As Keynes said, in the long run, we are all dead. I'm sure you're right, but I doubt anyone reading this thread will be alive to see it.
Oh, I see this happening in the next 15 years.
Read "When Money Dies"; it's amazing how quickly a government can destroy savings, and confidence in the institution of money itself.
My point, of course, is that governments having control of their money is really a very modern construct - existing briefly in the pre-War period, and then post Bretton-Woods.
It's a little long for betting, really, but would you be up for a wager on that 15 year timeframe?
We'll need to make the stakes something other than fiat money, otherwise I collect pretty much nothing on victory.
Gold? In troy ounces (or fraction thereof, as the case may be)?
Terms of the bet?
Inflation to exceed 100% in one calendar year in the next 15 in one of: GBP, USD, and JPY, and or to have average more than 50% over a three year period. What I think could be reasonably described as hyper-inflation.
That's 50% per annum, yes?
Yes.
BTC or gold?
I'm old-fashioned. Call it the ask price of one troy ounce of gold, in whatever reasonable currency the winner specifies when the bet crystallises. If any of the conditions are met before 15 years has elapsed, you win; if not, you pay me on the 15th anniversary of this bet.
Far too early to say whether Corbyn has made the right or wrong call on this. If Brexit is a shambles... I think the Tories will be blamed.
But I think Labour saying... We would have done a better brexit... Might well prove more persuasive than the lib Dems saying we told you so to the voters.
What is better Brexit though? Tariff free access to the Single Market is going to require settling our bills with the EU for an astronomical fee (£50bn or thereabouts) and accepting freedom of movement. Good luck to Corbyn if he is going to try and argue in favour of either of those.
Tusk declaring war on the US is hardly going to help remainers
Am I looking at the wrong letter here? Where is the declaration of war? All I see is a statement of fact: the new US administration's approach to foreign policy breaks the post-war US consensus. What am I missing?
Donald Tusk said today that Trump's US is an external threat to the EU along with Russia, China , and Radical Islam
Read the letter - he states a self-evident truth.
The letter is not relevant - it is the statement he made today
Tusk declaring war on the US is hardly going to help remainers
Am I looking at the wrong letter here? Where is the declaration of war? All I see is a statement of fact: the new US administration's approach to foreign policy breaks the post-war US consensus. What am I missing?
Donald Tusk said today that Trump's US is an external threat to the EU along with Russia, China , and Radical Islam
Read the letter - he states a self-evident truth.
The letter is not relevant - it is the statement he made today
I believe Lib Dems will have some dissenters. Looks like Norman Lamb will abstain, and Greg Mulholland will vote for A50 trigger. Small ripples compared to Labour divisions, but not insignificant given the prominence EU campaigning is to the Lib Dems at the moment.
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
A vote to remain would never (as sold during the campaign) been a vote for the status quo.
This is the key thing about the letter. It is more Europe. It is not Brexit that has driven that, it is Trump. The letter kills off any hope that anyone might have had of the UK remaining. And, if Remain had won, that letter would have reignited the entire debate. However, if Remain had won, Clinton probably would have done too.
Tusk declaring war on the US is hardly going to help remainers
Am I looking at the wrong letter here? Where is the declaration of war? All I see is a statement of fact: the new US administration's approach to foreign policy breaks the post-war US consensus. What am I missing?
Donald Tusk said today that Trump's US is an external threat to the EU along with Russia, China , and Radical Islam
Read the letter - he states a self-evident truth.
The letter is not relevant - it is the statement he made today
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system.
And you were wrong. Again.
It is the Cult of Brexit that I reject. I have no desire to worship it's high Priests. They are false Gods, and the idols they praise (Control, Sovereignty) will turn to dust in their hands...
But only after much human sacrifice and suffering.
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
A vote to remain would never (as sold during the campaign) been a vote for the status quo.
This is the key thing about the letter. It is more Europe. It is not Brexit that has driven that, it is Trump. The letter kills off any hope that anyone might have had of the UK remaining. And, if Remain had won, that letter would have reignited the entire debate. However, if Remain had won, Clinton probably would have done too.
If we must indulge these moronic petitions, is there a way in which we can at least find out how many individual signatures there have been, as opposed to a few thousand nutters using multiple email addresses? All it would take is 10,000 with 10 email addresses, and hey presto, our elected representatives have to use their precious time 'debating' the subject. These petitions are the continued infantilisation of discourse in this country, and indeed right across the democratic West.
Its probably worse than you think, on the EU second referendum petition there was evidence shown that several tens of thousands of entries (at the least) were entered as part of a wheeze by some bunch of muppets from 4chan. As a measure of the support of one side of the other its almost worthless, a few IT literate people on either side will completely throw the result.
On websites the government actually cares about, authentication is much stronger, mostly requiring you to enter an identifying number (such as NI No, Driving License No, Passport No etc) that the government knows, but which is generally speaking not public knowledge, and can be tied to one individual and mostly, one address.
The petition website is conspicuously there to give people the impression that they were being listened to without any real risk of having to change policy as a result, almost the opposite of a referendum
But it would be impossible for the same thing to be happening with the Invite Trump petition?
Far too early to say whether Corbyn has made the right or wrong call on this. If Brexit is a shambles... I think the Tories will be blamed.
But I think Labour saying... We would have done a better brexit... Might well prove more persuasive than the lib Dems saying we told you so to the voters.
What is better Brexit though? Tariff free access to the Single Market is going to require settling our bills with the EU for an astronomical fee (£50bn or thereabouts) and accepting freedom of movement. Good luck to Corbyn if he is going to try and argue in favour of either of those.
You are assuming that the EU's publically-stated starting position is their red line.
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
A vote to remain would never (as sold during the campaign) been a vote for the status quo.
This is the key thing about the letter. It is more Europe. It is not Brexit that has driven that, it is Trump. The letter kills off any hope that anyone might have had of the UK remaining. And, if Remain had won, that letter would have reignited the entire debate. However, if Remain had won, Clinton probably would have done too.
