Isn’t it amazing how sometimes one doesn’t need to read every word of a book, in order to understand everything contained within it...
I've no idea whether I'm right. I just have enough reading matter to get through without adding something else to the list that I doubt - based on Hillary's inability to understand what was happening when it mattered - will add any great elected twice.
Actually the lesson from 2016 is the Democrats need a populist like Sanders who can win the rustbelt in 2020 not an elitist like Hillary. Plenty of blue collar Democrats voted for Trump as Hillary was too close to Wall Street and not Main Street but they were also willing to give Sanders a hearing which is why Sanders won the Michigan and Wisconsin primaries and Trump then won them in November.
That would be completely the wrong reading. Trump would (or would have) tear/torn Sanders apart among middle America. Commie Bernie, as Trump would term him, would be presented as a threat to their wallets and their liberty. He is absolutely not the answer (not least because he'd be even more incapable of getting anything through a GOP-run Congress than Trump).
That's not to say that Hillary *was* the answer; just that populism is chance.
Completely wrong. Sanders always had a bigger lead over Trump than Hillary did precisely because his attacks on Wall Street and big corporations resonated and on economics he is more FDR or LBJ than Karl Marx. Sanders is also less relaxed about immigration than Hillary and surprisingly pro gun. He is ideal for the rustbelt.
To win next time the Democrats just need to win Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (which even Gore and Kerry won and where Sanders won 2/3 of the primaries)and hold the Hillary states, if Sanders did that Trump could win both Florida and Ohio and still lose.
OTOH, I think College-educated White voters would have gone more heavily for Trump, had Sanders been the candidate.
I think you could even get a 2020 scenario where Trump wins the popular vote by doing better in California and New York than he did in 2016 but Sanders wins the electoral college by winning Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which Trump won by less than 1% in 2016.
We voted to join a Common Market we left when it became a European Union.
1973 - 1992: 19 years 1993 - 2016: 23 years
Euroscepticism really spiralled with Maastricht in 1993 and the Euro in 1999 and accelerated with free movement from the new accession countries in 2004, especially with Blair's refusal to impose transition controls and the lack of referenda on the Nice and Lisbon treaties.
You stated that "Is it really wise to take away Catalan self-government and impose direct rule? Is this tenable long-term and, if not, might it not be better to get to the solution sooner rather than later? It was Seamus Mallon who described the Good Friday Agreement as 'Sunningdale for slow learners'."
Unfortunately, it seems that the Westminster, in hock to the DUP, is about to take a step back and re-impose direct rule over the 6 counties. The UK government, which is still manifesting imperialist and nationalist hubris, will thus be unable to criticise the Madrid government for any actions that it takes, however drastic. It is pity that Corbyn is not PM now, if only for his far more sensible and appropriate international perspective.
The opposite Brokenshire has resisted direct rule time and time again and is just keeping SF and the DUP talking and the Storming civil servants talking. The opposite of Spain who are moving to direct rule almost immediately or elections provided they lead to a unionist majority.
And the elections are being put back and back. Now looking at March next year apparently. You have to wonder if some of the current administration in Catalonia will even be allowed to run.
To hold elections and ban pro independence candidates from running would throw petrol on the flames.
Indeed, but if they stand on a platform promising to maintain a udi, it woukd be surprising if that were legal.
Perhaps Westminster should ban the SNP then? Expressing the view of independence is not illegal in Catalonia supposedly putting it into practice is (though even then if enough Spaniards agreed to it it would be constitutional).
I said nothing of the kind, thank you. I was speculating on the very distinction you raise. If you say you want independence that is obviously not illegal, but since holding a referendum was illegal under Spanish law , I wouldn't be surprise if saying 'if elected I will declare independence, again, and will secede' is illegal. '. If running on a platform to undertake illegal acts, not just push for a change in the law, would that itself be illegal was my speculation.
I'll thank you not to make such a bloody stupid extrapolation that I would thus ban the SNP, as the scenarios were deliberately distinct between merely seeking indy and promising what the state has already called illegal acts. . For one, I've not said I'd support Madrid I'd they took such a view
The average age of a leave voter in the EU referendum was ninety.
N-n-n-n ninety.
It would be useful if you could identify the source of that utter nonsense. I would like to know, in order that I may be warned not to accept at face value anything else published by the same source.
I am sick and tired of overblown scare stories and bogus claims masquerading as fact which originate from ultra pro-Remain sources.
You stated that "Is it really wise to take away Catalan self-government and impose direct rule? Is this tenable long-term and, if not, might it not be better to get to the solution sooner rather than later? It was Seamus Mallon who described the Good Friday Agreement as 'Sunningdale for slow learners'."
Unfortunately, it seems that the Westminster, in hock to the DUP, is about to take a step back and re-impose direct rule over the 6 counties. The UK government, which is still manifesting imperialist and nationalist hubris, will thus be unable to criticise the Madrid government for any actions that it takes, however drastic. It is pity that Corbyn is not PM now, if only for his far more sensible and appropriate international perspective.
The situations are not comparable. In Northern Ireland, the local parties won't govern, so Westminster has to.
Well, they won't govern *together*, which is a different thing. The current impasse shows the limitations of the current arrangement, which really ought to be changed but due to various things, including Westminster arithmetic, won't be. At present, the DUP can simply impose a First Minister unless Sinn Fein are willing to bring the system down (and likewise for the DFM in reverse), which is a travesty of parliamentary democracy. The rules should be changed so that any administration can be formed providing that it has:
1) The support of more than 50% of MLAs; 2) The support of at least 30% of at least two 'communities' - nationalist, unionist, non-aligned; 3) That if (2) is satisfied by including the least-represented community and by excluding one of the others, that the number from that community supporting the administration is more than 30% of the MLAs of the community not represented.
It's not up to him no matter how many times he says it. As you know it is not even clear it is legally possible, and lacking that clarity it's not really an option on the table right now. It's good deal, bad deal or no Deal for now, and longer term rejoin.
It's not up to him no matter how many times he says it. As you know it is not even clear it is legally possible, and lacking that clarity it's not really an option on the table right now. It's good deal, bad deal or no Deal for now, and longer term rejoin.
In the case where a revocation of Article 50 needs the consent of the EU27, it's the council that would have to give it, so nobody is in a better position to judge whether it would be possible.
On the subject of Theresa May's dinner conversation with Jean-Claude Juncker, it seems pretty obvious who had the conversation with FAZ, given what was reported and what has been said since.
I read McNamara’s book; picked up a pirated copy in, of all places, Ho Chi Minh City seven or eight years ago.I was struck by his admission that, partly becuase the US saw itself as a ‘shing city upon a hill’ he hadn’t looked more deeply at the history of the conflict, and hadn’t listened to anyone who had. Not that there were many loud voices who had in the US at that time. And I agree that LBJ has been harshly judged by recent history. I suspect that historians in the 22nd century will have a much higher opinion of him .It’s perhaps ironic that JFK apparent said that if he hadn’t wanted this thing (the Presidency) for himself he’d have got behind the ablest man in America, LBJ. if he had, the world might well have been a better place today!
Would Johnson have beaten Nixon in 1960, and if he had, would he have won re-election in 1964? He might - might - have avoided Vietnam, though all the pressures that resulted in Kennedy getting involved would have been there for him too. And would he have made a much more concerted push for his Great Society in the 1961-65 term, so writing off the South for half a century (or more, as it's turned out)?
As an aside, I think that as first-hand memories of Vietnam fade and as the US changes demographically, Johnson's reputation, based on his domestic reforms (and the political skill and courage necessary to deliver them), will rise well before the 22nd century.
More likely his notorious hubris would have set in earlier and nothing much would have been done.
Who could forget the time he replied to an aide who wished him 'Good Morning Mr President' with 'Thank you?'
It's an interesting question. Johnson's hubris was coupled with an underlying insecurity, I think.
It's quite possible he might have avoided the Vietnam debacle had he been President in 1960 - just as it's possible that Kennedy might have extricated himself had he not been assassinated. But Johnson taking over half way through was never going to lose face like that (and I think perhaps lacked the self confidence early on to face down what was still essentially Kennedy's administration). With other domestic priorities taking much of his attention - and initially thinking he could bully his Vietnamese opponents - he was in way too deep before he realised just how bad it was.
Actually the lesson from 2016 is the Democrats need a populist like Sanders who can win the rustbelt in 2020 not an elitist like Hillary. Plenty of blue collar Democrats voted for Trump as Hillary was too close to Wall Street and not Main Street but they were also willing to give Sanders a hearing which is why Sanders won the Michigan and Wisconsin primaries and Trump then won them in November.
That would be completely the wrong reading. Trump would (or would have) tear/torn Sanders apart among middle America. Commie Bernie, as Trump would term him, would be presented as a threat to their wallets and their liberty. He is absolutely not the answer (not least because he'd be even more incapable of getting anything through a GOP-run Congress than Trump).
That's not to say that Hillary *was* the answer; just that populism is a poor substitute for connectedness and no guarantee of effectiveness in office; often, quite the opposite. How the Democrats ended up with no decent candidates entering the race is not exactly an enduring mystery but still a sad state of affairs. Biden wouldn't have been a populist but he would have shown more passion and less entitlement than Hillary, with just as much capability to run the thing afterwards. Sadly, he missed his chance.
Completely wrong. Sanders always had a bigger lead over Trump than Hillary did precisely because his attacks on Wall Street and big corporations resonated and on economics he is more FDR or LBJ than Karl Marx. Sanders is also less relaxed about immigration than Hillary and surprisingly pro gun. He is ideal for the rustbelt.
To win next time the Democrats just need to win Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (which even Gore and Kerry won and where Sanders won 2/3 of the primaries)and hold the Hillary states, if Sanders did that Trump could win both Florida and Ohio and still lose.
Trump never meaningfully attacked Sanders; he never had to. I agree the polling head-to-heads were poor for Trump but I think that would have changed once he went negative. I'm not sure you can read directly over from the primaries to the general: Trump played to many of the same discontented voters while also appearing to give the illusion of greater financial ability.
