few people on this site who are not worth at least a cursory glance. Even Scott occasionally comes up with a gem, despite his one-man mission to download the entire contents of Twitter onto pb.
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
And markets across Europe would tank, which given its importance to us as an export market would have extremely negative consequences for the UK.
Maybe. As I said, on balance I think that Fillon would be better. But US markets have hardly tanked on Trump's election.
Trump is proposing the break-up of the current structure of the US, though. Le Pen is proposing that for Europe with all the uncertainty that means.
Considering this is a political betting site isn't it funny how often the monarchy comes up for discussion? It's not as if the succession presents a host of regular betting opportunities!
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands did just that a few years back.
WRT the proposed State Visit of President Trump, isn’t there likely to be something of a security risk. Not to the President himself, I’m sure he’ll be well protected, but to public order in general. Almost certainly the present furore will have died down but there’s a reasonable likelihood of something else occuring by then.
They had the same issues with the Bush state visit & handled it fine.......
Charles's biggest problem is that he think his opinions matter and that he really is a leader of the nation. Humility and reserve is one thing his mother has probably spent her whole life trying to teach him, without much success. And there have been far too many instances of him shutting out in the cold those who've dared to disagree with him.
Next to HMQ he is almost bound to look a failure.
My biggest worry about William is that he's simply not all that bright. But it's luck-of-the-draw with monarchy, and boy oh boy have we been very, very lucky with Queen Elizabeth II.
I think William is brighter than his father, TBH.
It has always struck me that as 1. The vast majority of riding instructors in this country are women and 2. The male ones are in my experience disproportionately gay compared to the male population as a whole, it takes a special genius to send one's attractive young wife off to Shagger McShagface, notoriously the most prolific shagger in the whole of the Brigade of Guards, to brush up her turns on the forehand and shoulder-ins, if you get my drift.
@politicshome: Jeremy Corbyn: "Obviously impossible" for Labour MPs to stay in Shadow Cabinet if they defy whip on Article 50 vote http://bit.ly/2kGUlh1
But Tom Watson says anybody ejected will probably be back in the cabinet in a few months.
Yes the increasingly absurd Jezza fails to place a time limit on it. They could be back within a few minutes for all we know.
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
And markets across Europe would tank, which given its importance to us as an export market would have extremely negative consequences for the UK.
Maybe. As I said, on balance I think that Fillon would be better. But US markets have hardly tanked on Trump's election.
Well, cutting corporation tax by 60% (from 35% to 15%), removing the corporate minimum tax, allowing full write-offs of capex in year one, and allowing repatriation of profits with only a 10% tax rate will tend to put upwards pressure on US earnings.
(Albeit it would put downward pressure on tax receipts.)
Donald Trump and his populist advisers in the White House are one of the main three existential threats facing the European Union – and not Brexit - the chief Brexit negotiator of the European Parliament has claimed.
Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister and arch European federalist who recently returned from a tour of the US, said that it was now clear that Europe had “fewer friends than ever” in Washington.
Setting out the three main existential crises threatening Europe, Mr Verhofstad listed radical Islamic terror, the revanchist Russian president Vladimir Putin and his funding anti-EU, far-Right parties and destabilizing Europe and Donald Trump, the new US president.
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
Wouldn't the absence of a united EU front make negotiations pretty difficult? We need Europe to agree internally on a deal - if they're in total chaos surely that makes it harder - and more likely that not only will we leave without any kind of a deal... But in a disorderly fashion.
If it gets that bad, there won't be an EU to Leave from.
Inertia is the strongest force know to man. It's why the Ottoman empire and Byzantium and the Austro-Hungarian empires all lasted about 200 years longer than they should have done.
Why might the Austro-Hungarian empire have fallen in 1718 (rather than 1918)? It only became "Austria-Hungary" in 1867. And much of its territory was gained after 1718.
Considering this is a political betting site isn't it funny how often the monarchy comes up for discussion? It's not as if the succession presents a host of regular betting opportunities!
Classical history, trains and utter bloody pedantry on any given matter also come up frequently without offering much in the way of betting opportunities either!
Classical history, trains and utter bloody pedantry on any given matter also come up frequently without offering much in the way of betting opportunities either!
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
Wouldn't the absence of a united EU front make negotiations pretty difficult? We need Europe to agree internally on a deal - if they're in total chaos surely that makes it harder - and more likely that not only will we leave without any kind of a deal... But in a disorderly fashion.
No, we don't need the EU to have a united front; we just need the Council to agree by QMV.
As I say, I'm not convinced by the case but I can see that there's a non-trivial chance that it could work to the UK's advantage.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands did just that a few years back.
Private Eye does quite an amusing piece every so often on Prince Charles half hearing, usually in his bath, of his mother’s departure from the throne. IIRC there was one after that abdication.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
Would that exclude a Regency, where she remains Queen, but with Charles acting up into the role?
