There does seem to be a slightly higher turnout in quite a few swing states, which may imply that some supporters of the non-dominant party in some safe states do indeed not bother to vote.
Swing state turnout was around 48% of total population, safe state around 41%.
Differential turnout did not materially affect the result though, nor did smaller states having 'too many' ECVs for their size.
It is simply impossible to paint a 'fair' ECV scenario where Hillary wins.
@BBCNormanS: BIG Govt concession on Brexit. MPs will get vote on final deal before its finalised.
Nice oxymoron there.
Hasn't that always been the case? Parliament approves the deal or we leave with no deal at all.
I think the decision was on the cards for a while, but it was only last month that the PM finally confirmed, parliament would get a vote on the final deal agreed between the UK and EU.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Does that mean there has been no formal request by Trump or an offer by PM to address the House? – So wtf is the jumped up little prick playing at then?
@DavidLammy: In the event of no deal Parliament must decide what happens next. Remaining in EU & re-opening negotiations must be on the table in 2019.
@DavidLammy: Under no circumstances can the Govnt pull us out of the EU in 2019 without a deal in place. Vote must not be simply "take it or leave it".
It seems that Mr Lammy does not quite get the concept that the deal will have been agreed (if we're lucky) after an exhaustive and exhausting negotiation with 27 other countries, and they won't be offering a Plan B.
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
I couldn't agree more.
Me too.. and I say this as someone who despises the air that he breathes!!
I've no personal liking for Trump. I think he's a braggart and not my cup of tea. But - and it's a huge one - he gets it. He's playing 98% of the media/liberal left like a fiddle and after 18 months they still don't see it, and are running round after him.
The terrorism thing is SO obvious. They're all wibbling about whether they covered terrorism stories perfectly, whilst he's dumped a skipful of horrors into the social media conversation. He's followed up on his fake news agenda by planting doubt on his current hobby horse issue.
I've seen tweets arguing about the Mumbai attacks being exhaustively covered in the MSM - I'd almost forgotten how horrific they were. Now they're fresh again. I've seen Australians wondering what Spicer referred to in one - and seen a dozen Oz examples suggested/I never saw that reported/Oh yeah tweet responses.
It's a huge coup - by listing terror attacks across continents - he's got hundreds of thousands talking/remembering the horrors and shifting the empathy his way. He's playing a totally different game to the rest and several moves ahead.
The judge who blocked his EO has been outed as a BLM activist that'd put to shame a TV stereotype. It really can't be made up.
@DavidLammy: In the event of no deal Parliament must decide what happens next. Remaining in EU & re-opening negotiations must be on the table in 2019.
@DavidLammy: Under no circumstances can the Govnt pull us out of the EU in 2019 without a deal in place. Vote must not be simply "take it or leave it".
It seems that Mr Lammy does not quite get the concept that the deal will have been agreed (if we're lucky) after an exhaustive and exhausting negotiation with 27 other countries, and they won't be offering a Plan B.
No he gets that 100%. He just wants to lie and use it as an excuse to not leave.
Astonishing, he made them land a 5000-1 shot last season; and now he has the vote of confidence by the board. Do they even know they were born ? I'd be very very glad to have him at Coventry City for life, but I doubt even he could turn us round.
Willie Thorne on R5 or talksport the other day said he WOULDNT accept relegation as a trade off for last years success... I find that extraordinary, although Thorne is a known losing gambler so his judgement may not be sound. I hope its not representative
Ridiculous. It is trophies and titles that history judges you by as a sports club or person. Noone cares if you're near the top of the Championship or near the bottom of the prem in Season 17/18 or whatever when looking back from say 2025.
I would lose a lot of respect for Leicester City as a club if they sacked Ranieri. A lot.
"The Lord Great Chamberlain has charge over the Palace of Westminster (though since the 1960s his personal authority has been limited to the royal apartments and Westminster Hall)."
Does that mean there has been no formal request by Trump or an offer by PM to address the House? – So wtf is the jumped up little prick playing at then?