The one lesson we should learn from Trump's campaign is that it doesn't matter how good a candidate looks on paper; it's how good or bad they look after an effective negative is run that's important. A candidate so far left that he wouldn't join the Democrats provides a lot of ammunition for his opponents outside of Vermont on that score.
I do think there is no point Catalonia (or Scotland or Wales or Corsica or whatever) remaining in their mini-federations.
The most powerful argument to my mind that the SNP produced is Scotland should have a place at the top table, at the EU. Why be a member of a little federation when you can be a member of a big one?
The EU is one of the reasons why such secessionist movements are on the rise.
And if Catalonia does it, as is looking increasingly likely, that will give a further push in the secessionist direction.
An indepemdent Orkney is not justified or viable but special status arrangements may be beneficial or required.
The Peoples Republic of Orkney would have a hell of a lot more hydrocarbons and fish than Andorra, San Marino, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg..... Combined with Shetland, it would be a very wealthy entity indeed, on GDP per head of population. (Although it might have to spend a bit on defence against its greedy southern neighbour!)
You seem to be working on the premise that the North Sea is an asset. The clean up costs which the UK is already committed to would bankrupt Orkney and Shetland. Their opportunity has passed.
You stated that "Is it really wise to take away Catalan self-government and impose direct rule? Is this tenable long-term and, if not, might it not be better to get to the solution sooner rather than later? It was Seamus Mallon who described the Good Friday Agreement as 'Sunningdale for slow learners'."
Unfortunately, it seems that the Westminster, in hock to the DUP, is about to take a step back and re-impose direct rule over the 6 counties. The UK government, which is still manifesting imperialist and nationalist hubris, will thus be unable to criticise the Madrid government for any actions that it takes, however drastic. It is pity that Corbyn is not PM now, if only for his far more sensible and appropriate international perspective.
The opposite Brokenshire has resisted direct rule time and time again and is just keeping SF and the DUP talking and the Storming civil servants talking. The opposite of Spain who are moving to direct rule almost immediately or elections provided they lead to a unionist majority.
And the elections are being put back and back. Now looking at March next year apparently. You have to wonder if some of the current administration in Catalonia will even be allowed to run.
To hold elections and ban pro independence candidates from running would throw petrol on the flames.
It's not up to him no matter how many times he says it. As you know it is not even clear it is legally possible, and lacking that clarity it's not really an option on the table right now. It's good deal, bad deal or no Deal for now, and longer term rejoin.
In the case where a revocation of Article 50 needs the consent of the EU27, it's the council that would have to give it, so nobody is in a better position to judge whether it would be possible.
Untrue, as it still starts from the premise it is revocable at all, which is still unclear. If it is, and if it requires consent of the council, he can say whether he thinks it an option, but it doesn't add to its likelyhood if it is a question of law in the first place. That's like the government insisting it had such a strong case re A50 as parliament passed an act, they issues ministerial guidance etc, and turns out they were wrong.
It's not necessarily in their gift is the key point. I'm certainly no lawyer, and if it were ever tested he might be proven right, but given the legalities have not been clear, it cannot be listed as an option with the same certainty as deal or no deal.
The average age of a leave voter in the EU referendum was ninety.
N-n-n-n ninety.
It would be useful if you could identify the source of that utter nonsense. I would like to know, in order that I may be warned not to accept at face value anything else published by the same source.
I am sick and tired of overblown scare stories and bogus claims masquerading as fact which originate from ultra pro-Remain sources.
Interestingly as the final Vietnam War episode showed last night it was ultimately money which was key with Congress refusing to give Ford the money he requested to prop up the South Vietnamese government after US forces had largely withdrawn leading inevitably to the fall of Saigon. It also showed how once occupied by the North South Vietnam saw mass poverty, rampant inflation, collectivisation of agriculture and nationalisation of industry.
Of course the UK kept out of the Vietnam War as did Canada with only Australia and New Zealand of America's western allies outside South East Asia providing troops. In the second Iraq War of course the UK was involved as again was Australia (this time New Zealand stayed out as once again did Canada) confirming that Australia is really the USA's most reliable ally and not the UK despite the supposed 'special relationship.'
As for Iraq War 2 while no triumph Iraq has at least now replaced a dictator with a democracy and is now largely ISIS free.
Until the next ISIS rises, just as ISIS did years after the rise of its predecessor in the region.
ISIS rose out of Syria where the US did not intervene.
No they did not. At least not according to the experts running the course on nuclear terrorism I am currently studying. Their origins were well before the Syrian crisis and stemmed from a split in Al-Qaeda back in 2006 over the aims for a Caliphate.
I am beginning to wonder if we will actually leave.
Consider:
1) The talks are going nowhere - we are more than a quarter of the way through the A50 period and agreement has not yet been reached on even the three "first stage" topics, let alone the much more complex transition arrangements; 2) The government has all but conceded that it cannot get the repeal bill through Parliament in its current form and seems to have no idea what to do next; 3) Work has not yet started on the many new systems, agencies and procedures (immigration, customs, air safety etc etc etc) that would be required in the case of a hard exit. The chances of any of this work being complete by March 2019 are zero.
Leaving is therefore not practically possible in the time available. The politics have not yet caught up with the realities of the situation.
In Retrospect was a very compelling read. I've never read a book whose central message was: we failed, why?
You haven’t got around to Hillary Clinton’s new book yet?
Is Hillary capable of the detachment necessary to answer that question honestly? I've not read it (and don't intend to) but my guess would be her answers include "Trump lied", "Russia lied", "Comey letter - either politically motivated or naive", "right-wing media" blah-de-blah. Answers I'm guessing aren't there are "I was too distant from the voters Trump appealed to in the Blue states to notice what was happening or to do much about it if I did", or "Trump provided a critique answers, even if simplistic and demagogic, in a way I never did".
Isn’t it amazing how sometimes one doesn’t need to read every word of a book, in order to understand everything contained within it...
I've no idea whether I'm right. I just have enough reading matter to get through without adding something else to the list that I doubt - based on Hillary's inability to understand what was happening when it mattered - will add any great insight. I might be wrong: I can live with that.
You’re of course completely right. It’s bacisally “Russia, FBI, Russia, Trump lied, Russia, GOP voter suppression, Russia...” Yet no mention of calling voters deplorable, identity politics, being completely aloof and beyond campaigning, emails, shadiness about health, not even visiting swing states...
It gives every impression of having learned precisely nothing from the campaign, and if the Democrats aren’t careful they’ll make exactly the same mistakes again in 2020 and wonder how the hell a man as evil as Trump got elected twice.
The average age of a leave voter in the EU referendum was ninety.
N-n-n-n ninety.
It would be useful if you could identify the source of that utter nonsense. I would like to know, in order that I may be warned not to accept at face value anything else published by the same source.
I am sick and tired of overblown scare stories and bogus claims masquerading as fact which originate from ultra pro-Remain sources.
If we do so without another referendum/GE (and, to a lesser extent, with) it would be a wonderful gift for UKIP, but my concern, along with massive voter distrust in politics and greatly exacerbating the already concerning political polarisation in this country, would be the strong potential for the rise of the far right.
Asking the people what they think, then reneging upon their decision, is not a good way to increase trust in politics.
It's a reaction to the slow but steady Islamification of Europe and increase in third world immigration and associated problems. The native populations clearly don't want it and desire to retain some land to call their own.
The only people to even acknowledge let alone pledge to do something about it is the far-right, so of course people are going to vote for them.
I notice he doesn't mention a 'bad deal'. Maybe he agrees with May that 'No Deal' is better than a bad deal.
Or rather that the deal is the deal: take it and leave, leave it and leave, or leave it and stay.
And yet he specifically references a 'good deal'. Which kind of undermines your interpretation. Besides, who is to say what is or is not a 'good deal'?
It's not up to him no matter how many times he says it. As you know it is not even clear it is legally possible, and lacking that clarity it's not really an option on the table right now. It's good deal, bad deal or no Deal for now, and longer term rejoin.
Maybe, just maybe, he’s not giving a legal answer. Just saying that if Britain changed its mind and said that it wanted to Remain, politically the EU would not insist on making it go through with departure.
It's not up to him no matter how many times he says it. As you know it is not even clear it is legally possible, and lacking that clarity it's not really an option on the table right now. It's good deal, bad deal or no Deal for now, and longer term rejoin.
The average age of a leave voter in the EU referendum was ninety.
N-n-n-n ninety.
It would be useful if you could identify the source of that utter nonsense. I would like to know, in order that I may be warned not to accept at face value anything else published by the same source.
I am sick and tired of overblown scare stories and bogus claims masquerading as fact which originate from ultra pro-Remain sources.
Actually the lesson from 2016 is the Democrats need a populist like Sanders who can win the rustbelt in 2020 not an elitist like Hillary. Plenty of blue collar Democrats voted for Trump as Hillary was too close to Wall Street and not Main Street but they were also willing to give Sanders a hearing which is why Sanders won the Michigan and Wisconsin primaries and Trump then won them in November.
That would be completely the wrong reading. Trump would (or w a GOP-run Congress than Trump).
That's not to say that Hillary *was* the answer; just that populism ance.
Completely wrong. Sanders always had a bigger lead over Trump than Hillary did precisely because his attacks on Wall Street and big corporations resonated and on economics he is more FDR or LBJ than Karl Marx. Sanders is also less relaxed about immigration than Hillary and surprisingly pro gun. He is ideal for the rustbelt.
To win next time the Democrats just need to win Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (which even Gore and Kerry won and where Sanders won 2/3 of the primaries)and hold the Hillary states, if Sanders did that Trump could win both Florida and Ohio and still lose.
Trump never meaningfully attacked Sanders; he never had to. I agree the polling head-to-heads were poor for Trump but I think that would have changed once he went negative. I'm not sure you can read directly over from the primaries to the general: Trump played to many of the same discontented voters while also appearing to give the illusion of greater financial ability.