Classical history, trains and utter bloody pedantry on any given matter also come up frequently without offering much in the way of betting opportunities either!
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Her solemn and binding oath has legal and sacred force. Of course she could resile from it, but she likes to keep her word.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
Would that exclude a Regency, where she remains Queen, but with Charles acting up into the role?
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
I dare say see never expected to live to 90+...
That bit was covered in "whether it be long or short"
Considering this is a political betting site isn't it funny how often the monarchy comes up for discussion? It's not as if the succession presents a host of regular betting opportunities!
Classical history, trains and utter bloody pedantry on any given matter also come up frequently without offering much in the way of betting opportunities either!
Trains?
Choose life. Choose a blog. Choose a Korea. Choose a political party. Choose a f___ing big Twitter hashtag. Choose eco-friendly washing machines, hybrid cars, tablet computers, and smartphones. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed-interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your Facebook friends. Choose leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose a three piece suit on hire purchase in a range of f___ing fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the f___ you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing spirit-crushing reality TV shows, stuffing f___ing junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, f___ed-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life . . .
But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life: I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got PoliticalBetting.com?
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
I dare say see never expected to live to 90+...
I think that's the point, isn't it? It's a bit like "for better or worse" etc. No conditions.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
Yeah, I took that oath when I joined Goldman Sachs too.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
Yeah, I took that oath when I joined Goldman Sachs too.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
She could - subject to parliament passing the necessary Act of Parliament - abdicate for any reason. However, she would at present need individual Acts in each of her Realms.
As others have mentioned, a regency would work better as the Governors-General could carry on in the same way overseas with only Britain being affected by the need for someone else to act on her behalf.
WRT the proposed State Visit of President Trump, isn’t there likely to be something of a security risk. Not to the President himself, I’m sure he’ll be well protected, but to public order in general. Almost certainly the present furore will have died down but there’s a reasonable likelihood of something else occuring by then.
They had the same issues with the Bush state visit & handled it fine.......
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
Would that exclude a Regency, where she remains Queen, but with Charles acting up into the role?
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands did just that a few years back.
There's been a whole spate of abdications this decade. The Pope's was the most surprising.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
Would that exclude a Regency, where she remains Queen, but with Charles acting up into the role?
Suspect she may view that as a bit of a cop-out!
If she could no longer perform her duties because of physical or mental incapacity then no, I don't think so. Otherwise I'm sure you're right.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
She could - subject to parliament passing the necessary Act of Parliament - abdicate for any reason. However, she would at present need individual Acts in each of her Realms.
As others have mentioned, a regency would work better as the Governors-General could carry on in the same way overseas with only Britain being affected by the need for someone else to act on her behalf.
Never mind the legalities, if you think about the magnitude of the bombshell the last abdication was in her life I am guessing that she wants no part in another one.
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
Yeah, I took that oath when I joined Goldman Sachs too.
And I am sure you have been handsomely rewarded for your service!
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
She could - subject to parliament passing the necessary Act of Parliament - abdicate for any reason. However, she would at present need individual Acts in each of her Realms.
As others have mentioned, a regency would work better as the Governors-General could carry on in the same way overseas with only Britain being affected by the need for someone else to act on her behalf.
Never mind the legalities, if you think about the magnitude of the bombshell the last abdication was in her life I am guessing that she wants no part in another one.
I believe her old Mum blamed Wallis Simpson for the early demise of her husband, and wouldn’t hear the woman’s name mentioned. Or something like that.
WRT the proposed State Visit of President Trump, isn’t there likely to be something of a security risk. Not to the President himself, I’m sure he’ll be well protected, but to public order in general. Almost certainly the present furore will have died down but there’s a reasonable likelihood of something else occuring by then.
They had the same issues with the Bush state visit & handled it fine.......
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
Wouldn't the absence of a united EU front make negotiations pretty difficult? We need Europe to agree internally on a deal - if they're in total chaos surely that makes it harder - and more likely that not only will we leave without any kind of a deal... But in a disorderly fashion.
If it gets that bad, there won't be an EU to Leave from.
Inertia is the strongest force know to man. It's why the Ottoman empire and Byzantium and the Austro-Hungarian empires all lasted about 200 years longer than they should have done.
Why might the Austro-Hungarian empire have fallen in 1718 (rather than 1918)? It only became "Austria-Hungary" in 1867. And much of its territory was gained after 1718.
200 years in total.
Austria-Hungary was in much better shape in 1914 than history has given it credit for. Even the victor states were not immune from breaking up as a result of the war, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ought to give good evidence for.
Considering this is a political betting site isn't it funny how often the monarchy comes up for discussion? It's not as if the succession presents a host of regular betting opportunities!