Perhaps bercow will have to consult Mr Rowely Birkin QC to excuse his behaviour.
Stephen Miller Not every day do you wake up to find CNN has finally cracked the mysterious code on how to impeach Trump. #Journomalism https://t.co/zflhCZ480b
Yashar More bathrobe pics. Obviously for a photoshoot but still important to share. @itsmarlamaples when you were married would he wear a robe? https://t.co/tdFFMBCdct
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
A vote on the deal is the worst possible result for Labour. If they were scared of the response to them blocking A50, voting against the final deal is going to be ten times that.
Interesting statistical reflections on London in the referendum, essentially arguing that there was no specific "London" effect, just more-or-less what you'd expect from London's makeup.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I simply can't see an early GE being called - particularly not this year. I welcome those who can, especially those who offer up effectively 1-2 on no GE this year on Betfair.
There does seem to be a slightly higher turnout in quite a few swing states, which may imply that some supporters of the non-dominant party in some safe states do indeed not bother to vote.
Swing state turnout was around 48% of total population, safe state around 41%.
Differential turnout did not materially affect the result though, nor did smaller states having 'too many' ECVs for their size.
It is simply impossible to paint a 'fair' ECV scenario where Hillary wins.
I agree - I am more interested in the argument that Hillary won by three million votes nationally because a lot of potential Trump voters did not bother to vote. Seems to me that probably applies both ways.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Tezza said "no deal is better than a bad deal" and was cheered to the rafters.
if the deal is crap, why would people not vote against it?
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
There does seem to be a slightly higher turnout in quite a few swing states, which may imply that some supporters of the non-dominant party in some safe states do indeed not bother to vote.
Swing state turnout was around 48% of total population, safe state around 41%.
Differential turnout did not materially affect the result though, nor did smaller states having 'too many' ECVs for their size.
It is simply impossible to paint a 'fair' ECV scenario where Hillary wins.
I agree - I am more interested in the argument that Hillary won by three million votes nationally because a lot of potential Trump voters did not bother to vote. Seems to me that probably applies both ways.
Hmm she won by 3 million votes nationally but lost the electoral college because she won California by 4 million votes (Which is her most underweight state by pop (10 ECVs); but Trump won Texas by under 1 million votes (Underweight by 7 ECVs).
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
That would mean the EU is a prison, a prison that actively works towards damaging the interests of its peoples.
TSE-plse explain WHY you loathe & detest DT.He was elected on a platform for change & is attempting to carry out that agenda unlike previous POTUS'S.He represents the forgotten army of people left behind.He abhors PC as I do .You like many others on this site & beyond cannot see past your utter hatred for the man which of course is no basis for reasoned argument.Perhaps you should find a quiet spot for reflection.
Alaex Salmond on his feet in the Commons making a strong case against breaking up a Union without knowing what the future trading and legal agreements would be...
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Tezza said "no deal is better than a bad deal" and was cheered to the rafters.
if the deal is crap, why would people not vote against it?
She is wrong !
No deal would be terrible.
The EU holds a much better hand than us, I hope Theresa is a decent poker player.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
They've got a £350 million per week shortfall to make up, they'll want us to stay.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
They've got a £350 million per week shortfall to make up, they'll want us to stay.
Pour encourager les autres and all that jazz.
Doubt it, I wouldn't want such a petulant member anywhere near an EU that simply must integrate further.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
Did you read Schaeuble's plan to kick Greece out of the Euro? Any harsh words at the moment are in response to the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, but if we want to bake the cake and pay for it that changes things.
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
I couldn't agree more.
Me too.. and I say this as someone who despises the air that he breathes!!
I've no personal liking for Trump. I think he's a braggart and not my cup of tea. But - and it's a huge one - he gets it. He's playing 98% of the media/liberal left like a fiddle and after 18 months they still don't see it, and are running round after him.