The one lesson we should learn from Trump's campaign is that it doesn't matter how good a candidate looks on paper; it's how good or bad they look after an effective negative is run that's important. A candidate so far left that he wouldn't join the Democrats provides a lot of ammunition for his opponents outside of Vermont on that score.
As I said the Democrats need a candidate to win the rustbelt that is all.
On economics Sanders is LBJ and FDR not Marx and Sanders is also more concerned about immigration than Hillary and more pro gun. He is ideal for Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania which are the only states the Democrats need to win to win the EC if they hold the Hillary states.
Trump's approval ratings are also so abysmal he could be the first President since Carter (who has not also been VP) to fail to win re election. Carter of course lost to Reagan having beaten Ford 4 years earlier after Ford himself beat Reagan for the GOP nomination. Sanders will hope he is Reagan to Trump's Carter and Hillary's Ford.
Yes, that is their whole agenda. Make it so difficult for the UK to leave that somehow it won't happen. That's because they are in reality for EU political, budgetary and economic reasons desperate for the UK to remain in the EU, even while at the same time they purport to be sanguine about the prospect of the UK leaving. As such, the EU is negotiating from a position of weakness dressed up as one of strength, with unfortunately too many Remainers here having fallen hook line and sinker for the latter.
It is I think time for the UK to start issuing deadlines, namely that outline agreement at least has to be reached on all of the issues being held up by the EU by some date we set for early in 2018. If that is not done, then the UK will commit to planning on the basis that Brexit will take place on either WTO terms with no further financial contributions whatsoever to the EU beyond those which could be enforced under international law (independently of EU institutions), or under take-it-or-leave-it terms unilaterally drawn up by the UK with a very limited payment to the EU that is less that what they have already been led to believe that they can expect. In either case UK business would gain clarity over what they can expect, and if the EU did not play ball they would have to settle for far less than they have been offered now.
An indepemdent Orkney is not justified or viable but special status arrangements may be beneficial or required.
The Peoples Republic of Orkney would have a hell of a lot more hydrocarbons and fish than Andorra, San Marino, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg..... Combined with Shetland, it would be a very wealthy entity indeed, on GDP per head of population. (Although it might have to spend a bit on defence against its greedy southern neighbour!)
You seem to be working on the premise that the North Sea is an asset. The clean up costs which the UK is already committed to would bankrupt Orkney and Shetland. Their opportunity has passed.
No doubt they would be looking for a large cheque from the Exchequer in settlement of those obligations in the Orkxit talks.....
If we do so without another referendum/GE (and, to a lesser extent, with) it would be a wonderful gift for UKIP, but my concern, along with massive voter distrust in politics and greatly exacerbating the already concerning political polarisation in this country, would be the strong potential for the rise of the far right.
Asking the people what they think, then reneging upon their decision, is not a good way to increase trust in politics.
I'm quite comfortable with being asked again, assuming the legalities are clear, and am not sure where'd I fall, but I suspect if that were to happen it would be done via another GE. Of course presently labour are also brexit backing, but the 180 turn is a grand old tradition. The tories would not be able to pull that off given their membership so I'd think woukd split, and we'd get a Labour landslide.
Even when we remember the electorate contains nobody under 18, I don't quite see how we go from that figure to 38% of the electorate having an average age of ninety.
You may be winding people up, but if so you're not doing nearly as good a job as you should. If you had said average age was 60 I might have believed you, but nobody's going to believe that, as indeed @Wulfrun_Phil has demonstrated.
It's not up to him no matter how many times he says it. As you know it is not even clear it is legally possible, and lacking that clarity it's not really an option on the table right now. It's good deal, bad deal or no Deal for now, and longer term rejoin.
But he precisely said it's "up to London".
In which case the argument he knows best as its about consent of the 27 falls even flatter, and adds to the fact he doesn't know whether we can under our law revoke any more than we do (its been stated we can't, but not legally tested). So not a clear option like the others. Now rejoin is obviously possible, if politically fraught on our side and theirs.
It's not up to him no matter how many times he says it. As you know it is not even clear it is legally possible, and lacking that clarity it's not really an option on the table right now. It's good deal, bad deal or no Deal for now, and longer term rejoin.
Maybe, just maybe, he’s not giving a legal answer. Just saying that if Britain changed its mind and said that it wanted to Remain, politically the EU would not insist on making it go through with departure.
Lots of “ifs” there, of course.
That's been my point. There are so many ifs, it's possible, but not equivocal to the deal or no Deal options, thus it cannot be promised or suggested so easily. He says it's up to us, say we go down that route and find out it isn't possible under the Treaty after all.
No doubt something could be worked out, and no shame on him speculating, but we cannot treat his speculations as being completely workable or possible as a matter of fact.
Even when we remember the electorate contains nobody under 18, I don't quite see how we go from that figure to 38% of the electorate having an average age of ninety.
You may be winding people up, but if so you're not doing nearly as good a job as you should. If you had said average age was 60 I might have believed you, but nobody's going to believe that, as indeed @Wulfrun_Phil has demonstrated.
Given the thread header has the last helicopter out of Saigon as the picture I think Jonathan is (ironically) referencing Paul Hardcastle's 1985 hit which had on a loop that the average age of the US combat soldier in Vietnam was "nnnnnNineteen".
Though nothing new. They've been in government with the OVP before, in 2000-5. For that matter, they are (or recently have been?) in coalition in a regional government with the SPO.
Isn’t it amazing how sometimes one doesn’t need to read every word of a book, in order to understand everything contained within it...
I've no idea whether I'm right. I just have enough reading matter to get through without adding something else to the list that I doubt - based on Hillary's inability to understand what was happening when it mattered - will add any great insight. I might be wrong: I can live with that.
You’re of course completely right. It’s bacisally “Russia, FBI, Russia, Trump lied, Russia, GOP voter suppression, Russia...” Yet no mention of calling voters deplorable, identity politics, being completely aloof and beyond campaigning, emails, shadiness about health, not even visiting swing states...
It gives every impression of having learned precisely nothing from the campaign, and if the Democrats aren’t careful they’ll make exactly the same mistakes again in 2020 and wonder how the hell a man as evil as Trump got elected twice.
Actually the lesson from 2016 is the Democrats need a populist like Sanders who can win the rustbelt in 2020 not an elitist like Hillary. Plenty of blue collar Democrats voted for Trump as Hillary was too close to Wall Street and not Main Street but they were also willing to give Sanders a hearing which is why Sanders won the Michigan and Wisconsin primaries and Trump then won them in November.
That would be completely the wrong reading. Trump would (or would have) tear/torn Sanders apart among middle America. Commie Bernie, as Trump would term him, would be presented as a threat to their wallets and their liberty. He is absolutely not the answer (not least because he'd be even more incapable of getting anything through a GOP-run Congress than Trump).
That's not to say that Hillary *was* the answer; just that populism is a poor substitute for connectedness and no guarantee of effectiveness in office; often, quite the opposite. How the Democrats ended up with no decent candidates entering the race is not exactly an enduring mystery but still a sad state of affairs. Biden wouldn't have been a populist but he would have shown more passion and less entitlement than Hillary, with just as much capability to run the thing afterwards. Sadly, he missed his chance.
If Hilary had bothered to do any campaigning in the crucial rust belt states she lost rather than fucking offdown to Arizona and shit like that then she could have in all likelyhood have won.
My critical misreading of the situation was that she wasn't campaigning in, say, Michigan or Wisconsin because they were locked up, not because she was a moron who knew they were in deep trouble but decided to play 12 dimensional chess instead.
Even when we remember the electorate contains nobody under 18, I don't quite see how we go from that figure to 38% of the electorate having an average age of ninety.
You may be winding people up, but if so you're not doing nearly as good a job as you should. If you had said average age was 60 I might have believed you, but nobody's going to believe that, as indeed @Wulfrun_Phil has demonstrated.
Given the thread header has the last helicopter out of Saigon as the picture I think Jonathan is (ironically) referencing Paul Hardcastle's 1985 hit which had on a loop that the average age of the US combat soldier in Vietnam was "nnnnnNineteen".
God I feel old!
Ahh, I see!
You will have to put me missing this important cultural reference down to my youth and inexperience.
That said, I'm reminded of the time Tom Baker referred to Chris Adamson as 'the boy' on Have I Got News For You, only to get the outraged response 'I'm 36! I'm 36, Tom Baker!'
Even when we remember the electorate contains nobody under 18, I don't quite see how we go from that figure to 38% of the electorate having an average age of ninety.
You may be winding people up, but if so you're not doing nearly as good a job as you should. If you had said average age was 60 I might have believed you, but nobody's going to believe that, as indeed @Wulfrun_Phil has demonstrated.
Ought we to have a hyperbole tag ? Like sarcasm, it often doesn't come across as intended...
To echo what others have said, 'twas an excellent series. I think I was most struck by LBJ even before the mass deployment of US troops believing that it was almost certainly going to be a disaster. Sometimes I think politicians suffer a kind of vertigo, unable to look away from the abyss but gradually inching towards the edge.
Also in these days of revisionism and whitening of reputations, a useful reminder of what a shit Nixon was.
Even when we remember the electorate contains nobody under 18, I don't quite see how we go from that figure to 38% of the electorate having an average age of ninety.
You may be winding people up, but if so you're not doing nearly as good a job as you should. If you had said average age was 60 I might have believed you, but nobody's going to believe that, as indeed @Wulfrun_Phil has demonstrated.
Ought we to have a hyperbole tag ? Like sarcasm, it often doesn't come across as intended...
I usually just obligingly inform people it's a joke. Unless it is one of my awesome musical puns which speak for themselves.
Even when we remember the electorate contains nobody under 18, I don't quite see how we go from that figure to 38% of the electorate having an average age of ninety.
You may be winding people up, but if so you're not doing nearly as good a job as you should. If you had said average age was 60 I might have believed you, but nobody's going to believe that, as indeed @Wulfrun_Phil has demonstrated.
Given the thread header has the last helicopter out of Saigon as the picture I think Jonathan is (ironically) referencing Paul Hardcastle's 1985 hit which had on a loop that the average age of the US combat soldier in Vietnam was "nnnnnNineteen".
