politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hold that Putin holds over Trump could be revealing that t

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hold that Putin holds over Trump could be revealing that the Russians did try to fix WH2016

Straight from Russia’s undoubted success in staging the World Cup the biggest news today will be the secret meeting in Helsinki between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

Read the full story here

philiph

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

RobD

Secret meeting?

Not sure you were supposed to spill the beans on that one...

IanB2

Lol

JosiasJessop

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader.

Trump, on the other hand, cares just for himself. Nothing else. The presidency is not about what is best for his country, but about what is best for him.

And he is taking the US down a route to internal and international disaster.

El_Capitano

FPTish: Elon Musk is the Robert Maxwell of Silicon Valley. All self-aggrandising bluster while the money is frittered away (look at Tesla’s burn rate and ask how he gets to self-driving before running out of cash). The “pedo” tweet doesn’t surprise me at all.

rcs1000

Chart of the day: real US wage growth has just gone negative

https://www.theatlas.com/charts/HJmCIlaz7

JosiasJessop

El_Capitano said:

FPTish: Elon Musk is the Robert Maxwell of Silicon Valley. All self-aggrandising bluster while the money is frittered away (look at Tesla’s burn rate and ask how he gets to self-driving before running out of cash). The “pedo” tweet doesn’t surprise me at all.

Yes and no. I quite admire Musk: he has created a heck of a lot of money, is trying to change three different markets (and wants to change more), and has an overarching ambition I can agree with: to get man to Mars.

That's the difference between Musk and (say) Jobs. Jobs collected money and power, and did f'all with it: for him, money and prestige were key. He was the product he was selling. It was about him.

Musk is collecting money and power, but is spending it as well on several things that I can agree with: green energy, electric infrastructure and transport, and Mars. He will never end up penniless, but he could lose his fortune (though that is less likely now). He is gambling for an aim.

Now, that doesn't mean I agree with Musk. I think the Boring company (his tunnelling project) is rather odd, and his recent claims about bricks seems farcical given different geologies (though I'm possibly very wrong on this). He is quick to blame others rather than his own companies, even if that means throwing them to the wolves. And he does not treat staff well, even those close to him. His recent arguments with the NTSB also look horrible.

The question then becomes how much of his douchebaggery am I willing to accept because of his broader aims? It's easy for me to answer 'lots', because I'm unlikely to be the target of his douchebaggery. But there are limits.

Nigelb

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

SquareRoot

JosiasJessop said:

El_Capitano said:

FPTish: Elon Musk is the Robert Maxwell of Silicon Valley. All self-aggrandising bluster while the money is frittered away (look at Tesla’s burn rate and ask how he gets to self-driving before running out of cash). The “pedo” tweet doesn’t surprise me at all.

Yes and no. I quite admire Musk: he has created a heck of a lot of money, is trying to change three different markets (and wants to change more), and has an overarching ambition I can agree with: to get man to Mars.

That's the difference between Musk and (say) Jobs. Jobs collected money and power, and did f'all with it: for him, money and prestige were key. He was the product he was selling. It was about him.

Musk is collecting money and power, but is spending it as well on several things that I can agree with: green energy, electric infrastructure and transport, and Mars. He will never end up penniless, but he could lose his fortune (though that is less likely now). He is gambling for an aim.

Now, that doesn't mean I agree with Musk. I think the Boring company (his tunnelling project) is rather odd, and his recent claims about bricks seems farcical given different geologies (though I'm possibly very wrong on this). He is quick to blame others rather than his own companies, even if that means throwing them to the wolves. And he does not treat staff well, even those close to him. His recent arguments with the NTSB also look horrible.

The question then becomes how much of his douchebaggery am I willing to accept because of his broader aims? It's easy for me to answer 'lots', because I'm unlikely to be the target of his douchebaggery. But there are limits.

marvellous word douchebaggery!

rkrkrk

So do these anonymous Labour party officials deserve credit or opprobrium?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/labour-hq-jeremy-corbyn-targeted-facebook-ads-2017-election-a8448036.html

JosiasJessop

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

Dura_Ace

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader.