Classical history, trains and utter bloody pedantry on any given matter also come up frequently without offering much in the way of betting opportunities either!
Trains?
Choose life. Choose a blog. Choose a Korea. Choose a political party. Choose a f___ing big Twitter hashtag. Choose eco-friendly washing machines, hybrid cars, tablet computers, and smartphones. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed-interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your Facebook friends. Choose leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose a three piece suit on hire purchase in a range of f___ing fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the f___ you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing spirit-crushing reality TV shows, stuffing f___ing junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, f___ed-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life . . .
But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life: I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got PoliticalBetting.com?
I've heard that was a strong contender for inclusion in the new film T2.
The question is who would play which character? OGH as Renton? SeanT as Begbie? Yourself as Spud?
Inertia is the strongest force know to man. It's why the Ottoman empire and Byzantium and the Austro-Hungarian empires all lasted about 200 years longer than they should have done.
Why might the Austro-Hungarian empire have fallen in 1718 (rather than 1918)? It only became "Austria-Hungary" in 1867. And much of its territory was gained after 1718.
200 years in total.
I thought that the Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn't an Empire in reality, but more the personal land holdings and feudal overlordships of the Hapsburg family?
Inertia is the strongest force know to man. It's why the Ottoman empire and Byzantium and the Austro-Hungarian empires all lasted about 200 years longer than they should have done.
Why might the Austro-Hungarian empire have fallen in 1718 (rather than 1918)? It only became "Austria-Hungary" in 1867. And much of its territory was gained after 1718.
200 years in total.
I thought that the Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn't an Empire in reality, but more the personal land holdings and feudal overlordships of the Hapsburg family?
King Cole, not so sure. Charles, after all, seems to be in perfectly good health.
It's not impossible William will be next, but odds must be fairly long.
As an aside, just five years to the Platinum Jubilee.
I'm no royalist but why the hell should we ask the Queen to work until she is 95+? Incidentally, one of my more minor objections to the monarchy (among several major ones) is that it's not much good for those in the monarchy. A life like that in the public eye with few freedoms, forced upon you, is inhumane.
She shouldn't, ideally. But before her, the oldest age that any monarch had lived to was 81.
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
Thanks David – excuse my ignorance but is there any legal impediment to her abdicating on the grounds of her advanced years?
Nope, she just takes her vows seriously.
On her 21st birthday “I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
Abdicating is not necessarily a breach of that declaration, particularly if infirmity meant that she could not serve her people and that not abdicating meant that no-one could do so.
@politicshome: Jeremy Corbyn: "Obviously impossible" for Labour MPs to stay in Shadow Cabinet if they defy whip on Article 50 vote http://bit.ly/2kGUlh1
But Tom Watson says anybody ejected will probably be back in the cabinet in a few months.
Because there is no-one else to do the jobs. They are going to be a laughing stock if the Opposition front bench comprises six people.
Hopefully, Merkel and Macron will be in power in Germany and France respectively this time next year. Trump could well help both of them.
We really don't want Schulz to win. He's a passionate eurofederalist who hates the idea of Brexit. He will want to make it hurt.
Merkel and Fillion would be the best of a bad bunch.
But Fillion may have holed himself beneath the waterline now.
Merkel and !e Pen would be best for Britain. On a purely selfish basis.
Macron is hard to call.
In what way would Le Pen be best for Britain?
I don't necessarily agree with Sean - I can see how Fillon might be best for Britain as a bridge between the UK and the EU - but I can also see an argument that were Le Pen to win, it would create absolute chaos within the EU and present it with its biggest existential crisis ever as they grappled with the question "is the project over"?
Of the two - Brexit and a Le Pen win - she poses the greater danger, partly because France has always been a much more integral part of the EU than the UK and partly because France is a continuing part of the EU. As such, EU energies will be devoted to resolving that problem (which, ironically, would result from many of the things that Cameron flagged up back in his Bloomberg speech and which were singularly not addressed in his negotiations and which, had they been, would probably not have led to Brexit). There'd be no united EU front and negotiations would be more likely to go favourably for the UK.
Wouldn't the absence of a united EU front make negotiations pretty difficult? We need Europe to agree internally on a deal - if they're in total chaos surely that makes it harder - and more likely that not only will we leave without any kind of a deal... But in a disorderly fashion.
I think the logic from our Leaver friends is that if Europe sinks into an abyss then that is a job well done as far as we're concerned.
I am not sure I could name a single person on here who has said they want Europe to sink into an abyss - or anything of a similar fate for the continent. There are a few who want to see the end of the EU but of course the EU is not Europe and ending it would not see Europe sink into an abyss.
So I would suggest you are wrong on all counts there.
Inertia is the strongest force know to man. It's why the Ottoman empire and Byzantium and the Austro-Hungarian empires all lasted about 200 years longer than they should have done.
