politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Flynn’s move looks dangerous for Trump and punters make it a 5

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Flynn’s move looks dangerous for Trump and punters make it a 52% chance that the President won’t last the full term

Breaking: Mike Flynn has offered to be interviewed in probe of Trump team's Russia ties in exchange for immunity https://t.co/8lUo2e92MY

Read the full story here

CarlottaVance

First!

CarlottaVance

Ouch!

Flynn said during a 2016 interview about Hillary Clinton that anyone who seeks immunity has 'probably committed a crime'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4366396/Ex-Trump-adviser-Flynn-seeks-immunity-testimony-Russia-probe-WSJ.html

CarlottaVance

Trump's approval rating - historical perspective:

https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/847208018513154048

rcs1000

@Carlotta:

What's interesting about that chart is that the Presidents with low 90 day approval ratings (Obama, George W, Clinton, Reagan) seem to get re-elected more often than those with high ones (Carter, George HW).

viewcode

CarlottaVance said:

Ouch!

Flynn said during a 2016 interview about Hillary Clinton that anyone who seeks immunity has 'probably committed a crime'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4366396/Ex-Trump-adviser-Flynn-seeks-immunity-testimony-Russia-probe-WSJ.html

He who smelt it, dealt it...

Tim_B

CarlottaVance said:

Ouch!

Flynn said during a 2016 interview about Hillary Clinton that anyone who seeks immunity has 'probably committed a crime'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4366396/Ex-Trump-adviser-Flynn-seeks-immunity-testimony-Russia-probe-WSJ.html

Of course - why else would you seek immunity in return for your testimony?

CarlottaVance

Tim_B said:

CarlottaVance said:

Ouch!

Flynn said during a 2016 interview about Hillary Clinton that anyone who seeks immunity has 'probably committed a crime'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4366396/Ex-Trump-adviser-Flynn-seeks-immunity-testimony-Russia-probe-WSJ.html

Of course - why else would you seek immunity in return for your testimony?

I'm not sure that's an argument he'll be using now.....

SouthamObserver

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

tlg86

Interesting story on the trustworthiness of bookies:

http://tinyurl.com/kgg8u2j

I wonder if the mistrust comes from a few high profile stories making the news? That Cavani hitting the post bet was pretty disgraceful.

NickPalmer

Seems unlikely. If he did testify Trump would metaphorically throw him under a bus - had no idea that he was doing this stuff, pathetic attempt to pass the buck, etc.. It tsakes a lot to make Congress go all the way to impeachment.I'd make it a 10-1 against shot.

felix

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

CarlottaVance

First to Flounce?

LIAM Fox has been locked out of Theresa May’s inner circle on Brexit negotiations, No10 announced last night.

The International Trade Secretary has not been asked to join the PM’s new Cabinet committee on how to carry out the high stakes ‘Article 50’ exit talks over the next two years.

Dr Fox was said by one Whitehall insider to be “seething” about the decision last night.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3220466/liam-fox-said-to-be-seething-after-being-barred-from-theresa-mays-brexit-negotiations-inner-circle/

I guess we'd just have to soldier on (and he may be looking for an excuse when he doesn't land oodles and oodles and oodles of trade deals...

AlastairMeeks

NickPalmer said:

Seems unlikely. If he did testify Trump would metaphorically throw him under a bus - had no idea that he was doing this stuff, pathetic attempt to pass the buck, etc.. It tsakes a lot to make Congress go all the way to impeachment.I'd make it a 10-1 against shot.

Donald Trump could be caught on tape giving the nuclear codes to Vladimir Putin and I'd still only make it a 50/50 shot that the Republicans would vote to impeach him.

CarlottaVance

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

'But of course they'll protect the EU's interest - what do you expect them to do?'

Doesn't work the other way, apparently.

Speak softly, and carry a big stick...(but only if you're the EU...)

AlastairMeeks

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Casino_Royale

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

AlastairMeeks

FPT @RichardNabavi has misread article 70 of the Vienna Convention, which provides not just that termination releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty but also that termination does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.

MarqueeMark

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

AlastairMeeks

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

GeoffM

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Well that makes one of us

AlastairMeeks

https://twitter.com/politicalwire/status/847592331205324802

freetochoose

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

Of the remaining member states there's only a handful or so that we need a relationship with. This is the ridiculous nature of the EU, Germany gets lumped together with Malta as a homogeneous mass.

Casino_Royale

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

Interesting. Thanks.

Alanbrooke

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

were negotiating with a committee

it will make us look organised and professional by comparison

Pulpstar

tlg86 said:

Interesting story on the trustworthiness of bookies:

http://tinyurl.com/kgg8u2j

I wonder if the mistrust comes from a few high profile stories making the news? That Cavani hitting the post bet was pretty disgraceful.

Some are better than others, Hills next manager markets are one to watch out for (Permanency definition)
I note there is Kieran Fallon's autobio on the same page too !

Jonathan

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Important to look down. If you look closely, the nuts are ours. No doubt the govt will tighten the screw regardless. If it isn't hurting, it isn't working.

Bromptonaut

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

AlastairMeeks

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

were negotiating with a committee

it will make us look organised and professional by comparison

Your faith in Boris Johnson and Liam Fox is touching.

david_herdson

NickPalmer said:

Seems unlikely. If he did testify Trump would metaphorically throw him under a bus - had no idea that he was doing this stuff, pathetic attempt to pass the buck, etc.. It tsakes a lot to make Congress go all the way to impeachment.I'd make it a 10-1 against shot.