Of course he doesn't want what's best for Russia. He's destroying it: politically, socially and economically. V.V.P. is just the gnomish henchman of the 110 people who own 35% of the Russian economy. Ironically, under his leadership Russia has become exactly the type of county that Soviet propaganda told its citizens the West was like; corrupt from top to bottom with wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.

IanB2

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

Foxy

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

Perhaps the Putin regimes short term interest, in the longer term and broader interest Russia should become closer to the EU.

In other EU news, Selmayr and Juncker seem to be doing better than Liam Fox and Boris:

https://twitter.com/MartinSelmayr/status/1018707911294488576?s=19

DecrepitJohnL

Putin's hold? There seem to be three main areas of concern -- though beware I am no y0kel and have not been following this avidly.

It won't be that Russia meddled in the election. We already know that, and a new indictment was issued just a couple of days ago which named several Russian spies, precisely none of whom will be extradited.

What we do not yet have is proof that Trump colluded in this (though there are hints) so it could be this that Putin could provide.

The second area is the suggestion that Trump was financed by Russians who were effectively using his property developments to launder hot roubles. Again, Putin will know more.

Thirdly are the lurid allegations such as paying Russian prostitutes to piss on Obama's bed. Who knows? Who cares? Either of the first two could see Trump impeached or in the dock. This is just embarrassing, even if the KGB does have it all on film.

DecrepitJohnL

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

And a shared hostility to China.

Foxy

Dura_Ace said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader.

Of course he doesn't want what's best for Russia. He's destroying it: politically, socially and economically. V.V.P. is just the gnomish henchman of the 110 people who own 35% of the Russian economy. Ironically, under his leadership Russia has become exactly the type of county that Soviet propaganda told its citizens the West was like; corrupt from top to bottom with wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.

It is more a return of Russia to its state of a century and more ago. A country with a new aristocracy, desiring of baubles and keeping the peasants in line via a potent mix of nationalism and obscurantism.

daodao

DecrepitJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

And a shared hostility to China.

and the EU(SSR)

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Interesting comments from Greening.

I wonder if there's the possibility, remote, I realise, of both blues and reds splitting, and MPs leaving the Party of Leave and the Party of Socialist Insanity and joining a Bland Party.

Up to 1916 with Liddell Hart's History of the First World War. Not sure I've read a history with so many unlucky or incompetent commanders before. And the numbers involved are just astounding.

DecrepitJohnL

Russia's real problem is its dependence on dig-and-sell commodities, mainly oil and gas, whose price has gone through the floor of late, and will probably stay there owing to renewables and US shale oil. Putin did try to address this but without apparent success.

Note incidentally that while Trump was right to call out Germany's dealings with and dependence on Russian gas, he may have had mixed motives as America is now a major gas exporter and has lots of tankers that could provide Germany's needs.

DecrepitJohnL

daodao said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

And a shared hostility to China.

and the EU(SSR)

The EU was already named but it is China which poses a military threat to Russia and is eclipsing Russia as the second superpower -- militarily and economically.

JonnyJimmy

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

rcs1000

DecrepitJohnL said:

Russia's real problem is its dependence on dig-and-sell commodities, mainly oil and gas, whose price has gone through the floor of late, and will probably stay there owing to renewables and US shale oil. Putin did try to address this but without apparent success.

Note incidentally that while Trump was right to call out Germany's dealings with and dependence on Russian gas, he may have had mixed motives as America is now a major gas exporter and has lots of tankers that could provide Germany's needs.

Germany is in the process of building an LNG import terminal already. It has the Norwegian gas pipeline that is running below capacity (the Russians underbid them). And it has enormous lignite reserves with mothballed power stations that it could use in a strategic emergency.

The fact is that Germany's dependence on imported energy has been declining for 20 odd years, and with the arrival of LNG terminals in the Baltic, it will have a lot of energy options.

Russia, on the other hand, is stuck with a single customer for its gas.