I am not convinced that brexit led to trump and remain would have meant clinton. Without being too harsh on Americans, most are very insular when it comes to world affairs and even highly educated well travelled ones that I know didn't all understand what brexit was.
I think rather the conditions for both becoming possible have been simmering and for.example in the us the democratics put up the worst possible candidate to defend against it.
Tusk declaring war on the US is hardly going to help remainers
Am I looking at the wrong letter here? Where is the declaration of war? All I see is a statement of fact: the new US administration's approach to foreign policy breaks the post-war US consensus. What am I missing?
Donald Tusk said today that Trump's US is an external threat to the EU along with Russia, China , and Radical Islam
Read the letter - he states a self-evident truth.
The letter is not relevant - it is the statement he made today
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
The EU elite senses an opportunity to bully the cowed people of the EU into accepting a superstate. But I'm not sure all the voters are in a mind to acquiesce. Even in core western Europe.
I reckon the French and Italians, for a start, will say F off. Maybe the Dutch.
In the East Hungary and Poland will have nothing to do with it. In the north Sweden and Denmark will look askance. Ireland will be pincered, very painfully, between more integration and Brexit.
We really are Better Off Out. The EU could have been great but it's now poisoned at the heart.
The French may be about to vote 2:1 for More EU over No EU.
If we must indulge these moronic petitions, is there a way in which we can at least find out how many individual signatures there have been, as opposed to a few thousand nutters using multiple email addresses? All it would take is 10,000 with 10 email addresses, and hey presto, our elected representatives have to use their precious time 'debating' the subject. These petitions are the continued infantilisation of discourse in this country, and indeed right across the democratic West.
Its probably worse than you think, on the EU second referendum petition there was evidence shown that several tens of thousands of entries (at the least) were entered as part of a wheeze by some bunch of muppets from 4chan. As a measure of the support of one side of the other its almost worthless, a few IT literate people on either side will completely throw the result.
On websites the government actually cares about, authentication is much stronger, mostly requiring you to enter an identifying number (such as NI No, Driving License No, Passport No etc) that the government knows, but which is generally speaking not public knowledge, and can be tied to one individual and mostly, one address.
The petition website is conspicuously there to give people the impression that they were being listened to without any real risk of having to change policy as a result, almost the opposite of a referendum
But it would be impossible for the same thing to be happening with the Invite Trump petition?
That was my point. Both petitions are insecure and at best a vague indication of support, but the idea that we can rely even vaguely on the numbers cast is for the birds. A group of people support both propositions, its likely but not certain that the "piss off Trump" group is more numerous, but they might just be more skilled or more committed. The whole thing is a farce, its the 21st Century attempt at providing an opiate for the masses, so they can feel they have had their say and not trouble their political masters any further.
Far too early to say whether Corbyn has made the right or wrong call on this. If Brexit is a shambles... I think the Tories will be blamed.
But I think Labour saying... We would have done a better brexit... Might well prove more persuasive than the lib Dems saying we told you so to the voters.
What is better Brexit though? Tariff free access to the Single Market is going to require settling our bills with the EU for an astronomical fee (£50bn or thereabouts) and accepting freedom of movement. Good luck to Corbyn if he is going to try and argue in favour of either of those.
You are assuming that the EU's publically-stated starting position is their red line.
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
The EU elite senses an opportunity to bully the cowed people of the EU into accepting a superstate. But I'm not sure all the voters are in a mind to acquiesce. Even in core western Europe.
I reckon the French and Italians, for a start, will say F off. Maybe the Dutch.
In the East Hungary and Poland will have nothing to do with it. In the north Sweden and Denmark will look askance. Ireland will be pincered, very painfully, between more integration and Brexit.
We really are Better Off Out. The EU could have been great but it's now poisoned at the heart.
The French may be about to vote 2:1 for More EU over No EU.
The French voted down the EU Constitution (and if that vote had been respected by the elite, Brexit would never have happened)
We shall see.
Who knows, but if it is Macron vs Le Pen, it is explicitly More EU vs No EU.
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
The EU elite senses an opportunity to bully the cowed people of the EU into accepting a superstate. But I'm not sure all the voters are in a mind to acquiesce. Even in core western Europe.
I reckon the French and Italians, for a start, will say F off. Maybe the Dutch.
In the East Hungary and Poland will have nothing to do with it. In the north Sweden and Denmark will look askance. Ireland will be pincered, very painfully, between more integration and Brexit.
We really are Better Off Out. The EU could have been great but it's now poisoned at the heart.
In the short term now it's all about security and foreign policy. How the EU looks to the rest of the world will be transformed without any material change to how it looks to its citizens.
Mr. Herdson, even if the gold content is constant, there will be a variance according to age and quality. As a child, I collected coins (mostly just worthless junk, must have fourscore sixpences) and had a very good, if now very outdated, book which gave a guide to value based on year, denomination and quality.
On the subject of France, the FN and MLP launched her manifesto today. It calls for the Eurozone to go, and to be replaced by the Ecu - which is a sensible way of redenominating debts in the event of an orderly Eurozone dissolution.
I expect she'll see a bump in the polls. I also wonder if Fillon's travails will benefit her too, as he is now 'just another politician'.
The controversial bit (such as it is) would appear to be:
The first threat, an external one, is related to the new geopolitical situation in the world and around Europe. An increasingly, let us call it, assertive China, especially on the seas, Russia's aggressive policy towards Ukraine and its neighbours, wars, terror and anarchy in the Middle East and in Africa, with radical Islam playing a major role, as well as worrying declarations by the new American administration all make our future highly unpredictable.