God I feel old!
Ahh, I see!
You will have to put me missing this important cultural reference down to my youth and inexperience.
That said, I'm reminded of the time Tom Baker referred to Chris Adamson as 'the boy' on Have I Got News For You, only to get the outraged response 'I'm 36! I'm 36, Tom Baker!'
There was a parody version (the Commentators) with a (very youthful) Rory Bremner doing impressions of the Test Match Special cricket commentators which went along the lines of "nnnnnineteen" being David Gower's (the then England captain) batting average in the 84 series against the Windies.
I won't invoice for my experience and knowledge on this occasion. Quality stuff like this is for us all.
An indepemdent Orkney is not justified or viable but special status arrangements may be beneficial or required.
The Peoples Republic of Orkney would have a hell of a lot more hydrocarbons and fish than Andorra, San Marino, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg..... Combined with Shetland, it would be a very wealthy entity indeed, on GDP per head of population. (Although it might have to spend a bit on defence against its greedy southern neighbour!)
You seem to be working on the premise that the North Sea is an asset. The clean up costs which the UK is already committed to would bankrupt Orkney and Shetland. Their opportunity has passed.
The clean up costs are already overwhelmingly placed on the shoulders of the oil companies themselves. There is now a process in place where every well and piece of installation is assigned to an oil company and the decommissioning is their responsibility under extremely strict guidelines. Any company now operating a field has to have the financing in place to complete the decommissioning including the removal of all infrastructure and the permanent abandonment of all wells. This is monitored by auditors and as soon as it looks like the company will not be able to meet its obligations its licence is revoked for that field.
There will of course be some costs to the taxpayer but the vast majority will be borne by the companies. Indeed they are already well advanced in a process of permanently abandoning hundreds of oil wells.
Placing my pedants hat on firmly (and only due to having just read about this in a recent Prospect magazine). But, "shining city on a hill" was Reagan's version.
The JFK version was simply "city upon a hill", taken from Governor Winthrop's original 1600s version (which is taken from the Bible).
Even when we remember the electorate contains nobody under 18, I don't quite see how we go from that figure to 38% of the electorate having an average age of ninety.
You may be winding people up, but if so you're not doing nearly as good a job as you should. If you had said average age was 60 I might have believed you, but nobody's going to believe that, as indeed @Wulfrun_Phil has demonstrated.
Given the thread header has the last helicopter out of Saigon as the picture I think Jonathan is (ironically) referencing Paul Hardcastle's 1985 hit which had on a loop that the average age of the US combat soldier in Vietnam was "nnnnnNineteen".
God I feel old!
Ahh, I see!
You will have to put me missing this important cultural reference down to my youth and inexperience.
That said, I'm reminded of the time Tom Baker referred to Chris Adamson as 'the boy' on Have I Got News For You, only to get the outraged response 'I'm 36! I'm 36, Tom Baker!'
There was a parody version (the Commentators) with a (very youthful) Rory Bremner doing impressions of the Test Match Special cricket commentators which went along the lines of "nnnnnineteen" being David Gower's (the then England captain) batting average in the 84 series against the Windies.
I won't invoice for my experience and knowledge on this occasion. Quality stuff like this is for us all.
My word. An average of 19. That's astonishing.
I always assumed it was about 5 given how abjectly the batting unit performed.
Interesting to see those stats and reflect only three Windies players who played all five tests averaged under 30 with the bat - and only two England players averaged above it!
It's not up to him no matter how many times he says it. As you know it is not even clear it is legally possible, and lacking that clarity it's not really an option on the table right now. It's good deal, bad deal or no Deal for now, and longer term rejoin.
Maybe, just maybe, he’s not giving a legal answer. Just saying that if Britain changed its mind and said that it wanted to Remain, politically the EU would not insist on making it go through with departure.
Lots of “ifs” there, of course.
But he cannot speak for the EU. Neither can the Council. Neither can the Parliament.
The only body which can give an authoritative ruling is the CJEU, which is quite precious both about protecting its independence and protecting the integrity of the treaties.
There is a loophole, of extending the exit period to, say, 50 years and then dealing with exiting from Brexit via a new treaty - but short of that, the CJEU could easily rule that no resolution of ministers or parliament or whatever can override the treaties, that A50 was lawfully triggered and that subject to any deal agreed under A50 to very the exit date, Britain's membership ends (or ended) in March 2019.
Quite a surreal experience watching people defending Jared O’Mara on the thread last night because "it was 15 years ago", remembering that we have had more than a decade of people attacking Mr Osborne for things he was alleged to have done as a student 15-20 years ago that are not even holding particular opinions.
If I have my numbers right Jared was 24 - several years beyond University graduation age, so I would expect him to have well-formed attitudes if not precise opinions.
Which is more likely - that Jared O’Mara has changed his basic attitude or that his apology is a collection of weasel words?
Is that quite right ? The impression I had is that people were defending the general right to change one's opinions - particularly if expressed at a time when not in post.
Whether or not Mr O'Mara is truly a sinner repented is an open question - but it is only fair to note that he has repudiated his offensive statements.
It's not up to him no matter how many times he says it. As you know it is not even clear it is legally possible, and lacking that clarity it's not really an option on the table right now. It's good deal, bad deal or no Deal for now, and longer term rejoin.
Maybe, just maybe, he’s not giving a legal answer. Just saying that if Britain changed its mind and said that it wanted to Remain, politically the EU would not insist on making it go through with departure.
Lots of “ifs” there, of course.
I think that's precisely right, both about what he meant and the political reality. The EU would give a collective eye-roll of the century if we said "On second thoughts, forget it", but nonetheless would say "Oh, all right then, if you're sure."
Completely wrong. Sanders always had a bigger lead over Trump than Hillary did precisely because his attacks on Wall Street and big corporations resonated and on economics he is more FDR or LBJ than Karl Marx. Sanders is also less relaxed about immigration than Hillary and surprisingly pro gun. He is ideal for the rustbelt.
To win next time the Democrats just need to win Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (which even Gore and Kerry won and where Sanders won 2/3 of the primaries)and hold the Hillary states, if Sanders did that Trump could win both Florida and Ohio and still lose.
Trump never meaningfully attacked Sanders; he never had to. I agree the polling head-to-heads were poor for Trump but I think that would have changed once he went negative. I'm not sure you can read directly over from the primaries to the general: Trump played to many of the same discontented voters while also appearing to give the illusion of greater financial ability.
The one lesson we should learn from Trump's campaign is that it doesn't matter how good a candidate looks on paper; it's how good or bad they look after an effective negative is run that's important. A candidate so far left that he wouldn't join the Democrats provides a lot of ammunition for his opponents outside of Vermont on that score.
Clinton spent plenty of time attacking Sanders and it didn't wash with the US electorate at large. You can't dismiss the fact that Sanders was far further ahead of Trump than Clinton in polling head-to-heads. The fact that it was Clinton not Trump doing the negative attacking of Sanders was irrelevant.
For once I agree with HYUFD. Trump beat Clinton because he was able to form a narrative that tapped into discontent with the establishment from traditional Democrats in rustbelt states. Sanders had an equally effective narrative for those voters and clearly would have won those states. He also pulled off the impressive feat of challenging Clinton to the wire in primaries in an electoral college rigged against him through the inclusion of Clinton-supporting placemen from the Democratic Party machine, so the idea that he would have alienated other parts of the Democratic base doesn't wash. Moreover he's a particularly effective political operator, having pulled off the incredible feat of having secured a base as a socialist independent in the less than fertile territory of Vermont. Not New York, not California, but leafy middle America VERMONT.
Isn’t it amazing how sometimes one doesn’t need to read every word of a book, in order to understand everything contained within it...
I've no idea whether I'm right. I just have enough reading matter to get through without adding something else to the list that I doubt - based on Hillary's inability to understand what was happening when it mattered - will add any great insight. I might be wrong: I can live with that.
You’re of course completely right. It’s bacisally “Russia, FBI, Russia, Trump lied, Russia, GOP voter suppression, Russia...” Yet no mention of calling voters deplorable, identity politics, being completely aloof and beyond campaigning, emails, shadiness about health, not even visiting swing states...
snip
Actually the lesson from 2016 is the Democrats need a populist like Sanders who can win the rustbelt in 2020 not an elitist like Hillary. Plenty of blue collar Democrats voted for Trump as Hillary was too close to Wall Street and not Main Street but they were also willing to give Sanders a hearing which is why Sanders won the Michigan and Wisconsin primaries and Trump then won them in November.
snip
That's not to say that Hillary *was* the answer; just that populism is a poor substitute for connectedness and no guarantee of effectiveness in office; often, quite the opposite. How the Democrats ended up with no decent candidates entering the race is not exactly an enduring mystery but still a sad state of affairs. Biden wouldn't have been a populist but he would have shown more passion and less entitlement than Hillary, with just as much capability to run the thing afterwards. Sadly, he missed his chance.
If Hilary had bothered to do any campaigning in the crucial rust belt states she lost rather than fucking offdown to Arizona and shit like that then she could have in all likelyhood have won.
My critical misreading of the situation was that she wasn't campaigning in, say, Michigan or Wisconsin because they were locked up, not because she was a moron who knew they were in deep trouble but decided to play 12 dimensional chess instead.
The campaign misread the truth on the ground massively. iirc a lot of this was done to young data crunchers and their belief in micro-polls, splitting electorate into so many sub-sets and door-to-door sampling etc. At one point Bill Clinton said, effectively, this doesn't smell right to me, we need to get out into the rustbelt and was told he was past it and not in touch with modern campaigning.
Bill Clinton supporting a Biden candidacy would have won. Simples.
Even when we remember the electorate contains nobody under 18, I don't quite see how we go from that figure to 38% of the electorate having an average age of ninety.
You may be winding people up, but if so you're not doing nearly as good a job as you should. If you had said average age was 60 I might have believed you, but nobody's going to believe that, as indeed @Wulfrun_Phil has demonstrated.