JamesM

FPT - It seems to me that the raft of Remain supporters arguing that the Chequers Deal is abysmal may not be making that point just because they believe that, but because (a) they want to facilitate a 'no option but a second referendum' scenario and (b) muddy the waters with the public assuming that the Chequers deal is awful. Why? Because they will believe that a 3-way referendum results in remain winning. You split the Leave vote between two options and a potentially complex tiered voting scheme and you join in with Mogg supporters in making May's proposals sound so awful you would be deemed crazy to support them as a voter. No idea what they would think would happen if the UK voted Remain - best of three? Potentially illustrates the Mogg supporters may find they don't get any Brexit at all.

Now I read - https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/96859/tony-blair-urges-brexiteers-and-remainers-vote

Brexiteers need to be careful. If many are focusing on a three way 2nd referendum, which as constructed, would seem to me to enhance radically the Remain side's chance of winning, some like Rees-Mogg may find Brexit, however pure or not for them, doesn't happen.

Nigelb

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

Foxy

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

As there is a tendency for AV to lead to a compromise outcome, it may be the best chance of the Chequers deal winning through.

If only we could have a thread on the wonders of AV systems!

Nigelb

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

Perhaps the Putin regimes short term interest, in the longer term and broader interest Russia should become closer to the EU.

In other EU news, Selmayr and Juncker seem to be doing better than Liam Fox and Boris:

https://twitter.com/MartinSelmayr/status/1018707911294488576?s=19

China is clearly worried about a worldwide trade war, and making some moves in recognising that its own trade policies are severely flawed.
There is also perhaps the recognition that western companies are finally getting reluctant to form joint ventures in China under existing rules of control, having had so much technology effectively stolen over the last three or four decades.

And note this isn't just the EU - Tesla (for example) announced last week it is being allowed to set up a 100% Tesla controlled Chinese factory.

Nigelb

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

As there is a tendency for AV to lead to a compromise outcome, it may be the best chance of the Chequers deal winning through.

If only we could have a thread on the wonders of AV systems!

If nothing else, it would force the ridiculous Mogg to prove his assertion that Leavers prefer No Deal...

DecrepitJohnL

Morris_Dancer said:

Up to 1916 with Liddell Hart's History of the First World War. Not sure I've read a history with so many unlucky or incompetent commanders before. And the numbers involved are just astounding.

Take Liddell Hart back to the antique shop and read some more modern scholarship eg Hew Strachan or Gary Sheffield. Or don't read at all because there is a lot of good stuff on Youtube and Strachan is on dvd. We are approaching the anniversary of the end of ww1 so I expect there will be more on telly soon.

IanB2

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

Headline story on R4 explicitly says she is a remainer.

IanB2

DecrepitJohnL said:

Putin's hold? There seem to be three main areas of concern -- though beware I am no y0kel and have not been following this avidly.

It won't be that Russia meddled in the election. We already know that, and a new indictment was issued just a couple of days ago which named several Russian spies, precisely none of whom will be extradited.

What we do not yet have is proof that Trump colluded in this (though there are hints) so it could be this that Putin could provide.

The second area is the suggestion that Trump was financed by Russians who were effectively using his property developments to launder hot roubles. Again, Putin will know more.

Thirdly are the lurid allegations such as paying Russian prostitutes to piss on Obama's bed. Who knows? Who cares? Either of the first two could see Trump impeached or in the dock. This is just embarrassing, even if the KGB does have it all on film.

? Obama ?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. JohnL, I've started, so I'll finish.

What's wrong with Liddell Hart's account?

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

As there is a tendency for AV to lead to a compromise outcome, it may be the best chance of the Chequers deal winning through.

If only we could have a thread on the wonders of AV systems!

If nothing else, it would force the ridiculous Mogg to prove his assertion that Leavers prefer No Deal...

And what if four-fifths of them do (which may be a conservative estimate) and the Remainers split over this deal? Worse, supposing under AV 'no deal' is the second preference, not Remain, so even if the deal wins on first count no deal wins overall?

The country is tightly split, but a great many of my fellow Remainers are seriously underestimating how hated the EU is. A second referendum would harden attitudes, not reverse them (especially as one of the complaints about the EU is it ignores, subverts or reverses results it doesn't like).

A second referendum is the worst idea since the Battle of the Crater in 1864, and would probably have a similar result.