Whereas, as Southam rightly points out the killer is really this bit:
We must therefore take assertive and spectacular steps that would change the collective emotions and revive the aspiration to raise European integration to the next level. In order to do this, we must restore the sense of external and internal security as well as socio-economic welfare for European citizens. This requires a definitive reinforcement of the EU external borders; improved cooperation of services responsible for combating terrorism and protecting order and peace within the border-free area; an increase in defence spending; strengthening the foreign policy of the EU as a whole as well as better coordinating individual member states' foreign policies; and last but not least fostering investment, social inclusion, growth, employment, reaping the benefits of technological change and convergence in both the euro area and the whole of Europe.
Which sinks beyond repair any chance of selling remain to a sceptical British public.
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
A vote to remain would never (as sold during the campaign) been a vote for the status quo.
This is the key thing about the letter. It is more Europe. It is not Brexit that has driven that, it is Trump. The letter kills off any hope that anyone might have had of the UK remaining. And, if Remain had won, that letter would have reignited the entire debate. However, if Remain had won, Clinton probably would have done too.
I am not convinced that brexit led to trump and remain would have meant clinton. Without being too harsh on Americans, most are very insular when it comes to world affairs and even highly educated well travelled ones that I know didn't all understand what brexit was.
I think rather the conditions for both becoming possible have been simmering and for.example in the us the democratics put up the worst possible candidate to defend against it.
Quite right. My sister spends half the year in Texas. Mention 'Brexit' to them and they say 'is that the game they play with a paddle and three sticks in the ground?'
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
A vote to remain would never (as sold during the campaign) been a vote for the status quo.
This is the key thing about the letter. It is more Europe. It is not Brexit that has driven that, it is Trump. The letter kills off any hope that anyone might have had of the UK remaining. And, if Remain had won, that letter would have reignited the entire debate. However, if Remain had won, Clinton probably would have done too.
I am not convinced that brexit led to trump and remain would have meant clinton. Without being too harsh on Americans, most are very insular when it comes to world affairs and even highly educated well travelled ones that I know didn't all understand what brexit was.
I think rather the conditions for both becoming possible have been simmering and for.example in the us the democratics put up the worst possible candidate to defend against it.
A better Democrat candidate may have taken Brexit as a warning shot that Trump could win and taken the action required to prevent it. Like bothering to campaign in the Democrat states that went red - that would have been a good start!
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
A vote to remain would never (as sold during the campaign) been a vote for the status quo.
This is the key thing about the letter. It is more Europe. It is not Brexit that has driven that, it is Trump. The letter kills off any hope that anyone might have had of the UK remaining. And, if Remain had won, that letter would have reignited the entire debate. However, if Remain had won, Clinton probably would have done too.
I am not convinced that brexit led to trump and remain would have meant clinton. Without being too harsh on Americans, most are very insular when it comes to world affairs and even highly educated well travelled ones that I know didn't all understand what brexit was.
I think rather the conditions for both becoming possible have been simmering and for.example in the us the democratics put up the worst possible candidate to defend against it.
Quite right. My sister spends half the year in Texas. Mention 'Brexit' to them and they say 'is that the game they play with a paddle and three sticks in the ground?'
I wouldn't have thought most Texans would know even that much about Cricket ...
The controversial bit (such as it is) would appear to be:
The first threat, an external one, is related to the new geopolitical situation in the world and around Europe. An increasingly, let us call it, assertive China, especially on the seas, Russia's aggressive policy towards Ukraine and its neighbours, wars, terror and anarchy in the Middle East and in Africa, with radical Islam playing a major role, as well as worrying declarations by the new American administration all make our future highly unpredictable.
Whereas, as Southam rightly points out the killer is really this bit:
We must therefore take assertive and spectacular steps that would change the collective emotions and revive the aspiration to raise European integration to the next level. In order to do this, we must restore the sense of external and internal security as well as socio-economic welfare for European citizens. This requires a definitive reinforcement of the EU external borders; improved cooperation of services responsible for combating terrorism and protecting order and peace within the border-free area; an increase in defence spending; strengthening the foreign policy of the EU as a whole as well as better coordinating individual member states' foreign policies; and last but not least fostering investment, social inclusion, growth, employment, reaping the benefits of technological change and convergence in both the euro area and the whole of Europe.
Which sinks beyond repair any chance of selling remain to a sceptical British public.
I completely agree: the more EUrope line was never going to sell well in the UK. I find the idea that it's an "attack on America" is absurd, though. It simply states the obvious.
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
The EU elite senses an opportunity to bully the cowed people of the EU into accepting a superstate. But I'm not sure all the voters are in a mind to acquiesce. Even in core western Europe.
I reckon the French and Italians, for a start, will say F off. Maybe the Dutch.
In the East Hungary and Poland will have nothing to do with it. In the north Sweden and Denmark will look askance. Ireland will be pincered, very painfully, between more integration and Brexit.
We really are Better Off Out. The EU could have been great but it's now poisoned at the heart.
The French may be about to vote 2:1 for More EU over No EU.
The French voted down the EU Constitution (and if that vote had been respected by the elite, Brexit would never have happened)
We shall see.
Who knows, but if it is Macron vs Le Pen, it is explicitly More EU vs No EU.
Is Le Pen explicitly for Frexit?
I thought she wanted a referendum but hadn't explicitly come out for Frexit?
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
The EU elite senses an opportunity to bully the cowed people of the EU into accepting a superstate. But I'm not sure all the voters are in a mind to acquiesce. Even in core western Europe.
I reckon the French and Italians, for a start, will say F off. Maybe the Dutch.
In the East Hungary and Poland will have nothing to do with it. In the north Sweden and Denmark will look askance. Ireland will be pincered, very painfully, between more integration and Brexit.
We really are Better Off Out. The EU could have been great but it's now poisoned at the heart.
The French may be about to vote 2:1 for More EU over No EU.
The French voted down the EU Constitution (and if that vote had been respected by the elite, Brexit would never have happened)
We shall see.
Who knows, but if it is Macron vs Le Pen, it is explicitly More EU vs No EU.
Is Le Pen explicitly for Frexit?
I thought she wanted a referendum but hadn't explicitly come out for Frexit?