Given the thread header has the last helicopter out of Saigon as the picture I think Jonathan is (ironically) referencing Paul Hardcastle's 1985 hit which had on a loop that the average age of the US combat soldier in Vietnam was "nnnnnNineteen".
God I feel old!
Ahh, I see!
You will have to put me missing this important cultural reference down to my youth and inexperience.
That said, I'm reminded of the time Tom Baker referred to Chris Adamson as 'the boy' on Have I Got News For You, only to get the outraged response 'I'm 36! I'm 36, Tom Baker!'
There was a parody version (the Commentators) with a (very youthful) Rory Bremner doing impressions of the Test Match Special cricket commentators which went along the lines of "nnnnnineteen" being David Gower's (the then England captain) batting average in the 84 series against the Windies.
I won't invoice for my experience and knowledge on this occasion. Quality stuff like this is for us all.
My word. An average of 19. That's astonishing.
I always assumed it was about 5 given how abjectly the batting unit performed.
Interesting to see those stats and reflect only three Windies players who played all five tests averaged under 30 with the bat - and only two England players averaged above it!
They did Ok out of it in the end. I count six present broadcast commentators/contributors in the list: Agnew, Botham, Gower, Allott, Willis and of course Holding.
It's not up to him no matter how many times he says it. As you know it is not even clear it is legally possible, and lacking that clarity it's not really an option on the table right now. It's good deal, bad deal or no Deal for now, and longer term rejoin.
Maybe, just maybe, he’s not giving a legal answer. Just saying that if Britain changed its mind and said that it wanted to Remain, politically the EU would not insist on making it go through with departure.
Lots of “ifs” there, of course.
But he cannot speak for the EU. Neither can the Council. Neither can the Parliament.
The only body which can give an authoritative ruling is the CJEU, which is quite precious both about protecting its independence and protecting the integrity of the treaties.
There is a loophole, of extending the exit period to, say, 50 years and then dealing with exiting from Brexit via a new treaty - but short of that, the CJEU could easily rule that no resolution of ministers or parliament or whatever can override the treaties, that A50 was lawfully triggered and that subject to any deal agreed under A50 to very the exit date, Britain's membership ends (or ended) in March 2019.
Can I be a little bit of a devil's advocate here?
The CJEU could rule black is white if it likes, or that China is in Europe, or that Donald Trump is sane. It wouldn't matter. It has no powers of enforcement and nobody pays any attention to it. Barnier's own department ignored a ruling to pay us a €2 billion fine over an illegal three year ban France imposed on our beef (that was another CJEU ruling they ignored, incidentally).
So it could say that Article 50 cannot be revoked except by God's personal intervention and the EU would find a way round it somehow if it wished. The obvious way that occurs to me would be to extend the deadline for leaving indefinitely.
I don't think it matters because in practice I don't believe the EU want us back. We're a block on the road to the federalist outcome they crave, so Luxembourg and Belgium would surely veto even if Eastern Europe would be thrilled for us to change our minds. But the CJEU is not relevant.
The average age of a leave voter in the EU referendum was ninety.
N-n-n-n ninety.
It would be useful if you could identify the source of that utter nonsense. I would like to know, in order that I may be warned not to accept at face value anything else published by the same source.
I am sick and tired of overblown scare stories and bogus claims masquerading as fact which originate from ultra pro-Remain sources.
Like £350million/week?
During the Campaign, the Sunil on Sunday always used the figure of £163 million a week net.
I am beginning to wonder if we will actually leave.
Consider:
1) The talks are going nowhere - we are more than a quarter of the way through the A50 period and agreement has not yet been reached on even the three "first stage" topics, let alone the much more complex transition arrangements; 2) The government has all but conceded that it cannot get the repeal bill through Parliament in its current form and seems to have no idea what to do next; 3) Work has not yet started on the many new systems, agencies and procedures (immigration, customs, air safety etc etc etc) that would be required in the case of a hard exit. The chances of any of this work being complete by March 2019 are zero.
Leaving is therefore not practically possible in the time available. The politics have not yet caught up with the realities of the situation.
My prediction FWIW:
1. December will see agreement on moving to the next stage, on the basis that Britain accepts that the final bill will be substantially more than £20 bn and the EU27 agree that discussion in principle of the transition period is now urgent. The rights of foreign citizens issue will be largely settled and some sort of Irish fudge will be envisaged. People will generally see all this as significant progress and the pressure on May will ease for a while.
2. Details will prove really hard, and we'll have a more serious crunch around the middle of 2018. Best case outcome could be agreement in principle on both £££s and transition and on extending the A50 process by one year ("stopping the clock"). Worst case would be UK government collapse and suspension of negotiations while that's resolved.
It's not up to him no matter how many times he says it. As you know it is not even clear it is legally possible, and lacking that clarity it's not really an option on the table right now. It's good deal, bad deal or no Deal for now, and longer term rejoin.
Maybe, just maybe, he’s not giving a legal answer. Just saying that if Britain changed its mind and said that it wanted to Remain, politically the EU would not insist on making it go through with departure.
Lots of “ifs” there, of course.
I think that's precisely right, both about what he meant and the political reality. The EU would give a collective eye-roll of the century if we said "On second thoughts, forget it", but nonetheless would say "Oh, all right then, if you're sure."
I disagree. It's a fundamental issue since if we both did that, what if we change our minds again a year later? The legal status of what had actually occurred would be critical, so making a generic political prediction of a possibility in a list of cold, hard legal certainties only confuses the issue to no one's benefit, and woukd better have been made separately. He thinks we could stay, fine, but his words encourage people to think that will be as easy as no deal or deal, when the nest anyone can say is, as youve done, 'oh, we'd work something out'. Maybe, But It's Probably Not As Easy As His casual reference made it seem. Edit - damn auto capitalisation.
The fact that it was expected makes it particularly troubling.
I don't think it's so bad. The advantage of proportional representation is that it gives extremist parties just enough power for them to hang themselves. Extremists are, almost by definition, not good at cooperating to form coherent policy and their attempts to govern in the real world usually reveal their incompetence. Then, next election, they're out again.
In contrast, the FPTP system has the weakness of keeping extremists out of office (and thus not requiring them to produce coherent policies) while allowing them to further strengthen and continue to exert their malign influence on the more moderate parties.
Even when we remember the electorate contains nobody under 18, I don't quite see how we go from that figure to 38% of the electorate having an average age of ninety.
You may be winding people up, but if so you're not doing nearly as good a job as you should. If you had said average age was 60 I might have believed you, but nobody's going to believe that, as indeed @Wulfrun_Phil has demonstrated.
It's a Vietnam reference for those of us of a certain age.
"In World War 2, the average age of the combat soldier was 26 / In Vietnam, it was nineteen / Nineteen / N-n-n-n-n-n-nineteen"
Even when we remember the electorate contains nobody under 18, I don't quite see how we go from that figure to 38% of the electorate having an average age of ninety.
You may be winding people up, but if so you're not doing nearly as good a job as you should. If you had said average age was 60 I might have believed you, but nobody's going to believe that, as indeed @Wulfrun_Phil has demonstrated.
It's a Vietnam reference for those of us of a certain age.
"In World War 2, the average age of the combat soldier was 26 / In Vietnam, it was nineteen / Nineteen / N-n-n-n-n-n-nineteen"
No Tory or Labour leader will take us back into the EU now let alone into the Euro, EFTA maybe.
It was the Democratic congress which ultimately led to Saigon's fall by cutting off funding to South Vietnam.
If you actually bothered to read what I said instead of your usual firing off a response and trying to close down anyone who puts forward a different view, I said "one day", not now, not in 10 years time but maybe in 20-30 years time. It's as improbable now as someone in 1976 saying "one day the British people will vote in another referendum to leave the Common Market".
Simply saying something won't happen because YOU can't conceive of it doesn't mean it won't happen.
On Vietnam, we'll agree to disagree. I think Nixon wanted to get the American military presence out as well because of the debilitating effect of the body bags on American morale. He won plaudits for Paris but he and Kissinger must have known that without American help, Saigon (and indeed Phnom Penh) wouldn't long survive.
One day, a century whatever it won't happen. We voted to join a Common Market we left when it became a European Union. We may return to EFTA though which we joined in 1960 and should probably never have left for the EEC in 1973.
Nixon after bombing Vietnam into the ground agreed a peace settlement and withdrawal of US forces but he and Ford both intended to continue to support South Vietnam financially and with supplies unlike the Democrats. Nixon going to China was more significant.
I really don't buy the Sanders would have won the rustbelt stuff. He would have lost votes elsewhere for a start because, as someone said earlier, Trump would have called him 'Commie Bernie' constantly.
But, and this is the big but, Trump also tapped into values stuff, and as Matthew "Revolt on the Right" Goodwin repeatedly points out, this is the big deal in modern times. People especially white voters identified with Trump as someone who understood their values and culture concerns.
The Dems and identity politics have run out of steam - they need a massive, wholesale rethink.
Bill Clinton supporting a Biden candidacy would have won. Simples.
Equally he could have lost more emphatically. I think both Clinton and Trump are still underestimated as candidates and both would have won against different opposition.
Trump steamrollered every generic politician he came up against in the Republican primaries. Why would Biden have fared better?
It's a reaction to the slow but steady Islamification of Europe and increase in third world immigration and associated problems. The native populations clearly don't want it and desire to retain some land to call their own.
The only people to even acknowledge let alone pledge to do something about it is the far-right, so of course people are going to vote for them.
Far right Fascism has rather more in common with Islamism than either of them might care to admit. Using the far right to “cure” the problems associated with Islamification is as bad as the “disease”.
There are plenty of people who have concerns about how well or not Islamic immigrants integrate in Europe or with mass immigration but who do not think that lurching towards fascism or some watered down version of it is the answer. If the new Austrian Chancellor seriously wants to do something about these sorts of issues then he needs to put together a coalition of people who do not think that fascism is the answer.
It's a reaction to the slow but steady Islamification of Europe and increase in third world immigration and associated problems. The native populations clearly don't want it and desire to retain some land to call their own.