IanB2

JamesM said:

FPT - It seems to me that the raft of Remain supporters arguing that the Chequers Deal is abysmal may not be making that point just because they believe that, but because (a) they want to facilitate a 'no option but a second referendum' scenario and (b) muddy the waters with the public assuming that the Chequers deal is awful. Why? Because they will believe that a 3-way referendum results in remain winning. You split the Leave vote between two options and a potentially complex tiered voting scheme and you join in with Mogg supporters in making May's proposals sound so awful you would be deemed crazy to support them as a voter. No idea what they would think would happen if the UK voted Remain - best of three? Potentially illustrates the Mogg supporters may find they don't get any Brexit at all.

Now I read - https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/96859/tony-blair-urges-brexiteers-and-remainers-vote

Brexiteers need to be careful. If many are focusing on a three way 2nd referendum, which as constructed, would seem to me to enhance radically the Remain side's chance of winning, some like Rees-Mogg may find Brexit, however pure or not for them, doesn't happen.

It won't need three options to reverse the nonsensical mess we are heading towards.

IanB2

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

As there is a tendency for AV to lead to a compromise outcome, it may be the best chance of the Chequers deal winning through.

If only we could have a thread on the wonders of AV systems!

If nothing else, it would force the ridiculous Mogg to prove his assertion that Leavers prefer No Deal...

And what if four-fifths of them do (which may be a conservative estimate) and the Remainers split over this deal? Worse, supposing under AV 'no deal' is the second preference, not Remain, so even if the deal wins on first count no deal wins overall?

The country is tightly split, but a great many of my fellow Remainers are seriously underestimating how hated the EU is. A second referendum would harden attitudes, not reverse them (especially as one of the complaints about the EU is it ignores, subverts or reverses results it doesn't like).

A second referendum is the worst idea since the Battle of the Crater in 1864, and would probably have a similar result.

No, because the second vote will have to include a specific proposition that would be progressed in the event that it is supported in the vote. Which will both concentrate minds and enable a somewhat more informed debate. And its supporters won't be able to get away with vague promises of a sunny problem-free future.

MarqueeMark

I expect Trump and Putin to announce they have agreed for the US to station missiles inside Russia, facing the enemy that is the EU......

I mean, who'd be surprised?

Alanbrooke

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

Perhaps the Putin regimes short term interest, in the longer term and broader interest Russia should become closer to the EU.

In other EU news, Selmayr and Juncker seem to be doing better than Liam Fox and Boris:

https://twitter.com/MartinSelmayr/status/1018707911294488576?s=19

German industry not impressed. Oddly they are demanding the same things as Trump, fair and reciprocal access, no non trade barriers and respect for IP.


https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article179385350/Wirtschaft-warnt-EU-vor-zu-viel-Naehe-zu-China.html

DecrepitJohnL

IanB2 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Putin's hold? There seem to be three main areas of concern -- though beware I am no y0kel and have not been following this avidly.

It won't be that Russia meddled in the election. We already know that, and a new indictment was issued just a couple of days ago which named several Russian spies, precisely none of whom will be extradited.

What we do not yet have is proof that Trump colluded in this (though there are hints) so it could be this that Putin could provide.

The second area is the suggestion that Trump was financed by Russians who were effectively using his property developments to launder hot roubles. Again, Putin will know more.

Thirdly are the lurid allegations such as paying Russian prostitutes to piss on Obama's bed. Who knows? Who cares? Either of the first two could see Trump impeached or in the dock. This is just embarrassing, even if the KGB does have it all on film.

? Obama ?

Trump hates Obama. Trump was involved in the birther movement which alleged Obama was not eligible to be president. Obama was not above ridiculing Trump. It was alleged, among other things, that Trump paid prostitutes to piss on an hotel bed that had been used by Obama, and that it was filmed by the KGB.

This was part of the dossier drawn up by former MI6 man Christopher Steele for the Democrats. Trump has denied it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

currystar

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

IanB2

DecrepitJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Putin's hold? There seem to be three main areas of concern -- though beware I am no y0kel and have not been following this avidly.

It won't be that Russia meddled in the election. We already know that, and a new indictment was issued just a couple of days ago which named several Russian spies, precisely none of whom will be extradited.