Britain has its problems, But we are a great and ancient democracy and we wil solve them ourselves. Sod this fucking piece of shit Strasbourg-Brussels bureauwankathon. It's beastly and awful.
Except the government is not proposing we solve them ourselves, but that we instead give up all control of our economy and NHS over to President Trump.
Is anyone betting on the Government's majority on Brexit bill
I reckon more than 400. Anyone want to bet the other way?
Robert - I'll take you on for a £20 evens bet that the Gov't majority on the Brexit Bill will be <400. You say >400.
I'm expecting the voting to be something like For: 495, Against: 125, Abstain/DNV, etc: 30. Thereby resulting in a majority of circa 370. Settlement by electronic transfer within 7 days ... agreed?
"Until recently, psychologists weren't allowed to assess public figures and talk to journalists about their findings, but it's alright this time since it is Trump."
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
The EU elite senses an opportunity to bully the cowed people of the EU into accepting a superstate. But I'm not sure all the voters are in a mind to acquiesce. Even in core western Europe.
I reckon the French and Italians, for a start, will say F off. Maybe the Dutch.
In the East Hungary and Poland will have nothing to do with it. In the north Sweden and Denmark will look askance. Ireland will be pincered, very painfully, between more integration and Brexit.
We really are Better Off Out. The EU could have been great but it's now poisoned at the heart.
The French may be about to vote 2:1 for More EU over No EU.
The French voted down the EU Constitution (and if that vote had been respected by the elite, Brexit would never have happened)
We shall see.
Who knows, but if it is Macron vs Le Pen, it is explicitly More EU vs No EU.
Is Le Pen explicitly for Frexit?
I thought she wanted a referendum but hadn't explicitly come out for Frexit?
Britain has its problems, But we are a great and ancient democracy and we wil solve them ourselves. Sod this fucking piece of shit Strasbourg-Brussels bureauwankathon. It's beastly and awful.
Except the government is not proposing we solve them ourselves, but that we instead give up all control of our economy and NHS over to President Trump.
I must have missed that announcement, could you link it please ?
Britain has its problems, But we are a great and ancient democracy and we wil solve them ourselves. Sod this fucking piece of shit Strasbourg-Brussels bureauwankathon. It's beastly and awful.
Except the government is not proposing we solve them ourselves, but that we instead give up all control of our economy and NHS over to President Trump.
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
The EU elite senses an opportunity to bully the cowed people of the EU into accepting a superstate. But I'm not sure all the voters are in a mind to acquiesce. Even in core western Europe.
I reckon the French and Italians, for a start, will say F off. Maybe the Dutch.
In the East Hungary and Poland will have nothing to do with it. In the north Sweden and Denmark will look askance. Ireland will be pincered, very painfully, between more integration and Brexit.
We really are Better Off Out. The EU could have been great but it's now poisoned at the heart.
The French may be about to vote 2:1 for More EU over No EU.
The French voted down the EU Constitution (and if that vote had been respected by the elite, Brexit would never have happened)
We shall see.
Who knows, but if it is Macron vs Le Pen, it is explicitly More EU vs No EU.
Is Le Pen explicitly for Frexit?
I thought she wanted a referendum but hadn't explicitly come out for Frexit?
Her pitch today is an EU without the Eurozone.
So not explicitly [as opposed to implicitly] "No EU"?
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
The EU elite senses an opportunity to bully the cowed people of the EU into accepting a superstate. But I'm not sure all the voters are in a mind to acquiesce. Even in core western Europe.
I reckon the French and Italians, for a start, will say F off. Maybe the Dutch.
In the East Hungary and Poland will have nothing to do with it. In the north Sweden and Denmark will look askance. Ireland will be pincered, very painfully, between more integration and Brexit.
We really are Better Off Out. The EU could have been great but it's now poisoned at the heart.
The French may be about to vote 2:1 for More EU over No EU.
The French voted down the EU Constitution (and if that vote had been respected by the elite, Brexit would never have happened)
We shall see.
Who knows, but if it is Macron vs Le Pen, it is explicitly More EU vs No EU.
Is Le Pen explicitly for Frexit?
I thought she wanted a referendum but hadn't explicitly come out for Frexit?
Her pitch today is an EU without the Eurozone.
So not explicitly [as opposed to implicitly] "No EU"?
Is anyone betting on the Government's majority on Brexit bill
I reckon more than 400. Anyone want to bet the other way?
Robert - I'll take you on for a £20 evens bet that the Gov't majority on the Brexit Bill will be <400. You say >400.
I'm expecting the voting to be something like For: 495, Against: 125, Abstain/DNV, etc: 30. Thereby resulting in a majority of circa 370. Settlement by electronic transfer within 7 days ... agreed?
Britain has its problems, But we are a great and ancient democracy and we wil solve them ourselves. Sod this fucking piece of shit Strasbourg-Brussels bureauwankathon. It's beastly and awful.
Except the government is not proposing we solve them ourselves, but that we instead give up all control of our economy and NHS over to President Trump.
I must have missed that announcement, could you link it please ?
Did you miss Trump's inauguration speech where he vowed that all future trade deals would have the US heavily in the driving seat, with American companies and American workers prioritised, with the other countries in the the trade deal thus inevitably being disadvantaged?
Have you also missed that Theresa May has been openly saying she wants a trade deal with Trump, even after he said this?
Mr. Herdson, even if the gold content is constant, there will be a variance according to age and quality. As a child, I collected coins (mostly just worthless junk, must have fourscore sixpences) and had a very good, if now very outdated, book which gave a guide to value based on year, denomination and quality.
True, but that could be for the loser in the bet to decide, within reason. Sovereigns are still minted - one site I've just checked sells 2016 coins for about £250 depending on the number ordered. There'd be no obligation to pay with some antique currency.
On the other hand, if they so wanted, they could define the terms as 'most recently issued, uncirculated).