The only people to even acknowledge let alone pledge to do something about it is the far-right, so of course people are going to vote for them.
There are plenty of people who have concerns about how well or not Islamic immigrants integrate in Europe or with mass immigration but who do not think that lurching towards fascism or some watered down version of it is the answer. .
Not many of those people are leaders of middle of the road parties mind you.
I really don't buy the Sanders would have won the rustbelt stuff. He would have lost votes elsewhere for a start because, as someone said earlier, Trump would have called him 'Commie Bernie' constantly.
But, and this is the big but, Trump also tapped into values stuff, and as Matthew "Revolt on the Right" Goodwin repeatedly points out, this is the big deal in modern times. People especially white voters identified with Trump as someone who understood their values and culture concerns.
The Dems and identity politics have run out of steam - they need a massive, wholesale rethink.
Except the Republicans have lost the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 Presidential elections.
I think it is entirely possible the Trump loses the popular vote again by a wider margin in 2020 but still wins the electoral college.
At some point in the future that becomes unsustainable.
The challenge is for their voters to move out of safe states and move to swing states.
An indepemdent Orkney is not justified or viable but special status arrangements may be beneficial or required.
The Peoples Republic of Orkney would have a hell of a lot more hydrocarbons and fish than Andorra, San Marino, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg..... Combined with Shetland, it would be a very wealthy entity indeed, on GDP per head of population. (Although it might have to spend a bit on defence against its greedy southern neighbour!)
You seem to be working on the premise that the North Sea is an asset. The clean up costs which the UK is already committed to would bankrupt Orkney and Shetland. Their opportunity has passed.
The clean up costs are already overwhelmingly placed on the shoulders of the oil companies themselves. There is now a process in place where every well and piece of installation is assigned to an oil company and the decommissioning is their responsibility under extremely strict guidelines. Any company now operating a field has to have the financing in place to complete the decommissioning including the removal of all infrastructure and the permanent abandonment of all wells. This is monitored by auditors and as soon as it looks like the company will not be able to meet its obligations its licence is revoked for that field.
There will of course be some costs to the taxpayer but the vast majority will be borne by the companies. Indeed they are already well advanced in a process of permanently abandoning hundreds of oil wells.
That's true but the costs that are on the UK whilst not overly significant to the UK would be crippling for Orkney. In addition the tax relief they are entitled to in meeting these costs has had the effect of already making the tax take from the North Sea less than zero. Unless there are major new discoveries or a significant hike in the oil price there is unlikely to be a positive income flow from the North Sea going forward. Of course there are significant indirect benefits such as IT, NI, CT and the service industries but these would continue to be enjoyed by the UK, not Orkney.
I really don't buy the Sanders would have won the rustbelt stuff. He would have lost votes elsewhere for a start because, as someone said earlier, Trump would have called him 'Commie Bernie' constantly.
But, and this is the big but, Trump also tapped into values stuff, and as Matthew "Revolt on the Right" Goodwin repeatedly points out, this is the big deal in modern times. People especially white voters identified with Trump as someone who understood their values and culture concerns.
The Dems and identity politics have run out of steam - they need a massive, wholesale rethink.
Except the Republicans have lost the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 Presidential elections.
I think it is entirely possible the Trump loses the popular vote again by a wider margin in 2020 but still wins the electoral college.
At some point in the future that becomes unsustainable.
The challenge is for their voters to move out of safe states and move to swing states.
If Trump wins again then I suspect California seceding is on the table.
I really don't buy the Sanders would have won the rustbelt stuff. He would have lost votes elsewhere for a start because, as someone said earlier, Trump would have called him 'Commie Bernie' constantly.
But, and this is the big but, Trump also tapped into values stuff, and as Matthew "Revolt on the Right" Goodwin repeatedly points out, this is the big deal in modern times. People especially white voters identified with Trump as someone who understood their values and culture concerns.
The Dems and identity politics have run out of steam - they need a massive, wholesale rethink.
Except the Republicans have lost the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 Presidential elections.
I think it is entirely possible the Trump loses the popular vote again by a wider margin in 2020 but still wins the electoral college.
At some point in the future that becomes unsustainable.
The challenge is for their voters to move out of safe states and move to swing states.
No, the challenge is to have a candidate and policies that appeal to those already living in the swing states. It is a challenge that Hillary singularly failed.
Bill Clinton supporting a Biden candidacy would have won. Simples.
Equally he could have lost more emphatically. I think both Clinton and Trump are still underestimated as candidates and both would have won against different opposition.
Trump steamrollered every generic politician he came up against in the Republican primaries. Why would Biden have fared better?
Quite simply, because he fights back. The 'it's a load of malarky' speech on Trump was brilliant.
Plus he's a genuine 'one of us' working class blue collar boy etc etc.
I really don't buy the Sanders would have won the rustbelt stuff. He would have lost votes elsewhere for a start because, as someone said earlier, Trump would have called him 'Commie Bernie' constantly.
But, and this is the big but, Trump also tapped into values stuff, and as Matthew "Revolt on the Right" Goodwin repeatedly points out, this is the big deal in modern times. People especially white voters identified with Trump as someone who understood their values and culture concerns.
The Dems and identity politics have run out of steam - they need a massive, wholesale rethink.
Except the Republicans have lost the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 Presidential elections.
I think it is entirely possible the Trump loses the popular vote again by a wider margin in 2020 but still wins the electoral college.
At some point in the future that becomes unsustainable.
The challenge is for their voters to move out of safe states and move to swing states.
No, the challenge is to have a candidate and policies that appeal to those already living in the swing states. It is a challenge that Hillary singularly failed.
It's a reaction to the slow but steady Islamification of Europe and increase in third world immigration and associated problems. The native populations clearly don't want it and desire to retain some land to call their own.
The only people to even acknowledge let alone pledge to do something about it is the far-right, so of course people are going to vote for them.
Far right Fascism has rather more in common with Islamism than either of them might care to admit. Using the far right to “cure” the problems associated with Islamification is as bad as the “disease”.
There are plenty of people who have concerns about how well or not Islamic immigrants integrate in Europe or with mass immigration but who do not think that lurching towards fascism or some watered down version of it is the answer. If the new Austrian Chancellor seriously wants to do something about these sorts of issues then he needs to put together a coalition of people who do not think that fascism is the answer.
So the answer to changing what is going on is to put together a coalition of the people who won't change anything.
The mainstream politicians throughout the Western world would rather their countries turned Islamic than be accused of racism or fascism. The voters in Austria have different ideas.
It's a reaction to the slow but steady Islamification of Europe and increase in third world immigration and associated problems. The native populations clearly don't want it and desire to retain some land to call their own.
The only people to even acknowledge let alone pledge to do something about it is the far-right, so of course people are going to vote for them.
There are plenty of people who have concerns about how well or not Islamic immigrants integrate in Europe or with mass immigration but who do not think that lurching towards fascism or some watered down version of it is the answer. .
Not many of those people are leaders of middle of the road parties mind you.
I was referring to voters . But leaders of middle of the road parties, especually liberal parties, ought to be concerned about these isssues because, if not sensibly addressed, they pose a big challenge to the liberal and democratic values such parties claim to hold dear.
If such parties leave a vacuum then it will be filled by fascists or equally repellent groups. All the more reason not to leave such a vacuum and then belly ache later about the frightful people filling it, which seems to be all that is done these days.
Bill Clinton supporting a Biden candidacy would have won. Simples.
Equally he could have lost more emphatically. I think both Clinton and Trump are still underestimated as candidates and both would have won against different opposition.
Trump steamrollered every generic politician he came up against in the Republican primaries. Why would Biden have fared better?
Quite simply, because he fights back. The 'it's a load of malarky' speech on Trump was brilliant.
Plus he's a genuine 'one of us' working class blue collar boy etc etc.
Trump would have pigeon-holed him as a sleazebag. It would have worked.
The campaign misread the truth on the ground massively. iirc a lot of this was done to young data crunchers and their belief in micro-polls, splitting electorate into so many sub-sets and door-to-door sampling etc. At one point Bill Clinton said, effectively, this doesn't smell right to me, we need to get out into the rustbelt and was told he was past it and not in touch with modern campaigning.
Bill Clinton supporting a Biden candidacy would have won. Simples.
The campaign had the information that they were behind in Michigan and Wisconsin but they deliberately decided not to campaign there to try and appear strong.
It's a reaction to the slow but steady Islamification of Europe and increase in third world immigration and associated problems. The native populations clearly don't want it and desire to retain some land to call their own.
The only people to even acknowledge let alone pledge to do something about it is the far-right, so of course people are going to vote for them.
Far right Fascism has rather more in common with Islamism than either of them might care to admit. Using the far right to “cure” the problems associated with Islamification is as bad as the “disease”.
There are plenty of people who have concerns about how well or not Islamic immigrants integrate in Europe or with mass immigration but who do not think that lurching towards fascism or some watered down version of it is the answer. If the new Austrian Chancellor seriously wants to do something about these sorts of issues then he needs to put together a coalition of people who do not think that fascism is the answer.
So the answer to changing what is going on is to put together a coalition of the people who won't change anything.
The mainstream politicians throughout the Western world would rather their countries turned Islamic than be accused of racism or fascism. The voters in Austria have different ideas.
No - my answer is to put together a coalition of people who will change things but without resorting to fascism.
It's a reaction to the slow but steady Islamification of Europe and increase in third world immigration and associated problems. The native populations clearly don't want it and desire to retain some land to call their own.
The only people to even acknowledge let alone pledge to do something about it is the far-right, so of course people are going to vote for them.
Far right Fascism has rather more in common with Islamism than either of them might care to admit. Using the far right to “cure” the problems associated with Islamification is as bad as the “disease”.
There are plenty of people who have concerns about how well or not Islamic immigrants integrate in Europe or with mass immigration but who do not think that lurching towards fascism or some watered down version of it is the answer. If the new Austrian Chancellor seriously wants to do something about these sorts of issues then he needs to put together a coalition of people who do not think that fascism is the answer.