What we do not yet have is proof that Trump colluded in this (though there are hints) so it could be this that Putin could provide.

The second area is the suggestion that Trump was financed by Russians who were effectively using his property developments to launder hot roubles. Again, Putin will know more.

Thirdly are the lurid allegations such as paying Russian prostitutes to piss on Obama's bed. Who knows? Who cares? Either of the first two could see Trump impeached or in the dock. This is just embarrassing, even if the KGB does have it all on film.

? Obama ?

Trump hates Obama. Trump was involved in the birther movement which alleged Obama was not eligible to be president. Obama was not above ridiculing Trump. It was alleged, among other things, that Trump paid prostitutes to piss on an hotel bed that had been used by Obama, and that it was filmed by the KGB.

This was part of the dossier drawn up by former MI6 man Christopher Steele for the Democrats. Trump has denied it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

OK. The way you worded it originally was perhaps a little loose!

IanB2

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

They don't really want a deal at all, and want to sink any that is on offer and go to WTO. Which is as good as being explained by one of them on R4 right now.

MarqueeMark

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.

Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.

Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.

MarqueeMark

And why is ex-Cabinet Minster and Remainer Justine Greening calling for a second referendum any more worthy of note than if it had been said by ex-Cabinet Minister and Remainer Amber Rudd?

currystar

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.

Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.

Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.

So you really think if May just walked away that the concessions would start flowing from the EU?

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

As there is a tendency for AV to lead to a compromise outcome, it may be the best chance of the Chequers deal winning through.

If only we could have a thread on the wonders of AV systems!

If nothing else, it would force the ridiculous Mogg to prove his assertion that Leavers prefer No Deal...

And what if four-fifths of them do (which may be a conservative estimate) and the Remainers split over this deal? Worse, supposing under AV 'no deal' is the second preference, not Remain, so even if the deal wins on first count no deal wins overall?

The country is tightly split, but a great many of my fellow Remainers are seriously underestimating how hated the EU is. A second referendum would harden attitudes, not reverse them (especially as one of the complaints about the EU is it ignores, subverts or reverses results it doesn't like).

A second referendum is the worst idea since the Battle of the Crater in 1864, and would probably have a similar result.

But that is exactly the point. Both Parliament and the country are split, not just over Brexit, but over how Brexit is to be implemented - either through a less than optimal deal with the EU, or a no deal exit which would gratify the headbangers and quite likely lead to severe distress elsewhere.
If Parliament truly cannot resolve the issue then it might be the only option.

None of this is a good idea, but we are where we are.

HYUFD

I see Trump has said he will run for re election in a GMB interview with Piers Morgan

Nigelb

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.

Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.

Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.

I don't really disagree with that - and despite having voted remain have been saying similar thing for some time.
But there is now no potential administration which will do that - even if sufficient time remained.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Mark, timing.

HYUFD

Dura_Ace said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader.

Of course he doesn't want what's best for Russia. He's destroying it: politically, socially and economically. V.V.P. is just the gnomish henchman of the 110 people who own 35% of the Russian economy. Ironically, under his leadership Russia has become exactly the type of county that Soviet propaganda told its citizens the West was like; corrupt from top to bottom with wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.

Khordokovsky and other oligarchs Putin has jailed may disagree

not_on_fire

HYUFD said:

I see Trump has said he will run for re election in a GMB interview with Piers Morgan

Interesting. I was expecting him to wait to see how the midterms went in PA, MI and OH before confirming this. Of course, a subsequent change of mind due to “the fake news media” is entirely possible.

Nigelb

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader.

Of course he doesn't want what's best for Russia. He's destroying it: politically, socially and economically. V.V.P. is just the gnomish henchman of the 110 people who own 35% of the Russian economy. Ironically, under his leadership Russia has become exactly the type of county that Soviet propaganda told its citizens the West was like; corrupt from top to bottom with wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.

Khordokovsky and other oligarchs Putin has jailed may disagree

On what grounds ?

HYUFD

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

To be fair it says Greening backed Remain in the 8th paragraph

TheScreamingEagles

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

It says in the article

‘Ms Greening, who supported Remain in the EU referendum, said there were other senior Conservatives who agreed with her stance, adding that people who supported Leave in the referendum would also feel the government's approach is "not what they voted for".’