I'm not sure what timeframe you're putting on those odds but if it's during this presidential term then I'd make it a lot lower than that but longer than the odds-on shot the markets imply.

We're only two months into his presidency and we already have several potential impeachable issues. The question, as always with impeachment, is the politics far more than the law (not least because where something is legally dodgy then there'll usually be a big negative political impact anyway).

Trump is weak politically. He doesn't have an esprit de corps with the Republicans on the Hill, nor they with him. He doesn't have huge support in the country (though what he does have is an intensity of support that many others don't). He doesn't have political experience and seems disinclined to learn, preferring to trust to his instinct - which it has to be said has so far served him well. He affects to not understand why people oppose him when they do.

Above all, what he seems to lack is an understanding of where politics-as-normal ends and what the dividing line is - as far as politicians are concerned - between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Given that it's the politicians that'd be running the impeachment process, that matters.

I disagree slightly with Mike. I think an impeachment is a good deal more likely *after* the 2018 elections than before them. Given their experience of 2016, they might run shy of taking him on in advance of the elections (which of itself would divide the Republican party and support), preferring to let the voters deliver a judgement first. True, it would be an ambiguous judgement - Trump would no doubt say the results reflected solely on Congress - but that won't matter to Congressmen and Senators. Also, the longer he's in office, the worse his ratings are likely to get and as Mike rightly says, impeachment is more likely to succeed the more unpopular the target (and, obviously, the more evidence there is).

To me, the stand-out value is 2019, which ought to be the most likely other than at the end of his term (odd that it's '2020 or later' and not 2021). But an impeachment during an election campaign seems highly unlikely anyway - by that time, the judgement could be left to voters.

malcolmg

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

were negotiating with a committee

it will make us look organised and professional by comparison

wishful thinking Alan, UK lot could not run a bath

malcolmg

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

Anybody thinking that the EU will be quaking in their boots at teh thought the UK will not share their ill gotten e-mails/phone data etc is barking.
Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe.
"UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.

freetochoose

malcolmg said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

Anybody thinking that the EU will be quaking in their boots at teh thought the UK will not share their ill gotten e-mails/phone data etc is barking.
Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe.
"UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.

But we are saving ourselves

malcolmg

freetochoose said:

malcolmg said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

Anybody thinking that the EU will be quaking in their boots at teh thought the UK will not share their ill gotten e-mails/phone data etc is barking.
Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe.
"UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.

But we are saving ourselves

Hmmmm! Lots of back slapping and boasting but not so sure reality is that great.

Nigelb

GeoffM said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Well that makes one of us

Some of us might not be so keen to profess a complete lack of intellectual curiosity.

freetochoose

malcolmg said:

freetochoose said:

malcolmg said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

Anybody thinking that the EU will be quaking in their boots at teh thought the UK will not share their ill gotten e-mails/phone data etc is barking.
Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe.
"UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.

But we are saving ourselves

Hmmmm! Lots of back slapping and boasting but not so sure reality is that great.

Of course that's your view, but we voted to Leave and the govt is carrying out the wishes of the electorate. You lot can bleat all you like, it won't change a thing, and regardless of the outcome of the ongoing negotiations/posturing you'll never be placated.

We haven't saved the EU and in all honesty I don't give a toss is it folds or continues, I'm just delighted we're leaving.

Nigelb

malcolmg said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

Anybody thinking that the EU will be quaking in their boots at teh thought the UK will not share their ill gotten e-mails/phone data etc is barking.
Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe.
"UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.

Is anyone really claiming that ?
Conversely, it would be faintly ridiculous to claim that the future contribution of the UK to European security not carry a certain amount of weight in the negotiations over our future relationship.

DavidL

CarlottaVance said:

First to Flounce?

LIAM Fox has been locked out of Theresa May’s inner circle on Brexit negotiations, No10 announced last night.

The International Trade Secretary has not been asked to join the PM’s new Cabinet committee on how to carry out the high stakes ‘Article 50’ exit talks over the next two years.

Dr Fox was said by one Whitehall insider to be “seething” about the decision last night.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3220466/liam-fox-said-to-be-seething-after-being-barred-from-theresa-mays-brexit-negotiations-inner-circle/

I guess we'd just have to soldier on (and he may be looking for an excuse when he doesn't land oodles and oodles and oodles of trade deals...

Hmm...without wanting a repeat of yesterday's thread replacing him with Osborne would look very attractive and probably help in keeping the Tories together during this process.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Certainly interesting times in the US.

Essexit

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

First to Flounce?

LIAM Fox has been locked out of Theresa May’s inner circle on Brexit negotiations, No10 announced last night.

The International Trade Secretary has not been asked to join the PM’s new Cabinet committee on how to carry out the high stakes ‘Article 50’ exit talks over the next two years.

Dr Fox was said by one Whitehall insider to be “seething” about the decision last night.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3220466/liam-fox-said-to-be-seething-after-being-barred-from-theresa-mays-brexit-negotiations-inner-circle/

I guess we'd just have to soldier on (and he may be looking for an excuse when he doesn't land oodles and oodles and oodles of trade deals...

Hmm...without wanting a repeat of yesterday's thread replacing him with Osborne would look very attractive and probably help in keeping the Tories together during this process.