So the answer to changing what is going on is to put together a coalition of the people who won't change anything.
The mainstream politicians throughout the Western world would rather their countries turned Islamic than be accused of racism or fascism. The voters in Austria have different ideas.
Previous Austrian iterations of racism and fascism don't seem to have been particularly happy experiences.
I am beginning to wonder if we will actually leave.
Consider:
1) The talks are going nowhere - we are more than a quarter of the way through the A50 period and agreement has not yet been reached on even the three "first stage" topics, let alone the much more complex transition arrangements; 2) The government has all but conceded that it cannot get the repeal bill through Parliament in its current form and seems to have no idea what to do next; 3) Work has not yet started on the many new systems, agencies and procedures (immigration, customs, air safety etc etc etc) that would be required in the case of a hard exit. The chances of any of this work being complete by March 2019 are zero.
Leaving is therefore not practically possible in the time available. The politics have not yet caught up with the realities of the situation.
My prediction FWIW:
1. December will see agreement on moving to the next stage, on the basis that Britain accepts that the final bill will be substantially more than £20 bn and the EU27 agree that discussion in principle of the transition period is now urgent. The rights of foreign citizens issue will be largely settled and some sort of Irish fudge will be envisaged. People will generally see all this as significant progress and the pressure on May will ease for a while.
2. Details will prove really hard, and we'll have a more serious crunch around the middle of 2018. Best case outcome could be agreement in principle on both £££s and transition and on extending the A50 process by one year ("stopping the clock"). Worst case would be UK government collapse and suspension of negotiations while that's resolved.
It is very hard to see May surviving the compromises and retreats that you (correctly) envisage. Political crisis must be odds on I think.
The CJEU could rule black is white if it likes, or that China is in Europe, or that Donald Trump is sane. It wouldn't matter. It has no powers of enforcement and nobody pays any attention to it. Barnier's own department ignored a ruling to pay us a €2 billion fine over an illegal three year ban France imposed on our beef (that was another CJEU ruling they ignored, incidentally).
So it could say that Article 50 cannot be revoked except by God's personal intervention and the EU would find a way round it somehow if it wished. The obvious way that occurs to me would be to extend the deadline for leaving indefinitely.
I don't think it matters because in practice I don't believe the EU want us back. We're a block on the road to the federalist outcome they crave, so Luxembourg and Belgium would surely veto even if Eastern Europe would be thrilled for us to change our minds. But the CJEU is not relevant.
I have some work to do. Have a good morning.
Legally this is wrong. The Commission cannot overrule an ECJ ruling any more than the government of the UK can overrule or ignore a judgement of the Supreme Court. The ECJ is very relevant because it does rule against the Commission and the Commission does have to listen and obey. They did so over Euro-clearing and have had to over the EU-Singapore trade deal as recent examples.
In the case of the France beef ban fine the Commission did not ignore the ruling. They were the ones that asked the ECJ to rule on the ban and the ECJ did so and said it was illegal. They imposed a fine of £100,000 a day but the Commission then asked the ECJ to lift this when France complied with the lifting of the ban. In all cases it was France that was refusing to obey the ECJ not the Commission who were the actual instigators of the action.
I really don't buy the Sanders would have won the rustbelt stuff. He would have lost votes elsewhere for a start because, as someone said earlier, Trump would have called him 'Commie Bernie' constantly.
But, and this is the big but, Trump also tapped into values stuff, and as Matthew "Revolt on the Right" Goodwin repeatedly points out, this is the big deal in modern times. People especially white voters identified with Trump as someone who understood their values and culture concerns.
The Dems and identity politics have run out of steam - they need a massive, wholesale rethink.
Except the Republicans have lost the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 Presidential elections.
I think it is entirely possible the Trump loses the popular vote again by a wider margin in 2020 but still wins the electoral college.
At some point in the future that becomes unsustainable.
The challenge is for their voters to move out of safe states and move to swing states.
A million Californian voters moving to swing states would lock up the presidency for the Democrats in perpetuity.
I really don't buy the Sanders would have won the rustbelt stuff. He would have lost votes elsewhere for a start because, as someone said earlier, Trump would have called him 'Commie Bernie' constantly.
But, and this is the big but, Trump also tapped into values stuff, and as Matthew "Revolt on the Right" Goodwin repeatedly points out, this is the big deal in modern times. People especially white voters identified with Trump as someone who understood their values and culture concerns.
The Dems and identity politics have run out of steam - they need a massive, wholesale rethink.
Except the Republicans have lost the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 Presidential elections.
I think it is entirely possible the Trump loses the popular vote again by a wider margin in 2020 but still wins the electoral college.
At some point in the future that becomes unsustainable.
The challenge is for their voters to move out of safe states and move to swing states.
No, the challenge is to have a candidate and policies that appeal to those already living in the swing states. It is a challenge that Hillary singularly failed.
Wisconsin wasn't a swing state though?
Remarkably enough according to Wiki the Democrats and republicans have won the State an equal number of times. In more recent times 1988-2012 it has been democratic but never by all that much. I do agree with the current map that a Democrat that loses Wisconsin is losing.
I really don't buy the Sanders would have won the rustbelt stuff. He would have lost votes elsewhere for a start because, as someone said earlier, Trump would have called him 'Commie Bernie' constantly.
But, and this is the big but, Trump also tapped into values stuff, and as Matthew "Revolt on the Right" Goodwin repeatedly points out, this is the big deal in modern times. People especially white voters identified with Trump as someone who understood their values and culture concerns.
The Dems and identity politics have run out of steam - they need a massive, wholesale rethink.
Except the Republicans have lost the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 Presidential elections.
I think it is entirely possible the Trump loses the popular vote again by a wider margin in 2020 but still wins the electoral college.
At some point in the future that becomes unsustainable.
The challenge is for their voters to move out of safe states and move to swing states.
If Trump wins again then I suspect California seceding is on the table.
Pretty solid Republican hegemony in the remaining 49 if they do.
It's a reaction to the slow but steady Islamification of Europe and increase in third world immigration and associated problems. The native populations clearly don't want it and desire to retain some land to call their own.
The only people to even acknowledge let alone pledge to do something about it is the far-right, so of course people are going to vote for them.
Far right Fascism has rather more in common with Islamism than either of them might care to admit. Using the far right to “cure” the problems associated with Islamification is as bad as the “disease”.
There are plenty of people who have concerns about how well or not Islamic immigrants integrate in Europe or with mass immigration but who do not think that lurching towards fascism or some watered down version of it is the answer. If the new Austrian Chancellor seriously wants to do something about these sorts of issues then he needs to put together a coalition of people who do not think that fascism is the answer.
So the answer to changing what is going on is to put together a coalition of the people who won't change anything.
The mainstream politicians throughout the Western world would rather their countries turned Islamic than be accused of racism or fascism. The voters in Austria have different ideas.
No - my answer is to put together a coalition of people who will change things but without resorting to fascism.
The problem is that any party that wants to do anything regarding immigration is called a fascist, so it's literally impossible for a party to "not be fascist" and deal with this issue.
It's a reaction to the slow but steady Islamification of Europe and increase in third world immigration and associated problems. The native populations clearly don't want it and desire to retain some land to call their own.
The only people to even acknowledge let alone pledge to do something about it is the far-right, so of course people are going to vote for them.
Far right Fascism has rather more in common with Islamism than either of them might care to admit. Using the far right to “cure” the problems associated with Islamification is as bad as the “disease”.
There are plenty of people who have concerns about how well or not Islamic immigrants integrate in Europe or with mass immigration but who do not think that lurching towards fascism or some watered down version of it is the answer. If the new Austrian Chancellor seriously wants to do something about these sorts of issues then he needs to put together a coalition of people who do not think that fascism is the answer.
So the answer to changing what is going on is to put together a coalition of the people who won't change anything.
The mainstream politicians throughout the Western world would rather their countries turned Islamic than be accused of racism or fascism. The voters in Austria have different ideas.
Previous Austrian iterations of racism and fascism don't seem to have been particularly happy experiences.
Oh right well then I guess the Austrians will just have to put up with turning Islamic then.
They don't want to allow liberals the opportunity to make ludicrous comparisons which is obviously the most important thing.
Siege of Vienna, Habsburg Military Frontier in Hungary, series of wars with Ottomans Empire. Hard to forget why Austria was not entirely enamoured of military forces led by Muslim rulers.
Comments
1993 - 2016: 23 years
Edited extra bit: in case any moderators were wondering, xerophytes are plants adapted for harsh conditions, such as marram grass, heather, or cacti.
https://twitter.com/PrebenEUspox/status/922722698933006336
I'll thank you not to make such a bloody stupid extrapolation that I would thus ban the SNP, as the scenarios were deliberately distinct between merely seeking indy and promising what the state has already called illegal acts. . For one, I've not said I'd support Madrid I'd they took such a view
I am sick and tired of overblown scare stories and bogus claims masquerading as fact which originate from ultra pro-Remain sources.
1) The support of more than 50% of MLAs;
2) The support of at least 30% of at least two 'communities' - nationalist, unionist, non-aligned;
3) That if (2) is satisfied by including the least-represented community and by excluding one of the others, that the number from that community supporting the administration is more than 30% of the MLAs of the community not represented.
Johnson's hubris was coupled with an underlying insecurity, I think.
It's quite possible he might have avoided the Vietnam debacle had he been President in 1960 - just as it's possible that Kennedy might have extricated himself had he not been assassinated.
But Johnson taking over half way through was never going to lose face like that (and I think perhaps lacked the self confidence early on to face down what was still essentially Kennedy's administration). With other domestic priorities taking much of his attention - and initially thinking he could bully his Vietnamese opponents - he was in way too deep before he realised just how bad it was.
The one lesson we should learn from Trump's campaign is that it doesn't matter how good a candidate looks on paper; it's how good or bad they look after an effective negative is run that's important. A candidate so far left that he wouldn't join the Democrats provides a lot of ammunition for his opponents outside of Vermont on that score.