The terrorism thing is SO obvious. They're all wibbling about whether they covered terrorism stories perfectly, whilst he's dumped a skipful of horrors into the social media conversation. He's followed up on his fake news agenda by planting doubt on his current hobby horse issue.
I've seen tweets arguing about the Mumbai attacks being exhaustively covered in the MSM - I'd almost forgotten how horrific they were. Now they're fresh again. I've seen Australians wondering what Spicer referred to in one - and seen a dozen Oz examples suggested/I never saw that reported/Oh yeah tweet responses.
It's a huge coup - by listing terror attacks across continents - he's got hundreds of thousands talking/remembering the horrors and shifting the empathy his way. He's playing a totally different game to the rest and several moves ahead.
The judge who blocked his EO has been outed as a BLM activist that'd put to shame a TV stereotype. It really can't be made up.
Loved that idea of him playing the media like a kitten with a laser pointer. They still keep dashing after every point of light he offers them....
Maybe if they had an embargo on everything about Trump that wasn't, you know, proper Earth-shattering NEWS....
It is going to be fascinating looking back on these first few months after Trump won the election. Quite a lot of people will be putting their heads in their hands in a year or so, going "Did I REALLY say that?"
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
I couldn't agree more.
Me too.. and I say this as someone who despises the air that he breathes!!
I've no personal liking for Trump. I think he's a braggart and not my cup of tea. But - and it's a huge one - he gets it. He's playing 98% of the media/liberal left like a fiddle and after 18 months they still don't see it, and are running round after him.
The terrorism thing is SO obvious. They're all wibbling about whether they covered terrorism stories perfectly, whilst he's dumped a skipful of horrors into the social media conversation. He's followed up on his fake news agenda by planting doubt on his current hobby horse issue.
I've seen tweets arguing about the Mumbai attacks being exhaustively covered in the MSM - I'd almost forgotten how horrific they were. Now they're fresh again. I've seen Australians wondering what Spicer referred to in one - and seen a dozen Oz examples suggested/I never saw that reported/Oh yeah tweet responses.
It's a huge coup - by listing terror attacks across continents - he's got hundreds of thousands talking/remembering the horrors and shifting the empathy his way. He's playing a totally different game to the rest and several moves ahead.
The judge who blocked his EO has been outed as a BLM activist that'd put to shame a TV stereotype. It really can't be made up.
Loved that idea of him playing the media like a kitten with a laser pointer. They still keep dashing after every point of light he offers them....
Maybe if they had an embargo on everything about Trump that wasn't, you know, proper Earth-shattering NEWS....
It is going to be fascinating looking back on these first few months after Trump won the election. Quite a lot of people will be putting their heads in their hands in a year or so, going "Did I REALLY say that?"
Like reading old threads, then comparing with the "I always said that Leave had the momentum" "I always knew UKIP would get 12-13%" comments
Or the classic "I called it wrong for all the wrong reasons right through the campaign, but I had a bet on the other side so I am now Mr Shrewd!!"
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
Did you read Schaeuble's plan to kick Greece out of the Euro? Any harsh words at the moment are in response to the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, but if we want to bake the cake and pay for it that changes things.
At the end of the Art 50. process the EU gives us a take it or leave it deal.
What will the fall be like in sterling if we leave it. Not sure I'd want that even though I work for an exporter ! & France, Germany and the rest of the EU won't adopt a 'Singapore' approach on tarrifs I'm quite sure.
Again, I hope May is a good poker player because her hand is ultimately mince.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
Did you read Schaeuble's plan to kick Greece out of the Euro? Any harsh words at the moment are in response to the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, but if we want to bake the cake and pay for it that changes things.
At the end of the Art 50. process the EU gives us a take it or leave it deal.
What will the fall be like in sterling if we leave it. Not sure I'd want that even though I work for an exporter !
In practice I think 'leave it' will come in two forms: out on your ear, or definitively in.
It's worth noting that if the chicken sandwich were riddled with e coli, opting for the kick in the mouth might still be the rational choice.