As an aside, I also had a similar book(let) with guide prices, though as it listed them in pounds, shillings and pence, it probably wasn't that up-to-date either.
Britain has its problems, But we are a great and ancient democracy and we wil solve them ourselves. Sod this fucking piece of shit Strasbourg-Brussels bureauwankathon. It's beastly and awful.
Except the government is not proposing we solve them ourselves, but that we instead give up all control of our economy and NHS over to President Trump.
I must have missed that announcement, could you link it please ?
Did you miss Trump's inauguration speech where he vowed that all future trade deals would have the US heavily in the driving seat, with American companies and American workers prioritised, with the other countries in the the trade deal thus inevitably being disadvantaged?
Have you also missed that Theresa May has been openly saying she wants a trade deal with Trump, even after he said this?
So that is "all control of our economy and NHS" going to Trump? Righto!
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
The EU elite senses an opportunity to bully the cowed people of the EU into accepting a superstate. But I'm not sure all the voters are in a mind to acquiesce. Even in core western Europe.
I reckon the French and Italians, for a start, will say F off. Maybe the Dutch.
In the East Hungary and Poland will have nothing to do with it. In the north Sweden and Denmark will look askance. Ireland will be pincered, very painfully, between more integration and Brexit.
We really are Better Off Out. The EU could have been great but it's now poisoned at the heart.
The fundamentals point to one of Swenmark as the next out. They're geographically on the edge of the EU, about to lose one of their free-market allies from it, and they've had the sense to stay out of euro, making an exit easier. I'd put money on it if the time to payout weren't so long.
A better Democrat candidate may have taken Brexit as a warning shot that Trump could win and taken the action required to prevent it. Like bothering to campaign in the Democrat states that went red - that would have been a good start!
Another campaigning tip, try to avoid calling a large chunk of the electorate "deplorables".
Britain has its problems, But we are a great and ancient democracy and we wil solve them ourselves. Sod this fucking piece of shit Strasbourg-Brussels bureauwankathon. It's beastly and awful.
Except the government is not proposing we solve them ourselves, but that we instead give up all control of our economy and NHS over to President Trump.
I must have missed that announcement, could you link it please ?
Did you miss Trump's inauguration speech where he vowed that all future trade deals would have the US heavily in the driving seat, with American companies and American workers prioritised, with the other countries in the the trade deal thus inevitably being disadvantaged?
Have you also missed that Theresa May has been openly saying she wants a trade deal with Trump, even after he said this?
She wants one, she also said that not signing one was better than signing a bad one. If its crap, she won't sign it. More likely it will be restricted to a limited number of sectors which will pass with limited controversy.
I don't mean to be unduly cruel to a Labour supporter, but outside the EU the people are in control of the trade deals (through their elected representatives) so if the Left want one more in keeping with their aspirations, maybe Labour need to consider getting elected ?
Mr. Herdson, even if the gold content is constant, there will be a variance according to age and quality. As a child, I collected coins (mostly just worthless junk, must have fourscore sixpences) and had a very good, if now very outdated, book which gave a guide to value based on year, denomination and quality.
To British eyes it is quite unusually anti-American.
Continental Europeans simply don't feel the ties of blood, history, language, culture that we feel, with the rest of the Anglosphere. And that's totally understandable. When troubles arise, and I mean deep serious troubles, our instinct is to ask what do the Americans think, and also the Canadian, Aussies, etc. Do we stand together? You saw it in the mic drop meme between Prince Harry, Obama and Trudeau. That entire thing could not have happened between Merkel, Hollande, Cameron. It would have been embarrassing.
These differing attitudes underpin Brexit.
I've been very clear about my reasons for backing Brexit on this board, and I shan't repeat them
But I think there is this desire from both the press, and certain members of this site, to read a boring, and banal statement of the obvious - that the new administration might ('seemingly') not be as committed to multinational institutions as historically - as an attack on the US is ridiculis.
"The Fixed Odds Betting Terminals All Party Parliamentary Group's report found that there is now a 'prima facie' case for significantly reducing the maximum stake that can be wagered on a fixed odds betting machine, putting forward a case for the maximum stake to be reduced to GBP2. The maximum stake currently stands at GBP100."
If these proposals were to come into force, I foresee at least half the country's betting shops closing down in double quick time. These infernal thieving terminals are the only thing which is keeping thousands of them open.
As far as I'm concerned this can't happen quickly enough - small wonder that the bookies, seeing this coming have been panicked into shotgun mergers with Ladbrokes joining up with Corals and Paddy Power with Betfair. Has Wm Hill been left out in the cold I wonder?
This is as may be, depending on your taste. But it's an abuse of the APPG system to have their extremely partial report dressed up as if it were a Select Committee report. APPG's are increasingly funded by external bodies and this gives rise to serious concern:
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
The EU elite senses an opportunity to bully the cowed people of the EU into accepting a superstate. But I'm not sure all the voters are in a mind to acquiesce. Even in core western Europe.
I reckon the French and Italians, for a start, will say F off. Maybe the Dutch.
In the East Hungary and Poland will have nothing to do with it. In the north Sweden and Denmark will look askance. Ireland will be pincered, very painfully, between more integration and Brexit.
We really are Better Off Out. The EU could have been great but it's now poisoned at the heart.
The fundamentals point to one of Swenmark as the next out. They're geographically on the edge of the EU, about to lose one of their free-market allies from it, and they've had the sense to stay out of euro, making an exit easier. I'd put money on it if the time to payout weren't so long.
Sweden is much more likely than Denmark, as Denmark is a de facto Euro member.
Mr. T, I'd need to check (I think I still have it, buried somewhere).
Mr. glw, it's a step away from the slogan - "Vote for me, scum."
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, I recall a pre-referendum poll in Sweden indicating a majority would want to leave the EU if the UK left. Of course, actually doing it is another thing.
To British eyes it is quite unusually anti-American.