*Gove

Alistair

In a blow for the Unionist 'government by opinion poll' movement it turns out the majority of people in Scotland think Holyrood should be able to decide to have a referendum and a majority think Holyrood should control the timing of the referendum.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/15194049.Most_Scots_say_Holyrood_should_decide_on_referendum/?ref=twtrec

Nigelb

david_herdson said:

NickPalmer said:

Seems unlikely. If he did testify Trump would metaphorically throw him under a bus - had no idea that he was doing this stuff, pathetic attempt to pass the buck, etc.. It tsakes a lot to make Congress go all the way to impeachment.I'd make it a 10-1 against shot.

I'm not sure what timeframe you're putting on those odds but if it's during this presidential term then I'd make it a lot lower than that but longer than the odds-on shot the markets imply....

I disagree slightly with Mike. I think an impeachment is a good deal more likely *after* the 2018 elections than before them. Given their experience of 2016, they might run shy of taking him on in advance of the elections (which of itself would divide the Republican party and support), preferring to let the voters deliver a judgement first. True, it would be an ambiguous judgement - Trump would no doubt say the results reflected solely on Congress - but that won't matter to Congressmen and Senators. Also, the longer he's in office, the worse his ratings are likely to get and as Mike rightly says, impeachment is more likely to succeed the more unpopular the target (and, obviously, the more evidence there is).

To me, the stand-out value is 2019, which ought to be the most likely other than at the end of his term (odd that it's '2020 or later' and not 2021). But an impeachment during an election campaign seems highly unlikely anyway - by that time, the judgement could be left to voters.

That's a reasonable scenario if impeachment is ever going to happen.

Are we right in assuming that Flynn will actually say anything of interest once granted immunity, though ? Does anyone know how much of a show & tell goes on in negotiations over immunity, and what (other than the perjury laws) might compel Flynn to come up with the goods should immunity be granted ?

SquareRoot

malcolmg said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

Anybody thinking that the EU will be quaking in their boots at teh thought the UK will not share their ill gotten e-mails/phone data etc is barking.
Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe.
"UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.

be careful Malc.. Mrs May might be getting intelligence on Ms Sturgeon's inner thoughts...

DavidL

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Flynn requesting immunity does suggest his legal advice is saying he's at serious risk of successful prosecution. But we knew that - he was conducting shadow diplomacy on lifting sanctions with Russia prior to taking office, and that's prima facie an offence in the US. He does look bang to rights on that and, in those circumstances, the best advice is to do all you can to remain silent and hope they fall short on standard of proof.

But that doesn't mean Trump is necessarily in trouble. Flynn's immunity request could well be something he knows will be turned down, but is a way of trying to look less obstructive publicly when he insists on his right to silence and fails to testify.

Only if his immunity request is ultimately accepted (and at the moment the indication is it won't be - yet) should you bet against Trump... and then very heavily indeed. There is no way immunity would be given unless Flynn is specifically offering to testify against a bigger target and, given we know Flynn lied to Pence about his role so the VP is out of the picture, that can only be Trump - there is nobody else bigger than Flynn.

Y0kel

Some of the mood music coming out of Congress should be due warning how serious this situation is.

So should some of the panic reaction out of Trumpton.

And we haven't got to the bottom of the investigation yet, there are more threads.

As Ive said a few times over the last 6 months. Stay watching.

DecrepitJohnL

tlg86 said:

Interesting story on the trustworthiness of bookies:

http://tinyurl.com/kgg8u2j

I wonder if the mistrust comes from a few high profile stories making the news? That Cavani hitting the post bet was pretty disgraceful.

The GC report lays a lot of emphasis on EU-mandated ADR (alternative dispute resolution) so there might be a Brexit angle.

http://live-gamblecom.cloud.contensis.com/PDF/Complaints-processes-in-the-gambling-industry.pdf

P3.6

This difficulty is compounded by the fact that some complaints do not fall neatly into either
the complaint or dispute categories. For example, a gambling operator might suspend or
close a consumer’s account for a variety of reasons, including where they suspect that the:
• consumer has already requested to exclude themselves from gambling with that
operator because they are at risk of harm from gambling
• consumer has gambled on events that may not be fair, or might be fixed
• funds that the consumer is using to gamble may be the proceeds of crime

This shows why the GC is as much use as a chocolate fireguard. The GC does not understand the common complaint that punters are knocked back because they might win, or even because they want to follow a popular tipster like Pricewise in the Racing Post.

4.5 and 4.6 suggests the GC thinks betting shops are telling fibs about the number of disputes resolved, although they might be relying on the customer throwing a chair at a FOBT and storming out as resolved. (Anecdotal evidence suggests betting shop staff are told not to report criminal damage to the police, btw. Can't risk losing those valuable FOBT licences!)

5.5 and on deal with the GC's suprise, disappointment and complete failure to understand markets with regard to ADR providers.

It is the lack of urgency or initiative that is the main impression. Perhaps George Osborne could take over for a day a month, if he is free, and put a bit of stick about.

CarlottaVance

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

were negotiating with a committee

it will make us look organised and professional by comparison

Your faith in Boris Johnson and Liam Fox is touching.

Fox has been cut out.....so one down.....