Which was Tezza's original argument, "no deal is better than a bad deal", which the Brexiteers thought was BRILLIANT when she said it, but now apparently never agreed with because it's really stupid.
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
Even if the CJEU say this is legal, I can't see it will ever be tenable here or in Brussels.
Here the kippers and the Tory right will scream that its a stitch-up with Brussels to offer the worse possible deal and guarantee a revocation, they may even be half right, Brussels might do that without any collusion.
In Brussels the federalists (ie. most of them) are not going to want us back on the old terms, grumbling and complaining and obstructing everything, and are going to have the deep suspicion that we will wait for a couple of EU elections to swing our way and that try again. Also they have quite advanced plans for 'more Europe' which are kind of predicated on us going, because they are absolutely the sort of things we will try and scupper if we stay in.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
Did you read Schaeuble's plan to kick Greece out of the Euro? Any harsh words at the moment are in response to the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, but if we want to bake the cake and pay for it that changes things.
At the end of the Art 50. process the EU gives us a take it or leave it deal.
What will the fall be like in sterling if we leave it. Not sure I'd want that even though I work for an exporter !
In practice I think 'leave it' will come in two forms: out on your ear, or definitively in.
The first of which could be potentially disastrous for industry; the second of which could see UKIP win the 2025 General Election.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
They've got a £350 million per week shortfall to make up, they'll want us to stay.
Pour encourager les autres and all that jazz.
But think of all the contributions grants and what-nots that they won’t be paying to UK enterprises and activities.
Doubt it, I wouldn't want such a petulant member anywhere near an EU that simply must integrate further.
Much to my own astonishment, I have come to the same conclusion. Europe really does need "More Europe" - I never thought I would type that sentence, but I think it really is getting to the point were they are going have to stop playing as a loose confederation and become a proper Federal entity. Lose the Council of Ministers and replace it with a Senate, make the EU Parliament the Lower Chamber and have properly policed external borders and reduce the nations to "states" as per the US model.
It might also be a good opportunity to move the seat of govt to Prague as it is a lot more central than Brussels. Prague is much nicer than Brussels...
At least when the UK rejoins in 20 or 30 years, we know there will be no backing out this time.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
Did you read Schaeuble's plan to kick Greece out of the Euro? Any harsh words at the moment are in response to the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, but if we want to bake the cake and pay for it that changes things.
At the end of the Art 50. process the EU gives us a take it or leave it deal.
What will the fall be like in sterling if we leave it. Not sure I'd want that even though I work for an exporter !
In practice I think 'leave it' will come in two forms: out on your ear, or definitively in.
The first of which could be potentially disastrous for industry; the second of which could see UKIP win the 2025 General Election.
Surely many of the people who voted Leave will be dead by then?
TSE-plse explain WHY you loathe & detest DT.He was elected on a platform for change & is attempting to carry out that agenda unlike previous POTUS'S.He represents the forgotten army of people left behind.He abhors PC as I do .You like many others on this site & beyond cannot see past your utter hatred for the man which of course is no basis for reasoned argument.Perhaps you should find a quiet spot for reflection.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
Did you read Schaeuble's plan to kick Greece out of the Euro? Any harsh words at the moment are in response to the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, but if we want to bake the cake and pay for it that changes things.
During the last Greek crisis we were told a lot by Eurocrats about how it wasn't possible for anyone to leave the Euro, and how it was a one way street. There was said to be no way in the current treaties that a country could be forced to leave, and I am sure the EU dont want to open the can of worms of a new treaty right now - and they can't do it by passerelle because that requires unanimity.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
Did you read Schaeuble's plan to kick Greece out of the Euro? Any harsh words at the moment are in response to the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, but if we want to bake the cake and pay for it that changes things.
At the end of the Art 50. process the EU gives us a take it or leave it deal.
What will the fall be like in sterling if we leave it. Not sure I'd want that even though I work for an exporter !
In practice I think 'leave it' will come in two forms: out on your ear, or definitively in.