Continental Europeans simply don't feel the ties of blood, history, language, culture that we feel, with the rest of the Anglosphere. And that's totally understandable. When troubles arise, and I mean deep serious troubles, our instinct is to ask what do the Americans think, and also the Canadian, Aussies, etc. Do we stand together? You saw it in the mic drop meme between Prince Harry, Obama and Trudeau. That entire thing could not have happened between Merkel, Hollande, Cameron. It would have been embarrassing.
These differing attitudes underpin Brexit.
From deep serious troubles to mic drop memes. That's some elision.
You can see countless examples of the same pop culture memes being exchanged between Russians and Ukrainians, but it hasn't prevented an ongoing bloody conflict.
And the same old "more Europe" answer. You do have to wonder if there is anything that would ever persuade them that they might be wrong.
No. As I tried, so patiently, to explain to dear old ScottP, his Europeanism is a belief system. It is not susceptible to argumentation and logical dispute. The answer will always be More Europe just as the answer for Islamic fundamentalists is ever greater adherence to the strictest interpretation of the hadiths.
Mind you it is nice of Tusk to spell out where the EU is headed. The idea that the UK could conformably remain in the EU looks increasingly absurd if it is going to see much more integration and federalise.
The EU elite senses an opportunity to bully the cowed people of the EU into accepting a superstate. But I'm not sure all the voters are in a mind to acquiesce. Even in core western Europe.
I reckon the French and Italians, for a start, will say F off. Maybe the Dutch.
In the East Hungary and Poland will have nothing to do with it. In the north Sweden and Denmark will look askance. Ireland will be pincered, very painfully, between more integration and Brexit.
We really are Better Off Out. The EU could have been great but it's now poisoned at the heart.
The French may be about to vote 2:1 for More EU over No EU.
That's not exactly what they're likely to be voting for, even if it's a fair representation of the respective outcomes.
But that about a third of the French might be about to vote for a candidate who could well advocate withdrawal from the EU is of itself a measure of the situation. It's something that would have been unthinkable even five years ago.
A better Democrat candidate may have taken Brexit as a warning shot that Trump could win and taken the action required to prevent it. Like bothering to campaign in the Democrat states that went red - that would have been a good start!
Another campaigning tip, try to avoid calling a large chunk of the electorate "deplorables".
And have some policies. "I have a vagina" and "I am not Donald Trump" don't count as policies.
Britain has its problems, But we are a great and ancient democracy and we wil solve them ourselves. Sod this fucking piece of shit Strasbourg-Brussels bureauwankathon. It's beastly and awful.
Except the government is not proposing we solve them ourselves, but that we instead give up all control of our economy and NHS over to President Trump.
I must have missed that announcement, could you link it please ?
Did you miss Trump's inauguration speech where he vowed that all future trade deals would have the US heavily in the driving seat, with American companies and American workers prioritised, with the other countries in the the trade deal thus inevitably being disadvantaged?
Have you also missed that Theresa May has been openly saying she wants a trade deal with Trump, even after he said this?
She wants one, she also said that not signing one was better than signing a bad one.
Did she actually say this specifically in relation a US-UK deal?
Though even if she did, her actions over the last week pretty clearly illustrate whether she'd follow through on such a threat.
Is anyone betting on the Government's majority on Brexit bill
I reckon more than 400. Anyone want to bet the other way?
Robert - I'll take you on for a £20 evens bet that the Gov't majority on the Brexit Bill will be <400. You say >400.
I'm expecting the voting to be something like For: 495, Against: 125, Abstain/DNV, etc: 30. Thereby resulting in a majority of circa 370. Settlement by electronic transfer within 7 days ... agreed?
But that about a third of the French might be about to vote for a candidate who could well advocate withdrawal from the EU is of itself a measure of the situation. It's something that would have been unthinkable even five years ago.
Does this level of support for Calexit mean that the writing is on the wall for the USA?
Mr. T, I'd need to check (I think I still have it, buried somewhere).
Mr. glw, it's a step away from the slogan - "Vote for me, scum."
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, I recall a pre-referendum poll in Sweden indicating a majority would want to leave the EU if the UK left. Of course, actually doing it is another thing.
I think a number of people are watching with interest how we leave.
If we leave and crumble, suffer and beg to come back humilated with our tail between our legs then that will kill talk of leaving in other nations.
If we leave and gain tremendously sweeping past the rest of sclerotic Europe that that will be giving a Red Bull to leavers in other nations.
Alternatively and most likely people will look at us and see what they want to see, success or failure depending upon what confirms their prejudices.
A better Democrat candidate may have taken Brexit as a warning shot that Trump could win and taken the action required to prevent it. Like bothering to campaign in the Democrat states that went red - that would have been a good start!
Another campaigning tip, try to avoid calling a large chunk of the electorate "deplorables".
If she hadn't said that, she would have won. Simple as.
I pointed this out on PB at the time.That's when she lost it.
Hillary Clinton sparked a controversy Friday night after suggesting half of Donald Trump’s supporters belonged in “a basket of deplorables” which she described as consisting of “the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it.”
She went to note “some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America”.
In the remarks, at a New York fundraiser featuring Barbra Streisand, Clinton went further than she ever had in the past in suggesting that potentially half of Trump’s supporters were bigoted.
That's the sort of thing you surely should never say during an election campaign, but I suspect Clinton felt that her victory was all but inevitable by that date. Whoops!
1. The EU is not going to break up any time soon (although it's conceivable that Greece might fall out of the Euro, not before time).
2. The EU is being entirely rational in thinking that, faced with a lurch to US protectionism and isolationism, the answer is for the EU27 to remain united. In fact, from their point of view, 'more Europe' is a sensible answer to Trump's crude attempts to throw his weight around, plus the other risks identified in Tusk's letter. What you absolutely have to understand is that the EU is largely built on the wish to resist US hegemony. Of course Trumpism will reinforce that tendency; that's entirely natural.