HYUFD

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader.

Of course he doesn't want what's best for Russia. He's destroying it: politically, socially and economically. V.V.P. is just the gnomish henchman of the 110 people who own 35% of the Russian economy. Ironically, under his leadership Russia has become exactly the type of county that Soviet propaganda told its citizens the West was like; corrupt from top to bottom with wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.

Khordokovsky and other oligarchs Putin has jailed may disagree

On what grounds ?

The blatantly obvious grounds that if the President has put you in jail it hardly shows you have him under your control.

On most estimates Putin is the richest man in Russia anyway

HYUFD

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

I see Trump has said he will run for re election in a GMB interview with Piers Morgan

Interesting. I was expecting him to wait to see how the midterms went in PA, MI and OH before confirming this. Of course, a subsequent change of mind due to “the fake news media” is entirely possible.

I doubt it, even if the GOP lose heavily as is likely at least in the House he will just blame it on what he sees as the useless leadership of Ryan and McConnell. Trump's own approval rating is significantly higher than that of the Congressional GOP

HYUFD

DecrepitJohnL said:

daodao said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

And a shared hostility to China.

and the EU(SSR)

The EU was already named but it is China which poses a military threat to Russia and is eclipsing Russia as the second superpower -- militarily and economically.

Economically certainly, militarily though it is still Russia more willing to intervene beyond its borders

PClipp

MarqueeMark said:

And why is ex-Cabinet Minster and Remainer Justine Greening calling for a second referendum any more worthy of note than if it had been said by ex-Cabinet Minister and Remainer Amber Rudd?

Equally noteworthy, Mr Mark. Has Mrs Rudd said that?

NickPalmer

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

Headline story on R4 explicitly says she is a remainer.

The interesting thing about this is not so much who said it as that it offers an option that gives a chance BOTH to Remain and to hard Brexit, as an alternative to the "muddle through to the least bad fudge" approach which the Government is taking. As such, I can see it having attractions to Labour and thence to a majority in the Commons. I suspect that people might vote for the May plan as the middle option anyway, but possibly not - in an AV approach, the plan with fewest first-place choices loses.

HYUFD

Government accepts Brexiteer amendments to Customs Bill


https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1018760270527778816

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Palmer, as an aside, not great for May, though.

"Your proposal is so dire that we've considered totally ignoring it to be our best option, regardless of whether we leave or remain."

Elliot

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

It says in the article

‘Ms Greening, who supported Remain in the EU referendum, said there were other senior Conservatives who agreed with her stance, adding that people who supported Leave in the referendum would also feel the government's approach is "not what they voted for".’

This has been the Remainer strategy all along. Repeatedly force May into a Brexit in Name Only, and then say Leavers didn't get what they wanted as an excuse to stay in the EU. Despicable.

Sadly some of the less intelligent Leavers are foolish enough to go along with it, and not smart enough to realise they have 95% of what they wanted.

Greening should be expelled from the Tory Party for such a knifing of the PM in contravention of the manifesto, however.

Roger

One of the most terrifying cinema villains of recent years was Anton Chigurth played by Xavier Bardem in the Conen Brothers 'No Country for Old Men'.

John Bolton leaves him standing.

Foxy

currystar said:

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.

Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.

Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.

So you really think if May just walked away that the concessions would start flowing from the EU?

In effect we have stopped negotiating since December, but it wasn't the EU27 that caved in.

Penddu

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Russia's real problem is its dependence on dig-and-sell commodities, mainly oil and gas, whose price has gone through the floor of late, and will probably stay there owing to renewables and US shale oil. Putin did try to address this but without apparent success.


The fact is that Germany's dependence on imported energy has been declining for 20 odd years, and with the arrival of LNG terminals in the Baltic, it will have a lot of energy options.

Russia, on the other hand, is stuck with a single customer for its gas.

Apart from Europe - Russia now has supply agreements in place with China from massive Yamal project - and next year will double up with new Arctic2 LNG project. They are no longer reliant on Europe

Sean_F

NickPalmer said:

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

Headline story on R4 explicitly says she is a remainer.