The first of which could be potentially disastrous for industry; the second of which could see UKIP win the 2025 General Election.
Surely many of the people who voted Leave will be dead by then?
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
Did you read Schaeuble's plan to kick Greece out of the Euro? Any harsh words at the moment are in response to the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, but if we want to bake the cake and pay for it that changes things.
At the end of the Art 50. process the EU gives us a take it or leave it deal.
What will the fall be like in sterling if we leave it. Not sure I'd want that even though I work for an exporter !
In practice I think 'leave it' will come in two forms: out on your ear, or definitively in.
The first of which could be potentially disastrous for industry; the second of which could see UKIP win the 2025 General Election.
Surely many of the people who voted Leave will be dead by then?
If this line of logic was true, then Labour would have won in 2010; and Hillary would be riding into the sunset.
TSE-plse explain WHY you loathe & detest DT.He was elected on a platform for change & is attempting to carry out that agenda unlike previous POTUS'S.He represents the forgotten army of people left behind.He abhors PC as I do .You like many others on this site & beyond cannot see past your utter hatred for the man which of course is no basis for reasoned argument.Perhaps you should find a quiet spot for reflection.
I think it's because Trump's a racist shitbag.
And a misogynist too.
Just imagine what his defenders would say if a Muslim politician had said 'Grab them by the pussy'
It is his the bend of the truth, almost Inception like, that frightens me.
Trump, twitter, and North Korea are going to make for a fun mix.
It's worth noting that if the chicken sandwich were riddled with e coli, opting for the kick in the mouth might still be the rational choice.
Which was Tezza's original argument, "no deal is better than a bad deal", which the Brexiteers thought was BRILLIANT when she said it, but now apparently never agreed with because it's really stupid.
And even if that's true, it's still not a menu...
Not sure that's true. I think being willing to walk away from a bad deal is still key; I suspect Patrick, CR et al feel the same.
And if it comes to it, the kickers might find their toes don't make as much of an impression on our teeth as they'd thought.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
Did you read Schaeuble's plan to kick Greece out of the Euro? Any harsh words at the moment are in response to the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, but if we want to bake the cake and pay for it that changes things.
At the end of the Art 50. process the EU gives us a take it or leave it deal.
What will the fall be like in sterling if we leave it. Not sure I'd want that even though I work for an exporter !
In practice I think 'leave it' will come in two forms: out on your ear, or definitively in.
The first of which could be potentially disastrous for industry; the second of which could see UKIP win the 2025 General Election.
Surely many of the people who voted Leave will be dead by then?
If this line of logic was true, then Labour would have won in 2010; and Hillary would be riding into the sunset.
Yes, I know I’m a little odd. The older I get the further left I go.
It's worth noting that if the chicken sandwich were riddled with e coli, opting for the kick in the mouth might still be the rational choice.
Which was Tezza's original argument, "no deal is better than a bad deal", which the Brexiteers thought was BRILLIANT when she said it, but now apparently never agreed with because it's really stupid.
And even if that's true, it's still not a menu...
Not sure that's true. I think being willing to walk away from a bad deal is still key; I suspect Patrick, CR et al feel the same.
And if it comes to it, the kickers might find their toes don't make as much of an impression on our teeth as they'd thought.
Isn't that because Leavers have fewer teeth than Remainers?
Stephen Bush @stephenkb 1m1 minute ago More Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
Yes. that's how it works. Government gets a deal, goes to Parliament which can accept or veto. But if the government isn't happy with a deal it doesn't have to take it to Parliament...
Presumably such a vote would effectively be a vote of confidence.
See this is the joy of the FTPA.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
I think the Gov't would win a vote on the deal very comfortably.
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
What happens if
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Rofl - point 2) is pure fantasy land. Have you heard the soundings coming out of Brussels ?
Did you read Schaeuble's plan to kick Greece out of the Euro? Any harsh words at the moment are in response to the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, but if we want to bake the cake and pay for it that changes things.