Why might the Austro-Hungarian empire have fallen in 1718 (rather than 1918)? It only became "Austria-Hungary" in 1867. And much of its territory was gained after 1718.
200 years in total.
I thought that the Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn't an Empire in reality, but more the personal land holdings and feudal overlordships of the Hapsburg family?
The Austrian empire started in 1521, then it took over Hungary from Turkey in 1699. Then in 1867, the Ausgleich or "compromise" was agreed between the Austrians and Hungarians, giving their parts of the Empire equal billing, ergo "Austria-Hungary".
Comments
@afneil
President Trump signs an executive order Monday morning requiring that for every new federal regulation implemented, two must be rescinded.
Miss Plato, that's an interesting order. He certainly does like signing them.
My experience of traders has been the precise opposite. Worth remembering just how long it took Betfair to wake up to reality on referendum night.
I suspect the limiting factor on Her Majesty's effective reign won't be her own lifespan but the Duke of Edinburgh's. He is in good health too so far as we know but he is five years older.
The abyss would be an undemocratic, unaccountable, opaque court of meddling bureaucratic eunuchs intent upon empire-building at the cost but without the consent of the vulgar masses. Not so much an iron curtain as a red tape curtain.
Miss Plato, ha, reminds me of the religious bickering in Byzantium.
*"How d'ya like me now", by The Heavy.
If it gets that bad, there won't be an EU to Leave from.
Ed was often good at identifying problems; the problem lay in the sometimes silly solutions he proposed to the problems. Perhaps now he doesn't have to be leader, and with more experience, he can come up with some much-needed sensible policies for the party.
Next to HMQ he is almost bound to look a failure.
My biggest worry about William is that he's simply not all that bright. But it's luck-of-the-draw with monarchy, and boy oh boy have we been very, very lucky with Queen Elizabeth II.
"French-Canadian Bissonnette and Khadir, of Moroccan heritage, are said to be in their late 20s or early 30s.
At least one suspect is a student at the Laval University near the mosque, the source said.
Six men, aged 35 to 70, are said to have died in the attack and five more are in a critical condition, police Sergeant Christine Coulombe said.
A hospital spokesman said 13 people had been discharged from hospital after receiving treatment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/30/conservative-ministers-mps-ordered-remain-commons-midnight-tomorrow/
However, what is his game (in political terms)? He does appear to be on manoeuvres...
HBOS bankers among six found guilty of bribery and fraud amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds https://t.co/guxrswv0YV https://t.co/m3BAS1X5UD
The problem is that as well as the UK, she's queen of fifteen other countries and while they did all amend their laws in respect of the order of succession recently, to keep in step, that was a process which could take years if necessary. By contrast, one placing either a retirement age or providing for abdication by Instrument would obviously have immediate applicability.
There would be a good case for a Royal Reform Act dealing with quite a lot of issues that need updating (including old age provisions) being passed very early in the next reign. The text of the coronation oath is one such, which is why the window between the succession and the coronation is ideal.
(Albeit it would put downward pressure on tax receipts.)
Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister and arch European federalist who recently returned from a tour of the US, said that it was now clear that Europe had “fewer friends than ever” in Washington.
Setting out the three main existential crises threatening Europe, Mr Verhofstad listed radical Islamic terror, the revanchist Russian president Vladimir Putin and his funding anti-EU, far-Right parties and destabilizing Europe and Donald Trump, the new US president.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/30/donald-trump-steve-bannon-pose-existential-threat-eu-says-chief/
http://www.lemonde.fr/affaire-penelope-fillon/article/2017/01/30/francois-fillon-et-sa-femme-entendus-par-la-police_5071761_5070021.html
Series of Tweets re Fillon helping with enquires.
On her 21st birthday
“I declare that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”
As I say, I'm not convinced by the case but I can see that there's a non-trivial chance that it could work to the UK's advantage.
Choose life. Choose a blog. Choose a Korea. Choose a political party. Choose a f___ing big Twitter hashtag. Choose eco-friendly washing machines, hybrid cars, tablet computers, and smartphones. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed-interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your Facebook friends. Choose leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose a three piece suit on hire purchase in a range of f___ing fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the f___ you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing spirit-crushing reality TV shows, stuffing f___ing junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, f___ed-up brats you have spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life . . .
But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life: I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got PoliticalBetting.com?
https://twitter.com/stuartmillar159/status/826089418301853698
As others have mentioned, a regency would work better as the Governors-General could carry on in the same way overseas with only Britain being affected by the need for someone else to act on her behalf.
The question is who would play which character? OGH as Renton? SeanT as Begbie? Yourself as Spud?
Spawniest family in Europe.
So I would suggest you are wrong on all counts there.