Essexit

Alistair said:

In a blow for the Unionist 'government by opinion poll' movement it turns out the majority of people in Scotland think Holyrood should be able to decide to have a referendum and a majority think Holyrood should control the timing of the referendum.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/15194049.Most_Scots_say_Holyrood_should_decide_on_referendum/?ref=twtrec

Interesting. Are there any polls on how people would vote in another referendum or on whether or not they'd like one?

CarlottaVance

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

I think 'nuts' is the more genteel term, but if you prefer

we have their bollocks in a vice

FattyBolger

Not a single comment in my large professional services office this week about Article 50, Brexit or those Scottish shennigans. Not a sausage.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, indeed.

The German defence minister said security would not be part of the negotiations (link below), but if we only negotiate an exit and not terms of an ongoing, new arrangement then all we're negotiating is leaving security co-operation deals we have now with nothing to take their place.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39451557

Alistair

Essexit said:

Alistair said:

In a blow for the Unionist 'government by opinion poll' movement it turns out the majority of people in Scotland think Holyrood should be able to decide to have a referendum and a majority think Holyrood should control the timing of the referendum.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/15194049.Most_Scots_say_Holyrood_should_decide_on_referendum/?ref=twtrec

Interesting. Are there any polls on how people would vote in another referendum or on whether or not they'd like one?

A No vote at the momrnt and. The timing questions are often ambiguously worded

williamglenn

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.

It It one of Germany's most fundamental national interests that the political framework of the EU be inviolable. If that comes at the cost of having an uncomprehending and bitter state on the periphery that is a price worth paying. In time any such country will learn the lessons of its isolation, but this is not a process that can be fudged.

kyf_100

williamglenn said:

It It one of Germany's most fundamental national interests that the political framework of the EU be inviolable. If that comes at the cost of having an uncomprehending and bitter state on the periphery that is a price worth paying. In time any such country will learn the lessons of its isolation, but this is not a process that can be fudged.

A punishment beating.

daodao

There seems to be an obsession with many in North America, the EU and the UK in perceiving Russia as the number one enemy, and regarding associations with it as being traitorous. Russia is essentially a Western Christian country with a lot of shared values and beliefs. I don't think it is right for Trump and members of his administration to be tarnished because of contacts with Russia.

The real enemies are China and Sunni fundamentalists (ISIS/Al Qayda/Taliban), aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia and its acolytes on the western shore of the Persian Gulf. There is also excessive demonisation of Iran, which is a potential ally against Sunni fundamentalism.

IanB2

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

were negotiating with a committee

it will make us look organised and professional by comparison

Your faith in Boris Johnson and Liam Fox is touching.

Fox has been cut out.....so one down.....

He was only ever a future fall guy to blame for failing to achieve the impossible.

IanB2

daodao said:

There seems to be an obsession with many in North America, the EU and the UK in perceiving Russia as the number one enemy, and regarding associations with it as being traitorous. Russia is essentially a Western Christian country with a lot of shared values and beliefs. I don't think it is right for Trump and members of his administration to be tarnished because of contacts with Russia.

The real enemies are China and Sunni fundamentalists (ISIS/Al Qayda/Taliban), aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia and its acolytes on the western shore of the Persian Gulf. There is also excessive demonisation of Iran, which is a potential ally against Sunni fundamentalism.

+1

The problem of course is that Russia didn't become a democracy, in any meaningful sense, unlike some of its former satellites.

daodao

malcolmg said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe.
"UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.

Well said. Brexit has set in motion the break up of the UK and accelerated the progress towards an independent Scotland and a united Ireland. It will be a much diminished financially impoverished rUK in a few years, with minimal international influence, smaller armed forces and loss of the "precious" UN security council seat.

AlastairMeeks

Via Greg Callus, former pber:

https://twitter.com/juddlegum/status/847630954520694785

CarlottaVance

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.

I think Gisela Stewart explained it best - she characterised German thinking like lego; first you do block a, then block b, then block c - and in that order and no going back - the British way of saying at block c 'how about if we change block a?' horrifies them as undisciplined and muddled - so I wouldn't read overt hostility into Merkel's method - its just how they do things....

kle4

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.

I think Gisela Stewart explained it best - she characterised German thinking like lego; first you do block a, then block b, then block c - and in that order and no going back - the British way of saying at block c 'how about if we change block a?' horrifies them as undisciplined and muddled - so I wouldn't read overt hostility into Merkel's method - its just how they do things....

The motivation is irrelevant, it's the impact which would inform how we would need to respond.

DavidL

daodao said:

There seems to be an obsession with many in North America, the EU and the UK in perceiving Russia as the number one enemy, and regarding associations with it as being traitorous. Russia is essentially a Western Christian country with a lot of shared values and beliefs. I don't think it is right for Trump and members of his administration to be tarnished because of contacts with Russia.

The real enemies are China and Sunni fundamentalists (ISIS/Al Qayda/Taliban), aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia and its acolytes on the western shore of the Persian Gulf. There is also excessive demonisation of Iran, which is a potential ally against Sunni fundamentalism.

Russia is a corrupt and murderous dictatorship with whom we currently have pretty much no shared values or beliefs at all. Their power and threat is overstated but the determination of Putin to cause trouble in their near abroad is a significant irritant.

Bromptonaut

CarlottaVance said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

I think 'nuts' is the more genteel term, but if you prefer

we have their bollocks in a vice

Nuts.