3. Brexit is obviously a complicating factor in this from the point of view of the EU27, but it's also an opportunity for them. Free of the dead weight of the UK, they can get on with closer union. Good for them, we should wish them well.
A better Democrat candidate may have taken Brexit as a warning shot that Trump could win and taken the action required to prevent it. Like bothering to campaign in the Democrat states that went red - that would have been a good start!
Another campaigning tip, try to avoid calling a large chunk of the electorate "deplorables".
If she hadn't said that, she would have won. Simple as.
I pointed this out on PB at the time.That's when she lost it.
Hillary Clinton sparked a controversy Friday night after suggesting half of Donald Trump’s supporters belonged in “a basket of deplorables” which she described as consisting of “the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it.”
She went to note “some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America”.
In the remarks, at a New York fundraiser featuring Barbra Streisand, Clinton went further than she ever had in the past in suggesting that potentially half of Trump’s supporters were bigoted.
That's the sort of thing you surely should never say during an election campaign, but I suspect Clinton felt that her victory was all but inevitable by that date. Whoops!
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, I recall a pre-referendum poll in Sweden indicating a majority would want to leave the EU if the UK left. Of course, actually doing it is another thing.
According to a Russian chap I went canvassing for Leave with, Sweden in the 70s was keen to go into the EEC if Britain did. We agreed they'd probably follow us out too.
There's something for everyone in that comment, including evidence of Russian infiltration in the referendum.
Mr. T, I'd need to check (I think I still have it, buried somewhere).
Mr. glw, it's a step away from the slogan - "Vote for me, scum."
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, I recall a pre-referendum poll in Sweden indicating a majority would want to leave the EU if the UK left. Of course, actually doing it is another thing.
My view is that the Swedes, etc., will see how we do over the next five years. If it's plane sailing all the way, then they will likely seek a looser relationship. If we appear to struggle relative to Germany, then it might go the other way,
But that about a third of the French might be about to vote for a candidate who could well advocate withdrawal from the EU is of itself a measure of the situation. It's something that would have been unthinkable even five years ago.
Does this level of support for Calexit mean that the writing is on the wall for the USA?
The LDs did so abysmally in Leave areas in 2015, even worse than the 8% they got nationally, the only way is up for them there however they still came fourth in Sleaford, the only Parliamentary by election in a Leave area since the referendum
Far be it from me to defend Corbyn, but on this he is correct imo. We need to call Article 50 asap and get on with serious debate about what kind of country we want to build post-exit. At the moment any opposition is derided as "remoaner." We need as a Nation to own the decision, whether we voted for it or not. (I didn't).
But that about a third of the French might be about to vote for a candidate who could well advocate withdrawal from the EU is of itself a measure of the situation. It's something that would have been unthinkable even five years ago.
Does this level of support for Calexit mean that the writing is on the wall for the USA?
You underestimate the misery caused by the euro. This isn't a chortling matter
The centripetal forces within the EU are, arguably, just as strong as the centrifugal.
Usually, nations are formed in opposition to "the other" - cf the formation of Britain against the menacing "other" of Catholic France and Spain. And it would seem the time is ripe for otherisation of America, Britain, Asia, Islam, by the EU, to forge a true EU identity.
But. But but but. The EU simply isn't working for too many people. I see trouble ahead.
I don't underestimate it, but in most of the countries which are badly affected, the Euro is still popular. Even Greece, although reality is gradually beating them out of their love of the Euro.
Yes, there's trouble ahead. But Trump is pushing them together, not pushing them apart. He's actually providing a rather handy 'Other' for them to contrast themselves with.
To British eyes it is quite unusually anti-American.
Continental Europeans simply don't feel the ties of blood, history, language, culture that we feel, with the rest of the Anglosphere. And that's totally understandable. When troubles arise, and I mean deep serious troubles, our instinct is to ask what do the Americans think, and also the Canadian, Aussies, etc. Do we stand together? You saw it in the mic drop meme between Prince Harry, Obama and Trudeau. That entire thing could not have happened between Merkel, Hollande, Cameron. It would have been embarrassing.
These differing attitudes underpin Brexit.
Really don't think I could disagree much more with the idea that the average Brit is "pro-American". If anything, it was the anti-American British instinct that mainly turned round the EU referendum: the day after Obama's "back of the queue" nonsense, my work was buzzing with people outraged at "arrogant Americans" thinking they could boss us about. As I said at the time on PB:-
ANECDOTE ALERT
I think the Obama thing could play very badly for Remain. At my work this morning, people (even ones who said they liked Obama generally) were incensed at the idea of "America again coming over and treating us like their poodle, telling us what to do".
1. The EU is not going to break up any time soon (although it's conceivable that Greece might fall out of the Euro, not before time).
2. The EU is being entirely rational in thinking that, faced with a lurch to US protectionism and isolationism, the answer is for the EU27 to remain united. In fact, from their point of view, 'more Europe' is a sensible answer to Trump's crude attempts to throw his weight around, plus the other risks identified in Tusk's letter. What you absolutely have to understand is that the EU is largely built on the wish to resist US hegemony. Of course Trumpism will reinforce that tendency; that's entirely natural.
3. Brexit is obviously a complicating factor in this from the point of view of the EU27, but it's also an opportunity for them. Free of the dead weight of the UK, they can get on with closer union. Good for them, we should wish them well.
You underestimate the misery caused by the euro. This isn't a chortling matter
The centripetal forces within the EU are, arguably, just as strong as the centrifugal.
Usually, nations are formed in opposition to "the other" - cf the formation of Britain against the menacing "other" of Catholic France and Spain. And it would seem the time is ripe for otherisation of America, Britain, Asia, Islam, by the EU, to forge a true EU identity.
But. But but but. The EU simply isn't working for too many people. I see trouble ahead.
Comments
Looks like Norman Lamb will abstain, and Greg Mulholland will vote for A50 trigger.
Small ripples compared to Labour divisions, but not insignificant given the prominence EU campaigning is to the Lib Dems at the moment.