The interesting thing about this is not so much who said it as that it offers an option that gives a chance BOTH to Remain and to hard Brexit, as an alternative to the "muddle through to the least bad fudge" approach which the Government is taking. As such, I can see it having attractions to Labour and thence to a majority in the Commons. I suspect that people might vote for the May plan as the middle option anyway, but possibly not - in an AV approach, the plan with fewest first-place choices loses.

It's a high risk gamble for both Leavers and Remainers who are opposed to the proposals. The former may get Remain, or the latter No Deal.

DavidL

Why is Putin having Trump attend a meeting in this way when it risks so undermining him? Is it just because he can? It seems an extravagant demonstration of power.

For Trump it is hard to see any upsides on this. At a time when his team are facing indictments back in the US it borders on foolhardy. I am pretty sure he would not be doing it if he felt he had a choice.

TheScreamingEagles

Elliot said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

It says in the article

‘Ms Greening, who supported Remain in the EU referendum, said there were other senior Conservatives who agreed with her stance, adding that people who supported Leave in the referendum would also feel the government's approach is "not what they voted for".’

This has been the Remainer strategy all along. Repeatedly force May into a Brexit in Name Only, and then say Leavers didn't get what they wanted as an excuse to stay in the EU. Despicable.

Sadly some of the less intelligent Leavers are foolish enough to go along with it, and not smart enough to realise they have 95% of what they wanted.

Greening should be expelled from the Tory Party for such a knifing of the PM in contravention of the manifesto, however.

You mean like John Major expelled the likes of IDS for contravening the 1992 manifesto?

TheScreamingEagles

Surprised this hasn't got more attention.

https://twitter.com/mikercarpenter/status/1018498764439506944

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, does sound like it should be getting rather more attention.

JosiasJessop

TheScreamingEagles said:

Surprised this hasn't got more attention.

https://twitter.com/mikercarpenter/status/1018498764439506944

Don't worry, some posters will be along soon to say how it's all the EU's fault ...

Gardenwalker

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, does sound like it should be getting rather more attention.

When it happens in Greece, it’s Russian interference. When it happens in Britain, it’s the “will of the people”.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Walker, Russians here were expelled over Novichok. None were expelled over the referendum campaign. If such things are proven here, then similar steps should be taken.

An allegation is not the same thing as a proven offence, or even evidence. Saying something, or believing it, doesn't make it so.

Theuniondivvie

HYUFD said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

To be fair it says Greening backed Remain in the 8th paragraph

8th para? In Lalaleaverland that's just the same as not mentioning it.

Theuniondivvie

Roger said:

One of the most terrifying cinema villains of recent years was Anton Chigurth played by Xavier Bardem in the Conen Brothers 'No Country for Old Men'.

John Bolton leaves him standing.

John 'the Bolt' Bolton.

https://youtu.be/8xyvOCNCXdU

Morris_Dancer

Except for hedging the Mbappe best player bet, I managed to get every single World Cup bet wrong. That's quite the statistical achievement.

CD13

Any EU response to the Chequers document yet? I haven't seen any yet, but them I have lost interest.

Roger

HYUFD said:

I see Trump has said he will run for re election in a GMB interview with Piers Morgan

Piers Morgan owes Trump a lot. His career was sagging until he discovered that love for Trump gave him a USP few outside the Fox network could claim

IanB2

Morris_Dancer said:

Except for hedging the Mbappe best player bet, I managed to get every single World Cup bet wrong. That's quite the statistical achievement.

Good to know it's not just F1

Morris_Dancer

Mr. B2, I'm proficient in losing bets across many sports

Theuniondivvie

Fwiw.

https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1018756436137005056

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1018761358106681344?s=20

Theuniondivvie

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. B2, I'm proficient in losing bets across many sports

Consistency in betting is vital.

GIN1138

Morning PB,

Shall we sue the pants of Russia AND the EU?

Roger

Theuniondivvie said:

Roger said:

One of the most terrifying cinema villains of recent years was Anton Chigurth played by Xavier Bardem in the Conen Brothers 'No Country for Old Men'.

John Bolton leaves him standing.