CarlottaVance

DavidL said:

CarlottaVance said:

First to Flounce?

LIAM Fox has been locked out of Theresa May’s inner circle on Brexit negotiations, No10 announced last night.

The International Trade Secretary has not been asked to join the PM’s new Cabinet committee on how to carry out the high stakes ‘Article 50’ exit talks over the next two years.

Dr Fox was said by one Whitehall insider to be “seething” about the decision last night.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3220466/liam-fox-said-to-be-seething-after-being-barred-from-theresa-mays-brexit-negotiations-inner-circle/

I guess we'd just have to soldier on (and he may be looking for an excuse when he doesn't land oodles and oodles and oodles of trade deals...

Hmm...without wanting a repeat of yesterday's thread replacing him with Osborne would look very attractive and probably help in keeping the Tories together during this process.

Wouldn't object to him being given 'Mission Impossible' - he might even pull it off!

MaxPB

Another angle of leaving Liam Fox out could be that Mrs May intends to stay in the customs union in the near term.

DavidL

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.

It It one of Germany's most fundamental national interests that the political framework of the EU be inviolable. If that comes at the cost of having an uncomprehending and bitter state on the periphery that is a price worth paying. In time any such country will learn the lessons of its isolation, but this is not a process that can be fudged.

That's nonsense even in its own terms. The Germans really wanted Greece to drop out the Euro, for example. Probably rightly in that particular case.

MaxPB

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.

It It one of Germany's most fundamental national interests that the political framework of the EU be inviolable. If that comes at the cost of having an uncomprehending and bitter state on the periphery that is a price worth paying. In time any such country will learn the lessons of its isolation, but this is not a process that can be fudged.

That's nonsense even in its own terms. The Germans really wanted Greece to drop out the Euro, for example. Probably rightly in that particular case.

And they are now taking up the cause of Dave's deal and trying to get changes in benefits entitlement. Inviolable. Clearly.

CarlottaVance

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

were negotiating with a committee

it will make us look organised and professional by comparison

Posted before, but if you missed it worth reading - what the 27 EU Committee wants:

http://www.politico.eu/article/what-the-eu27-wants-from-brexit/

TheScreamingEagles

Diane Abbott has said people should judge how Jeremy Corbyn is performing by looking at the polls in “six months” time.

The shadow home secretary said on Thursday evening if she did have a “plan B” for what to do if Labour did not catch up with the Tories she was keeping it secret.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diane-abbott-says-jeremy-corbyns-poll-numbers-should-be-looked-at-in-six-months_uk_58dd9d57e4b05eae031e97bf

kle4

DavidL said:

daodao said:

There seems to be an obsession with many in North America, the EU and the UK in perceiving Russia as the number one enemy, and regarding associations with it as being traitorous. Russia is essentially a Western Christian country with a lot of shared values and beliefs. I don't think it is right for Trump and members of his administration to be tarnished because of contacts with Russia.

The real enemies are China and Sunni fundamentalists (ISIS/Al Qayda/Taliban), aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia and its acolytes on the western shore of the Persian Gulf. There is also excessive demonisation of Iran, which is a potential ally against Sunni fundamentalism.

Russia is a corrupt and murderous dictatorship with whom we currently have pretty much no shared values or beliefs at all. Their power and threat is overstated but the determination of Putin to cause trouble in their near abroad is a significant irritant.

Indeed. I would not go that far, I rarely do, but the Russia defenders do rather seem to ignore that a significant part of escalation of tensions and perception of differences comes from the Russians themselves, and they seem pretty happy about it. Putin causes trouble and confusion in order to advance himself and his country, and while we pretend unsavoury places are ok all the time for the sake of diplomacy, that doesn't always happen and nor should it.

williamglenn

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

Would that critics here of the letter were a quick to condemn those in the EU who wish to punish the UK. When you read the full article the sense of a manufactured row is clear. All of this silly posturing is getting very tedious.

I'm very happy to make clear that I regard the EU's negotiating position as lamentably poorly constructed and almost as stupid as the British one.

Why? (Genuinely interested)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.

It It one of Germany's most fundamental national interests that the political framework of the EU be inviolable. If that comes at the cost of having an uncomprehending and bitter state on the periphery that is a price worth paying. In time any such country will learn the lessons of its isolation, but this is not a process that can be fudged.

That's nonsense even in its own terms. The Germans really wanted Greece to drop out the Euro, for example. Probably rightly in that particular case.

That's not inconsistent with what I wrote. As Merkel said during Cameron's renegotiation stunt, "We want the UK to stay but not at any price." The same applies to any other member.

daodao

DavidL said:

daodao said:

There seems to be an obsession with many in North America, the EU and the UK in perceiving Russia as the number one enemy, and regarding associations with it as being traitorous. Russia is essentially a Western Christian country with a lot of shared values and beliefs. I don't think it is right for Trump and members of his administration to be tarnished because of contacts with Russia.

The real enemies are China and Sunni fundamentalists (ISIS/Al Qayda/Taliban), aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia and its acolytes on the western shore of the Persian Gulf. There is also excessive demonisation of Iran, which is a potential ally against Sunni fundamentalism.

Russia is a corrupt and murderous dictatorship with whom we currently have pretty much no shared values or beliefs at all. Their power and threat is overstated but the determination of Putin to cause trouble in their near abroad is a significant irritant.