The most powerful argument to my mind that the SNP produced is Scotland should have a place at the top table, at the EU. Why be a member of a little federation when you can be a member of a big one?
The EU is one of the reasons why such secessionist movements are on the rise.
And if Catalonia does it, as is looking increasingly likely, that will give a further push in the secessionist direction.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/922747586448150529
It's not necessarily in their gift is the key point. I'm certainly no lawyer, and if it were ever tested he might be proven right, but given the legalities have not been clear, it cannot be listed as an option with the same certainty as deal or no deal.
Consider:
1) The talks are going nowhere - we are more than a quarter of the way through the A50 period and agreement has not yet been reached on even the three "first stage" topics, let alone the much more complex transition arrangements;
2) The government has all but conceded that it cannot get the repeal bill through Parliament in its current form and seems to have no idea what to do next;
3) Work has not yet started on the many new systems, agencies and procedures (immigration, customs, air safety etc etc etc) that would be required in the case of a hard exit. The chances of any of this work being complete by March 2019 are zero.
Leaving is therefore not practically possible in the time available. The politics have not yet caught up with the realities of the situation.
I haven't (yet) read it, but this seems like a more fair minded review:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/its-worth-reading-hillary-clintons-book/539973/
If we do so without another referendum/GE (and, to a lesser extent, with) it would be a wonderful gift for UKIP, but my concern, along with massive voter distrust in politics and greatly exacerbating the already concerning political polarisation in this country, would be the strong potential for the rise of the far right.
Asking the people what they think, then reneging upon their decision, is not a good way to increase trust in politics.
The only people to even acknowledge let alone pledge to do something about it is the far-right, so of course people are going to vote for them.
Lots of “ifs” there, of course.
On economics Sanders is LBJ and FDR not Marx and Sanders is also more concerned about immigration than Hillary and more pro gun. He is ideal for Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania which are the only states the Democrats need to win to win the EC if they hold the Hillary states.
Trump's approval ratings are also so abysmal he could be the first President since Carter (who has not also been VP) to fail to win re election. Carter of course lost to Reagan having beaten Ford 4 years earlier after Ford himself beat Reagan for the GOP nomination. Sanders will hope he is Reagan to Trump's Carter and Hillary's Ford.
It is I think time for the UK to start issuing deadlines, namely that outline agreement at least has to be reached on all of the issues being held up by the EU by some date we set for early in 2018. If that is not done, then the UK will commit to planning on the basis that Brexit will take place on either WTO terms with no further financial contributions whatsoever to the EU beyond those which could be enforced under international law (independently of EU institutions), or under take-it-or-leave-it terms unilaterally drawn up by the UK with a very limited payment to the EU that is less that what they have already been led to believe that they can expect. In either case UK business would gain clarity over what they can expect, and if the EU did not play ball they would have to settle for far less than they have been offered now.
Even when we remember the electorate contains nobody under 18, I don't quite see how we go from that figure to 38% of the electorate having an average age of ninety.
You may be winding people up, but if so you're not doing nearly as good a job as you should. If you had said average age was 60 I might have believed you, but nobody's going to believe that, as indeed @Wulfrun_Phil has demonstrated.
No doubt something could be worked out, and no shame on him speculating, but we cannot treat his speculations as being completely workable or possible as a matter of fact.
God I feel old!
My critical misreading of the situation was that she wasn't campaigning in, say, Michigan or Wisconsin because they were locked up, not because she was a moron who knew they were in deep trouble but decided to play 12 dimensional chess instead.
....
Could do with more cars if they fancy doing that. Twenty-four would be good (divisible by two, three or four).
You will have to put me missing this important cultural reference down to my youth and inexperience.
That said, I'm reminded of the time Tom Baker referred to Chris Adamson as 'the boy' on Have I Got News For You, only to get the outraged response 'I'm 36! I'm 36, Tom Baker!'
Like sarcasm, it often doesn't come across as intended...
" "I was walking down the road the other day and I saw an old friend. I said to him: "I haven't seen you for a while.'
He said: "I've just got back from Nam."
I said: "What, Vietnam?"
"No, Chelt'nam." "
Also in these days of revisionism and whitening of reputations, a useful reminder of what a shit Nixon was.
it turns out they do have somewhere else to go, though politicians may not like it
I won't invoice for my experience and knowledge on this occasion. Quality stuff like this is for us all.
There will of course be some costs to the taxpayer but the vast majority will be borne by the companies. Indeed they are already well advanced in a process of permanently abandoning hundreds of oil wells.
Placing my pedants hat on firmly (and only due to having just read about this in a recent Prospect magazine). But, "shining city on a hill" was Reagan's version.
The JFK version was simply "city upon a hill", taken from Governor Winthrop's original 1600s version (which is taken from the Bible).
sorry.
I always assumed it was about 5 given how abjectly the batting unit performed.
Interesting to see those stats and reflect only three Windies players who played all five tests averaged under 30 with the bat - and only two England players averaged above it!
The only body which can give an authoritative ruling is the CJEU, which is quite precious both about protecting its independence and protecting the integrity of the treaties.
There is a loophole, of extending the exit period to, say, 50 years and then dealing with exiting from Brexit via a new treaty - but short of that, the CJEU could easily rule that no resolution of ministers or parliament or whatever can override the treaties, that A50 was lawfully triggered and that subject to any deal agreed under A50 to very the exit date, Britain's membership ends (or ended) in March 2019.
The impression I had is that people were defending the general right to change one's opinions - particularly if expressed at a time when not in post.
Whether or not Mr O'Mara is truly a sinner repented is an open question - but it is only fair to note that he has repudiated his offensive statements.
For once I agree with HYUFD. Trump beat Clinton because he was able to form a narrative that tapped into discontent with the establishment from traditional Democrats in rustbelt states. Sanders had an equally effective narrative for those voters and clearly would have won those states. He also pulled off the impressive feat of challenging Clinton to the wire in primaries in an electoral college rigged against him through the inclusion of Clinton-supporting placemen from the Democratic Party machine, so the idea that he would have alienated other parts of the Democratic base doesn't wash. Moreover he's a particularly effective political operator, having pulled off the incredible feat of having secured a base as a socialist independent in the less than fertile territory of Vermont. Not New York, not California, but leafy middle America VERMONT.
Bill Clinton supporting a Biden candidacy would have won. Simples.
The CJEU could rule black is white if it likes, or that China is in Europe, or that Donald Trump is sane. It wouldn't matter. It has no powers of enforcement and nobody pays any attention to it. Barnier's own department ignored a ruling to pay us a €2 billion fine over an illegal three year ban France imposed on our beef (that was another CJEU ruling they ignored, incidentally).
So it could say that Article 50 cannot be revoked except by God's personal intervention and the EU would find a way round it somehow if it wished. The obvious way that occurs to me would be to extend the deadline for leaving indefinitely.
I don't think it matters because in practice I don't believe the EU want us back. We're a block on the road to the federalist outcome they crave, so Luxembourg and Belgium would surely veto even if Eastern Europe would be thrilled for us to change our minds. But the CJEU is not relevant.
I have some work to do. Have a good morning.
1. December will see agreement on moving to the next stage, on the basis that Britain accepts that the final bill will be substantially more than £20 bn and the EU27 agree that discussion in principle of the transition period is now urgent. The rights of foreign citizens issue will be largely settled and some sort of Irish fudge will be envisaged. People will generally see all this as significant progress and the pressure on May will ease for a while.
2. Details will prove really hard, and we'll have a more serious crunch around the middle of 2018. Best case outcome could be agreement in principle on both £££s and transition and on extending the A50 process by one year ("stopping the clock"). Worst case would be UK government collapse and suspension of negotiations while that's resolved.
Edit - damn auto capitalisation.
In contrast, the FPTP system has the weakness of keeping extremists out of office (and thus not requiring them to produce coherent policies) while allowing them to further strengthen and continue to exert their malign influence on the more moderate parties.
"In World War 2, the average age of the combat soldier was 26 / In Vietnam, it was nineteen / Nineteen / N-n-n-n-n-n-nineteen"
(Which is quite shocking, as a fact)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3bl4xaFZMM
But, and this is the big but, Trump also tapped into values stuff, and as Matthew "Revolt on the Right" Goodwin repeatedly points out, this is the big deal in modern times. People especially white voters identified with Trump as someone who understood their values and culture concerns.
The Dems and identity politics have run out of steam - they need a massive, wholesale rethink.
Trump steamrollered every generic politician he came up against in the Republican primaries. Why would Biden have fared better?
There are plenty of people who have concerns about how well or not Islamic immigrants integrate in Europe or with mass immigration but who do not think that lurching towards fascism or some watered down version of it is the answer. If the new Austrian Chancellor seriously wants to do something about these sorts of issues then he needs to put together a coalition of people who do not think that fascism is the answer.
I think it is entirely possible the Trump loses the popular vote again by a wider margin in 2020 but still wins the electoral college.
At some point in the future that becomes unsustainable.
The challenge is for their voters to move out of safe states and move to swing states.
Plus he's a genuine 'one of us' working class blue collar boy etc etc.
The mainstream politicians throughout the Western world would rather their countries turned Islamic than be accused of racism or fascism. The voters in Austria have different ideas.
If such parties leave a vacuum then it will be filled by fascists or equally repellent groups. All the more reason not to leave such a vacuum and then belly ache later about the frightful people filling it, which seems to be all that is done these days.
Absolute morons.
In the case of the France beef ban fine the Commission did not ignore the ruling. They were the ones that asked the ECJ to rule on the ban and the ECJ did so and said it was illegal. They imposed a fine of £100,000 a day but the Commission then asked the ECJ to lift this when France complied with the lifting of the ban. In all cases it was France that was refusing to obey the ECJ not the Commission who were the actual instigators of the action.
They don't want to allow liberals the opportunity to make ludicrous comparisons which is obviously the most important thing.
Siege of Vienna, Habsburg Military Frontier in Hungary, series of wars with Ottomans Empire. Hard to forget why Austria was not entirely enamoured of military forces led by Muslim rulers.