Bloody Hell you must have had a reyt paper round!!
Seen T2 today it was Fab.
It is the Cult of Brexit that I reject. I have no desire to worship it's high Priests. They are false Gods, and the idols they praise (Control, Sovereignty) will turn to dust in their hands...
But only after much human sacrifice and suffering.
http://time.com/4259954/obama-scotus-nominee/
I think rather the conditions for both becoming possible have been simmering and for.example in the us the democratics put up the worst possible candidate to defend against it.
I expect she'll see a bump in the polls. I also wonder if Fillon's travails will benefit her too, as he is now 'just another politician'.
The controversial bit (such as it is) would appear to be:
The first threat, an external one, is related to the new geopolitical situation in the world and around Europe. An increasingly, let us call it, assertive China, especially on the seas, Russia's aggressive policy towards Ukraine and its neighbours, wars, terror and anarchy in the Middle East and in Africa, with radical Islam playing a major role, as well as worrying declarations by the new American administration all make our future highly unpredictable.
Whereas, as Southam rightly points out the killer is really this bit:
We must therefore take assertive and spectacular steps that would change the collective emotions and revive the aspiration to raise European integration to the next level. In order to do this, we must restore the sense of external and internal security as well as socio-economic welfare for European citizens. This requires a definitive reinforcement of the EU external borders; improved cooperation of services responsible for combating terrorism and protecting order and peace within the border-free area; an increase in defence spending; strengthening the foreign policy of the EU as a whole as well as better coordinating individual member states' foreign policies; and last but not least fostering investment, social inclusion, growth, employment, reaping the benefits of technological change and convergence in both the euro area and the whole of Europe.
Which sinks beyond repair any chance of selling remain to a sceptical British public.
I thought she wanted a referendum but hadn't explicitly come out for Frexit?
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/donald-trump-mental-illness-narcisissm-us-president-psychologists-inauguration-crowd-size-paranoia-a7552661.html
I'm expecting the voting to be something like For: 495, Against: 125, Abstain/DNV, etc: 30.
Thereby resulting in a majority of circa 370. Settlement by electronic transfer within 7 days ... agreed?
"Until recently, psychologists weren't allowed to assess public figures and talk to journalists about their findings, but it's alright this time since it is Trump."
Have you also missed that Theresa May has been openly saying she wants a trade deal with Trump, even after he said this?
'Enemies of the People'
On the other hand, if they so wanted, they could define the terms as 'most recently issued, uncirculated).
As an aside, I also had a similar book(let) with guide prices, though as it listed them in pounds, shillings and pence, it probably wasn't that up-to-date either.
I don't mean to be unduly cruel to a Labour supporter, but outside the EU the people are in control of the trade deals (through their elected representatives) so if the Left want one more in keeping with their aspirations, maybe Labour need to consider getting elected ?
But I think there is this desire from both the press, and certain members of this site, to read a boring, and banal statement of the obvious - that the new administration might ('seemingly') not be as committed to multinational institutions as historically - as an attack on the US is ridiculis.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/politics/opinion/70613/graham-allen-mp-appg-tips
Mr. glw, it's a step away from the slogan - "Vote for me, scum."
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, I recall a pre-referendum poll in Sweden indicating a majority would want to leave the EU if the UK left. Of course, actually doing it is another thing.
You can see countless examples of the same pop culture memes being exchanged between Russians and Ukrainians, but it hasn't prevented an ongoing bloody conflict.
But that about a third of the French might be about to vote for a candidate who could well advocate withdrawal from the EU is of itself a measure of the situation. It's something that would have been unthinkable even five years ago.
Though even if she did, her actions over the last week pretty clearly illustrate whether she'd follow through on such a threat.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/poll-reveals-1-in-3-california-support-calexit.html
If we leave and crumble, suffer and beg to come back humilated with our tail between our legs then that will kill talk of leaving in other nations.
If we leave and gain tremendously sweeping past the rest of sclerotic Europe that that will be giving a Red Bull to leavers in other nations.
Alternatively and most likely people will look at us and see what they want to see, success or failure depending upon what confirms their prejudices.
That's the sort of thing you surely should never say during an election campaign, but I suspect Clinton felt that her victory was all but inevitable by that date. Whoops!
1. The EU is not going to break up any time soon (although it's conceivable that Greece might fall out of the Euro, not before time).
2. The EU is being entirely rational in thinking that, faced with a lurch to US protectionism and isolationism, the answer is for the EU27 to remain united. In fact, from their point of view, 'more Europe' is a sensible answer to Trump's crude attempts to throw his weight around, plus the other risks identified in Tusk's letter. What you absolutely have to understand is that the EU is largely built on the wish to resist US hegemony. Of course Trumpism will reinforce that tendency; that's entirely natural.
3. Brexit is obviously a complicating factor in this from the point of view of the EU27, but it's also an opportunity for them. Free of the dead weight of the UK, they can get on with closer union. Good for them, we should wish them well.
Matron!!!!
That's the sort of thing you surely should never say during an election campaign, but I suspect Clinton felt that her victory was all but inevitable by that date. Whoops!
Was that her public or private position?
There's something for everyone in that comment, including evidence of Russian infiltration in the referendum.
https://twitter.com/canardenchaine/status/826458634154606593
Larger sums of cash paid to his wife and children.
followed by...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-latest-news-sweden-support-eu-swedish-membership-surges-a7136426.html
My view is that the Swedes, etc., will see how we do over the next five years. If it's plane sailing all the way, then they will likely seek a looser relationship. If we appear to struggle relative to Germany, then it might go the other way,
Just down the road from Vichy
Sometimes Eddie Mair is very good!
Trump is most similar to Kim il Sung. Having anything to do with him is madness
Yes, there's trouble ahead. But Trump is pushing them together, not pushing them apart. He's actually providing a rather handy 'Other' for them to contrast themselves with.
His numbers are only going in one direction at the moment.