Other countries do the same in attempting to subvert democratically elected governments and kill individuals they dislike. Examples include the murder of Pat Finucane on the order of the British government, the overthrow of Allende in Chile and deliberate targeted killing of Hamas officials by Mossad and the Israeli military.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

Diane Abbott has said people should judge how Jeremy Corbyn is performing by looking at the polls in “six months” time.

The shadow home secretary said on Thursday evening if she did have a “plan B” for what to do if Labour did not catch up with the Tories she was keeping it secret.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diane-abbott-says-jeremy-corbyns-poll-numbers-should-be-looked-at-in-six-months_uk_58dd9d57e4b05eae031e97bf

How odd to say such a thing. The corbynite position has been the polls are wrong, therefore why would an inprovement in the polls matter?

CarlottaVance

Bromptonaut said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

I think 'nuts' is the more genteel term, but if you prefer

we have their bollocks in a vice

Nuts.

Make your mind up

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Diane Abbott has said people should judge how Jeremy Corbyn is performing by looking at the polls in “six months” time.

The shadow home secretary said on Thursday evening if she did have a “plan B” for what to do if Labour did not catch up with the Tories she was keeping it secret.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diane-abbott-says-jeremy-corbyns-poll-numbers-should-be-looked-at-in-six-months_uk_58dd9d57e4b05eae031e97bf

How odd to say such a thing. The corbynite position has been the polls are wrong, therefore why would an inprovement in the polls matter?

Copeland and the potential shellacking in the locals would confirm the polls are accurate.

CarlottaVance

SquareRoot said:

malcolmg said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

Anybody thinking that the EU will be quaking in their boots at teh thought the UK will not share their ill gotten e-mails/phone data etc is barking.
Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe.
"UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.

be careful Malc.. Mrs May might be getting intelligence on Ms Sturgeon's inner thoughts...

Do you think Mrs Sturgeon signed her letter in ink?

Was there a PS?

PS We've found the Secret Oilfields so we're sure to find the Whisky Export Duty

DavidL

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

.

.

)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.

It It one of Germany's most fundamental national interests that the political framework of the EU be inviolable. If that comes at the cost of having an uncomprehending and bitter state on the periphery that is a price worth paying. In time any such country will learn the lessons of its isolation, but this is not a process that can be fudged.

That's nonsense even in its own terms. The Germans really wanted Greece to drop out the Euro, for example. Probably rightly in that particular case.

And they are now taking up the cause of Dave's deal and trying to get changes in benefits entitlement. Inviolable. Clearly.

They've always wanted that. They just wanted us to play our traditional role as fall guys and take the flack for pushing for it. Their self interest, which has driven much of the depression in the southern half of the Euro zone, is going to be a lot more exposed going forward.

When there is a chronic lack of demand in the EZ causing mass unemployment and your largest single market is actually running a government surplus alongside a humongous trade surplus by artificially reducing demand domestically they are about as much of a team player as Ronaldo.

Bromptonaut

CarlottaVance said:

Bromptonaut said:

CarlottaVance said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

I think 'nuts' is the more genteel term, but if you prefer

we have their bollocks in a vice

Nuts.

Make your mind up

It is.

Big_G_NorthWales

MaxPB said:

Another angle of leaving Liam Fox out could be that Mrs May intends to stay in the customs union in the near term.

After yesterday's comments by David Cameron in his support for leave maybe a leading trade role

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Diane Abbott has said people should judge how Jeremy Corbyn is performing by looking at the polls in “six months” time.

The shadow home secretary said on Thursday evening if she did have a “plan B” for what to do if Labour did not catch up with the Tories she was keeping it secret.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diane-abbott-says-jeremy-corbyns-poll-numbers-should-be-looked-at-in-six-months_uk_58dd9d57e4b05eae031e97bf

How odd to say such a thing. The corbynite position has been the polls are wrong, therefore why would an inprovement in the polls matter?

Copeland and the potential shellacking in the locals would confirm the polls are accurate.

But we know corbynites reject that argument as after Copeland they still reject polls as wrong. Maybe the locals will convince some more, but if they do badly but not as much as feared in May, most stil not believe polls if they show labour doing poorly.

Regardless, they claim polls are inherently wrong due to biased media and the like, they cannot take that back - if his polling improved by their own logic it would be because he is now a tool of the murdoch media and the like.

HYUFD

European Council plans to publish on its website guidelines as to how it would negotiate with the UK had to be pulled after two member states objected
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39451048

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, I did flag this up on Sunday.

I think the Dems have to wait until 2019 when/if they control The House, it will also depend on the make up of The Senate

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/brexit/status/847714116860911616

HYUFD

US UN Ambassador Nikki Haley confirms removing Assad is no longer a priority
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39450570

HYUFD

I can't see Trump being impeached unless the Democrats win both the House of Representatives and the Senate in next year's midterms

kle4

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/brexit/status/847714116860911616

Is that really breaking, I thought that was already known, or did I imagine it?

Big_G_NorthWales

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/brexit/status/847714116860911616

Sensible - indeed the EU seem to be laying out guidelines that are not unrealistic and I am even more confident a deal will be completed including a sensible transistion period. It my not please the hard Brexiteers but this is the type of deal that should get substantial support

Big_G_NorthWales

Tusk press conference about to start live on Sky

Big_G_NorthWales

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Tusk press conference about to start live on Sky

Mood music quite good

welshowl

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MaxPB said:

Another angle of leaving Liam Fox out could be that Mrs May intends to stay in the customs union in the near term.