John 'the Bolt' Bolton.

https://youtu.be/8xyvOCNCXdU

I'll raise you nuking North Korea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFnpkrFjGiM

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/pdanahar/status/1018767305155796993?s=21

Nigelb

DavidL said:

Why is Putin having Trump attend a meeting in this way when it risks so undermining him? Is it just because he can? It seems an extravagant demonstration of power.

For Trump it is hard to see any upsides on this. At a time when his team are facing indictments back in the US it borders on foolhardy. I am pretty sure he would not be doing it if he felt he had a choice.

There are no real downsides for Putin. Either he continues to handle Trump, or he burns him and creates disorder in the US.

As fo Trump, his base are growing steadily fonder of the Russian autocrat:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/15/trump-putin-russia-summit-helsinki-722255

MarqueeMark

currystar said:

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.

Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.

Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.

So you really think if May just walked away that the concessions would start flowing from the EU?

Let's find out, eh?

CarlottaVance

New poll?

https://twitter.com/benglaze/status/1018766588055605248?s=21

TheScreamingEagles

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1018761358106681344?s=20

As I said the other day, if the ERG can't get 48 letters then I have huge doubts they'll be able to get JRM or Boris in to the final two.

rkrkrk

Morris_Dancer said:

Except for hedging the Mbappe best player bet, I managed to get every single World Cup bet wrong. That's quite the statistical achievement.

I tipped Modric and de Bruyne for best player, but stupidly decided to cash out before realising much of a profit.

SquareRoot

CarlottaVance said:

New poll?

https://twitter.com/benglaze/status/1018766588055605248?s=21

Before rushing to judgement, it might be wise too see how the questions are phrased?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. rkrkrk, wasn't there a suggestion here that the result had leaked, with one chap (can't recall if it was Modric) having his odds fall significantly?

Philip_Thompson

DavidL said:

Why is Putin having Trump attend a meeting in this way when it risks so undermining him? Is it just because he can? It seems an extravagant demonstration of power.

For Trump it is hard to see any upsides on this. At a time when his team are facing indictments back in the US it borders on foolhardy. I am pretty sure he would not be doing it if he felt he had a choice.

There is another option.

Trump is such an overwhelming egotist that he allows his personal feelings override logical decision making.
Trump views Putin as being an ally not a 'foe' because he is on his side.

kle4

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

Theuniondivvie

Roger said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Roger said:

One of the most terrifying cinema villains of recent years was Anton Chigurth played by Xavier Bardem in the Conen Brothers 'No Country for Old Men'.

John Bolton leaves him standing.

John 'the Bolt' Bolton.

https://youtu.be/8xyvOCNCXdU

I'll raise you nuking North Korea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFnpkrFjGiM

Chigurh/Bardem looks like Death, somehow it's worse that Bolton looks like some old codger punting Werther's Originals.

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/pdanahar/status/1018767305155796993?s=21

They never used nerve agents against the West during that Cuba missile crisis thing…and that Afghan invasion..and that Prague Spring…oh and that wall they built in Germany...

Roger

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

To be fair it says Greening backed Remain in the 8th paragraph

8th para? In Lalaleaverland that's just the same as not mentioning it.

LALALEAVERLAND! I like it!

currystar

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.

Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.

Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.

So you really think if May just walked away that the concessions would start flowing from the EU?

Let's find out, eh?

I think that will happen anyway as the EU will turn down May's plan and she knows there is no further that she can go.

CarlottaVance

SquareRoot said:

CarlottaVance said:

New poll?

https://twitter.com/benglaze/status/1018766588055605248?s=21

Before rushing to judgement, it might be wise too see how the questions are phrased?

Agree - but this poll is from a newspaper, not a Leave or Remain group, which tend to be far more selective in their poll questions and highlighting of data. My favourite example of which was “As many as one in four agree with (whatever that organisation was pushing)”

kle4

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

They want no deal. Trash the proposal enough and May can only get it through if remainers and labour back it. Labour won't and plenty of Remainers think no Brexit is back on the table so won't back it either (plus some who no doubt genuinely think it is a bad proposal).

Hence second referendum talk - it means that all options have a chance at least, which is risky, but only no deal has much chance without a referendum as it is the default.