During the last Greek crisis we were told a lot by Eurocrats about how it wasn't possible for anyone to leave the Euro, and how it was a one way street. There was said to be no way in the current treaties that a country could be forced to leave, and I am sure the EU dont want to open the can of worms of a new treaty right now - and they can't do it by passerelle because that requires unanimity.
My point was just that you should take any suggestion that the UK won't be welcomed into the EU if we change our minds before leaving should be taken with a pinch of salt.
TSE-plse explain WHY you loathe & detest DT.He was elected on a platform for change & is attempting to carry out that agenda unlike previous POTUS'S.He represents the forgotten army of people left behind.He abhors PC as I do .You like many others on this site & beyond cannot see past your utter hatred for the man which of course is no basis for reasoned argument.Perhaps you should find a quiet spot for reflection.
I think it's because Trump's a racist shitbag.
And a misogynist too.
Just imagine what his defenders would say if a Muslim politician had said 'Grab them by the pussy'
Indeed, it’s becoming clear that Trump-bashing is primarily a means of moral cleansing, of averting the public and historic gaze from your own sins and crimes and confusions by taking part in the Two Minute Hate of this ‘New Hitler’. Just say: ‘I oppose Trump, and therefore I’m good.’ Shame on everyone indulging this spectacle, clapping and tweeting as the politicians who started a decade of war berate a politician for passing a three-month travel ban.
And it was said that most on this site opposed Trump. I actually think there are quite few here who are openly sympathetic to his agenda. It really is an alternative fact to believe that only the Left are outraged by Trump. Bercow may be hated by most Tories, and indeed most on the Right but he is still a Conservative MP. Dick Cheney, of all people came out against Trump's immigration policy, and even Mitch McConnell was on CNN this weekend taking a relatively cautious attitude towards Trump's policy. Given that opinion polls show large swathes of the American public disapproving of Trump, it is hard to believe that all of those are liberal lefties.
On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy. Different polls show different things I guess.
Comments
Differential turnout did not materially affect the result though, nor did smaller states having 'too many' ECVs for their size.
It is simply impossible to paint a 'fair' ECV scenario where Hillary wins.
@PolhomeEditor: Lords Speaker Lord Fowler says he will "keep an open mind" on any request for Donald Trump to address parliament later this year.
Does anyone know the Lord High Chamberlain's view ?
More
Good spot by Liz Kendall: government hasn't guaranteed that won't just decide the deal's not good enough without consulting legislature.
https://twitter.com/ParlyApp/status/828976841629298689
https://twitter.com/ParlyApp/status/828977305133469696
First I agree with a sanctimonious, publicity seeking dwarf. Then I agree with a TSE column.
Thank god my Swiss insurance includes treating Lunacy. Wouldn't want to on the NHS with the plebs with that sort of malady.
The terrorism thing is SO obvious. They're all wibbling about whether they covered terrorism stories perfectly, whilst he's dumped a skipful of horrors into the social media conversation. He's followed up on his fake news agenda by planting doubt on his current hobby horse issue.
I've seen tweets arguing about the Mumbai attacks being exhaustively covered in the MSM - I'd almost forgotten how horrific they were. Now they're fresh again. I've seen Australians wondering what Spicer referred to in one - and seen a dozen Oz examples suggested/I never saw that reported/Oh yeah tweet responses.
It's a huge coup - by listing terror attacks across continents - he's got hundreds of thousands talking/remembering the horrors and shifting the empathy his way. He's playing a totally different game to the rest and several moves ahead.
The judge who blocked his EO has been outed as a BLM activist that'd put to shame a TV stereotype. It really can't be made up.
"The Lord Great Chamberlain has charge over the Palace of Westminster (though since the 1960s his personal authority has been limited to the royal apartments and Westminster Hall)."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18JmieM8SFc
Not every day do you wake up to find CNN has finally cracked the mysterious code on how to impeach Trump. #Journomalism https://t.co/zflhCZ480b
Yashar
More bathrobe pics. Obviously for a photoshoot but still important to share. @itsmarlamaples when you were married would he wear a robe? https://t.co/tdFFMBCdct
You're clearly mad as a mongoose.