After yesterday's comments by David Cameron in his support for leave maybe a leading trade role

After last year's "negotiations" led by Cameron? I don't think I'd let him loose.

rottenborough

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Diane Abbott has said people should judge how Jeremy Corbyn is performing by looking at the polls in “six months” time.

The shadow home secretary said on Thursday evening if she did have a “plan B” for what to do if Labour did not catch up with the Tories she was keeping it secret.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diane-abbott-says-jeremy-corbyns-poll-numbers-should-be-looked-at-in-six-months_uk_58dd9d57e4b05eae031e97bf

How odd to say such a thing. The corbynite position has been the polls are wrong, therefore why would an inprovement in the polls matter?

The six months figure is suspiciously in line with the conference and the McD motion on nominations.

DavidL

daodao said:

DavidL said:

daodao said:

There seems to be an obsession with many in North America, the EU and the UK in perceiving Russia as the number one enemy, and regarding associations with it as being traitorous. Russia is essentially a Western Christian country with a lot of shared values and beliefs. I don't think it is right for Trump and members of his administration to be tarnished because of contacts with Russia.

The real enemies are China and Sunni fundamentalists (ISIS/Al Qayda/Taliban), aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia and its acolytes on the western shore of the Persian Gulf. There is also excessive demonisation of Iran, which is a potential ally against Sunni fundamentalism.

Russia is a corrupt and murderous dictatorship with whom we currently have pretty much no shared values or beliefs at all. Their power and threat is overstated but the determination of Putin to cause trouble in their near abroad is a significant irritant.

Other countries do the same in attempting to subvert democratically elected governments and kill individuals they dislike. Examples include the murder of Pat Finucane on the order of the British government, the overthrow of Allende in Chile and deliberate targeted killing of Hamas officials by Mossad and the Israeli military.

The British government did not order the murder of Pat Finucane. They colluded with the paramilitaries responsible and did nothing to stop it. That was shameful but very different to Putin's murder of journalists and political opponents alike.

[Deleted User]

daodao said:

There seems to be an obsession with many in North America, the EU and the UK in perceiving Russia as the number one enemy, and regarding associations with it as being traitorous. Russia is essentially a Western Christian country with a lot of shared values and beliefs. I don't think it is right for Trump and members of his administration to be tarnished because of contacts with Russia.

The real enemies are China and Sunni fundamentalists (ISIS/Al Qayda/Taliban), aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia and its acolytes on the western shore of the Persian Gulf. There is also excessive demonisation of Iran, which is a potential ally against Sunni fundamentalism.

The real enemy is and always has been France.

CarlottaVance

The European Union is ready to talk to Britain on a future free trade deal before the two sides agree final terms on Brexit, draft EU negotiating guidelines issued on Friday show.

As part of a "phased approach", Britain would just have to show "sufficient progress" on its divorce settlement in a first phase of negotiations and EU states could release a lock and agree to launch trade talks in a second phase.

But that concession to Theresa May two days after she triggered a two-year countdown to withdrawal was accompanied by elements in the draft circulated by EU summit chair Donald Tusk that the British prime minister may find less palatable.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-guidelines-idUSKBN1720SB

kle4

DavidL said:

daodao said:

DavidL said:

daodao said:

There seems to be an obsession with many in North America, the EU and the UK in perceiving Russia as the number one enemy, and regarding associations with it as being traitorous. Russia is essentially a Western Christian country with a lot of shared values and beliefs. I don't think it is right for Trump and members of his administration to be tarnished because of contacts with Russia.

The real enemies are China and Sunni fundamentalists (ISIS/Al Qayda/Taliban), aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia and its acolytes on the western shore of the Persian Gulf. There is also excessive demonisation of Iran, which is a potential ally against Sunni fundamentalism.

Russia is a corrupt and murderous dictatorship with whom we currently have pretty much no shared values or beliefs at all. Their power and threat is overstated but the determination of Putin to cause trouble in their near abroad is a significant irritant.

Other countries do the same in attempting to subvert democratically elected governments and kill individuals they dislike. Examples include the murder of Pat Finucane on the order of the British government, the overthrow of Allende in Chile and deliberate targeted killing of Hamas officials by Mossad and the Israeli military.

The British government did not order the murder of Pat Finucane. They colluded with the paramilitaries responsible and did nothing to stop it. That was shameful but very different to Putin's murder of journalists and political opponents alike.

Another classic tactic of putin defenders of course is to paint all sins as equal. To my mind, the business of government even in democratic liberal states will involve some grubby decisions, and outright shameful actions will occur, but that does not mean some are not more egregious offenders than others.

daodao

DavidL said:

daodao said:

DavidL said:

daodao said:

There seems to be an obsession with many in North America, the EU and the UK in perceiving Russia as the number one enemy, and regarding associations with it as being traitorous. Russia is essentially a Western Christian country with a lot of shared values and beliefs. I don't think it is right for Trump and members of his administration to be tarnished because of contacts with Russia.

The real enemies are China and Sunni fundamentalists (ISIS/Al Qayda/Taliban), aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia and its acolytes on the western shore of the Persian Gulf. There is also excessive demonisation of Iran, which is a potential ally against Sunni fundamentalism.

Russia is a corrupt and murderous dictatorship with whom we currently have pretty much no shared values or beliefs at all. Their power and threat is overstated but the determination of Putin to cause trouble in their near abroad is a significant irritant.

Other countries do the same in attempting to subvert democratically elected governments and kill individuals they dislike. Examples include the murder of Pat Finucane on the order of the British government, the overthrow of Allende in Chile and deliberate targeted killing of Hamas officials by Mossad and the Israeli military.

The British government did not order the murder of Pat Finucane. They colluded with the paramilitaries responsible and did nothing to stop it. That was shameful but very different to Putin's murder of journalists and political opponents alike.

MI5 got others do its dirty work for them, just like Putin. That is what collusion means.

Garza

daodao said:

malcolmg said:

Bromptonaut said:

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

As I was saying yesterday ...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/uk-article-50-letter-european-diplomats-threat-security-cooperation

And as others were saying, we have their nuts in a vice.

Bollocks.

Delusion if anyone thinks we are saving Europe.
"UK" overinflated ego needs bursting pdq.

Well said. Brexit has set in motion the break up of the UK and accelerated the progress towards an independent Scotland and a united Ireland. It will be a much diminished financially impoverished rUK in a few years, with minimal international influence, smaller armed forces and loss of the "precious" UN security council seat.

I am from Northern Ireland. A United Ireland is happening no time soon, not a chance. No way in hell.

The Nationalist vote did not even reach 40% for crying out loud.

DavidL

CarlottaVance said:

The European Union is ready to talk to Britain on a future free trade deal before the two sides agree final terms on Brexit, draft EU negotiating guidelines issued on Friday show.

As part of a "phased approach", Britain would just have to show "sufficient progress" on its divorce settlement in a first phase of negotiations and EU states could release a lock and agree to launch trade talks in a second phase.

But that concession to Theresa May two days after she triggered a two-year countdown to withdrawal was accompanied by elements in the draft circulated by EU summit chair Donald Tusk that the British prime minister may find less palatable.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-guidelines-idUSKBN1720SB

If all they want is a commitment that we will meet our legal obligations and make payments that we are already committed to without trying to specify what each and every one of these legal commitments is or look to quantify them at this stage we can simply give that assurance and move on. It sounds hopeful.

rottenborough

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Diane Abbott has said people should judge how Jeremy Corbyn is performing by looking at the polls in “six months” time.

The shadow home secretary said on Thursday evening if she did have a “plan B” for what to do if Labour did not catch up with the Tories she was keeping it secret.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/diane-abbott-says-jeremy-corbyns-poll-numbers-should-be-looked-at-in-six-months_uk_58dd9d57e4b05eae031e97bf

How odd to say such a thing. The corbynite position has been the polls are wrong, therefore why would an inprovement in the polls matter?

Copeland and the potential shellacking in the locals would confirm the polls are accurate.

But we know corbynites reject that argument as after Copeland they still reject polls as wrong. Maybe the locals will convince some more, but if they do badly but not as much as feared in May, most stil not believe polls if they show labour doing poorly.

Regardless, they claim polls are inherently wrong due to biased media and the like, they cannot take that back - if his polling improved by their own logic it would be because he is now a tool of the murdoch media and the like.

You are attempting logic on people who are cultists.

To be honest, Corbyn probably is a tool of the Murdoch empire and so on, at least unwittingly. What better person to guarantee a Tory victory in 2020? Other than Diane Abbot or Shami there is no one more qualified to deliver a Labour disaster.

MaxPB

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

.

.

)

Because almost zero thought has so far been demonstrated as to the type of long term relationship the EU wishes to have with Britain after Brexit. If I have one scintilla of sympathy with the UK government hitting the rest of the EU over the head with the mallet of security, it is that might be seen as a way of starting such thought processes.

This is very true and Merkel, regrettably, seems to be at the heart of it. The position of saying we will not discuss the future relationship until we have a clear exit agreement is unbelievably short sighted and seems specifically designed to ensure that there is no agreement at all. Presumably it is being driven by concerns about another significant increase in German contributions going forward and the impact of that in the German elections but it is not in Germany's business interests.

It It one of Germany's most fundamental national interests that the political framework of the EU be inviolable. If that comes at the cost of having an uncomprehending and bitter state on the periphery that is a price worth paying. In time any such country will learn the lessons of its isolation, but this is not a process that can be fudged.

That's nonsense even in its own terms. The Germans really wanted Greece to drop out the Euro, for example. Probably rightly in that particular case.

And they are now taking up the cause of Dave's deal and trying to get changes in benefits entitlement. Inviolable. Clearly.

They've always wanted that. They just wanted us to play our traditional role as fall guys and take the flack for pushing for it. Their self interest, which has driven much of the depression in the southern half of the Euro zone, is going to be a lot more exposed going forward.

When there is a chronic lack of demand in the EZ causing mass unemployment and your largest single market is actually running a government surplus alongside a humongous trade surplus by artificially reducing demand domestically they are about as much of a team player as Ronaldo.

It's economic warfare. I'd love for Italy and Greece to bow out of the Eurozone and then watch the Euro strengthen to a more suitable rate for Germany. Their reaction would be most telling. Would they give up their trade surplus or order a new round of austerity and dump the minimum wage? My bet would be the latter.