Mr. Nabavi, quite agree on Lammy.
Sorry.
The government could lose such a vote, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election.
Note to remainer ultras: it ain't "Deal or Stay In"!
In fact logically speaking only the hardest of hard eurosceptics should vote against the Gov't deal, as it effectively means we're onto WTO (Or worse) arrangements with the EU.
Even the SNP *should* I'd have thought. Its a trapped deal, on at the end of the process; and no giveaway at all by the government.
if the deal is crap, why would people not vote against it?
1) The likelihood of the WTO option does lead to an economic slump
and
2) The EU say, well you can revoke the invocation of Article 50.
If you were an MP in an area that voted Remain and Brexit was turning into a bit of a turd....
Dave Rubin meets Sam Harris [of Meyer TV show fame]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQqxlzHJrU0
New York cancels with the rest pretty much.
That's about all there is to it, really.
Oh.
No deal would be terrible.
The EU holds a much better hand than us, I hope Theresa is a decent poker player.
@paulwaugh: .@Ed_Miliband: if Euro Parl votes down deal, EU will keep negotiating; if UK Parl votes down the deal, negotiations end. Is he right?
@stephenkb: That isn't really a vote, anymore than "chicken sandwich or get kicked in the mouth" is a menu.
Pour encourager les autres and all that jazz.
Maybe if they had an embargo on everything about Trump that wasn't, you know, proper Earth-shattering NEWS....
It is going to be fascinating looking back on these first few months after Trump won the election. Quite a lot of people will be putting their heads in their hands in a year or so, going "Did I REALLY say that?"
Take Back Control
Sovereignty
The EU Parliament has more say in Brexit than the UK Parliament.
Fine, no problem...
Or the classic "I called it wrong for all the wrong reasons right through the campaign, but I had a bet on the other side so I am now Mr Shrewd!!"
Well I live in Dore, which is less than ten miles from Hope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope,_Derbyshire
What will the fall be like in sterling if we leave it. Not sure I'd want that even though I work for an exporter !
& France, Germany and the rest of the EU won't adopt a 'Singapore' approach on tarrifs I'm quite sure.
Again, I hope May is a good poker player because her hand is ultimately mince.
Here is a bit of Enoch you may like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5JrzJ9Ff1w
And even if that's true, it's still not a menu...
Here the kippers and the Tory right will scream that its a stitch-up with Brussels to offer the worse possible deal and guarantee a revocation, they may even be half right, Brussels might do that without any collusion.
In Brussels the federalists (ie. most of them) are not going to want us back on the old terms, grumbling and complaining and obstructing everything, and are going to have the deep suspicion that we will wait for a couple of EU elections to swing our way and that try again. Also they have quite advanced plans for 'more Europe' which are kind of predicated on us going, because they are absolutely the sort of things we will try and scupper if we stay in.
It might also be a good opportunity to move the seat of govt to Prague as it is a lot more central than Brussels. Prague is much nicer than Brussels...
At least when the UK rejoins in 20 or 30 years, we know there will be no backing out this time.
Once Article 50 is invoked, WE ARE LEAVING THE EUROPEAN UNION. Whether MPs or Remainers like the terms or not, the status quo is no longer an option.
Yup, great plan, the Brexit headbangers will swallow that one, no problem.
I can't imagine why she didn't announce that?
Just imagine what his defenders would say if a Muslim politician had said 'Grab them by the pussy'
It is his the bend of the truth, almost Inception like, that frightens me.
Trump, twitter, and North Korea are going to make for a fun mix.
And if it comes to it, the kickers might find their toes don't make as much of an impression on our teeth as they'd thought.
We're not going to vote on a deal that hasn't been approved.
Right now we have cheerleaders, but the game is still afoot
On the poll posted by isam: recent polling has also shown that most of the British public disagree with Trump's policy. Different polls show different things I guess.