politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Canucked. Where the UK goes next

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Canucked. Where the UK goes next

Where do we go from here?  After Salzburg, infuriated by the dismissive way in which her fellow EU leaders sought to cast the Chequers approach to one side, the Prime Minister took the usual British approach of dealing with foreigners, speaking loudly and slowly. 

Read the full story here

Gadfly

First!

DayTripper

Salzburg

Nigelb

Gadfly said:

First!

Close. Good effort.

Nigelb

DayTripper said:

Salzburg

Or the Senate.

Nigelb

On topic, another very good article, Alastair.
Though the EU negotiators have said, have they not, that Canada is possible ?
Whether they can deliver an agreement in principle prior to next spring, and a ratified deal within the two year extension period is of course still in question.
If nothing else, Canada though a deeply undesirable outcome in its own right, would reduce the risk of a no deal exit next year ?

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1045541017431224320

RobD

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/whatukthinks/status/1045541017431224320

EURef2? Their counting abilities doesn't bode well for these polls

Foxy

Nigelb said:

On topic, another very good article, Alastair.
Though the EU negotiators have said, have they not, that Canada is possible ?
Whether they can deliver an agreement in principle prior to next spring, and a ratified deal within the two year extension period is of course still in question.
If nothing else, Canada though a deeply undesirable outcome in its own right, would reduce the risk of a no deal exit next year ?

In practice, "Canada" means Blind Brexit, with a Transition Agreement, but no detailed FTA that can be voted on, because it is yet to be drafted. Indeed nearly all roads seem to lead to Blind Brexit.

Incidentally, what is it with CETA that Italy objects to?

FF43

It comes back to the same basic problem. Nothing will work for us except membership of the European Union and that's the only option we have rejected.

A key point in the header. Each and every one of the EU27 will demand their pound of flesh. Ireland: open border; Spain: stake in Gibraltar; Denmark: fishing rights; France: financial services etc. We will need to buy them all off. The EU works on horse trading. Every country gets something it wants and mostly avoids what it doesn't want. Outside it's multi dimensional.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

F1: reminder that both the big and little Red Bull teams will likely be starting from the back (certain for Toro Rosso, probable for Red Bull).

archer101au

The OP has a point in that the EU may not even be able to deliver CETA to Canada, let alone the UK. However, surely if this is the case it suggests that they are a shambles and that we would be much better off on the outside. Leavers always argued that trade policy would be far more efficient and flexible outside the EU and this seems to prove it.

In terms of timing, I do not agree. The CETA deal exists and most of the changes required for the UK are easy because they involve taking out carve outs for things. The EU can agree that CETA applies provisionally from the end of the transition period, just as they have with CETA now. If it doesn't get ratified later we have plenty of notice and this can be fudged by the EU as they are doing with Canada.

But ultimately, if the EU cannot deal, the correct decision is to go for no deal and negotiate later from a position of strength. Staying in the EU because they are so useless that they cannot negotiate a trade deal with their largest trading partner is crazy.

hamiltonace

The problem with Canada deal is not tarrifs but rules. Canada has it's own medical device agency with its own licenses and rules. The cost of an application depends on risk of device. Our company is having our European annual audit next month. The cost of the EC agency is £20k. The cost in internal time is another £40k on labour. The costs of regulations are already killing small medical device companies. Another system with similar fees for just the UK market will close down many companies and lead to even higher prices as competition dies out. Most of our devices do not have Canadian approval and we would depending on cost and complexity withdraw many of our devices from the UK as not worth the investment. This would hurt both us and the NHS..

MarqueeMark

archer101au said:

But ultimately, if the EU cannot deal, the correct decision is to go for no deal and negotiate later from a position of strength. Staying in the EU because they are so useless that they cannot negotiate a trade deal with their largest trading partner is crazy.

Hard to disagree with that.

But the one thing we have discovered in the past two years is that the EU still has a mountain of crazy....

IanB2

archer101au said:

The OP has a point in that the EU may not even be able to deliver CETA to Canada, let alone the UK. However, surely if this is the case it suggests that they are a shambles and that we would be much better off on the outside. Leavers always argued that trade policy would be far more efficient and flexible outside the EU and this seems to prove it.

In terms of timing, I do not agree. The CETA deal exists and most of the changes required for the UK are easy because they involve taking out carve outs for things. The EU can agree that CETA applies provisionally from the end of the transition period, just as they have with CETA now. If it doesn't get ratified later we have plenty of notice and this can be fudged by the EU as they are doing with Canada.

But ultimately, if the EU cannot deal, the correct decision is to go for no deal and negotiate later from a position of strength. Staying in the EU because they are so useless that they cannot negotiate a trade deal with their largest trading partner is crazy.

Lol @ no deal = strength !

Anyhow you already are on the outside.

FF43

Nigelb said:

On topic, another very good article, Alastair.
Though the EU negotiators have said, have they not, that Canada is possible ?
Whether they can deliver an agreement in principle prior to next spring, and a ratified deal within the two year extension period is of course still in question.
If nothing else, Canada though a deeply undesirable outcome in its own right, would reduce the risk of a no deal exit next year ?

These kind of deep FTAs typically take a decade and often don't happen at all. EU/Japan has been on and off and seems to be on again. EU/India is off but may come back on. EU/US is definitely off. EU/China has never been on. EU/Canada has made it to implementation but as Alastair points out there are risks. The world is turning away from globalisation. Brexit is evidence of that in itself. Brexiteers shouldn't expect others to be more rational than themselves.

I am doubtful Canada will see light of day. We can't stand a decade of uncertainty.

Foxy

hamiltonace said:

The problem with Canada deal is not tarrifs but rules. Canada has it's own medical device agency with its own licenses and rules. The cost of an application depends on risk of device. Our company is having our European annual audit next month. The cost of the EC agency is £20k. The cost in internal time is another £40k on labour. The costs of regulations are already killing small medical device companies. Another system with similar fees for just the UK market will close down many companies and lead to even higher prices as competition dies out. Most of our devices do not have Canadian approval and we would depending on cost and complexity withdraw many of our devices from the UK as not worth the investment. This would hurt both us and the NHS..

Yes, I am geninely sympathetic to businesses like yours. The Brexit destination is of much less consequence to folk like me, in the safest of safe jobs. I have arranged my own finances so that I can profit from any outcome.

Brexit is more likely to go with a whimper than a bang, as we limp into Blind Brexit, but watching the Tory party negotiating strategy is like watching a drunk fumbling with his keys in the car door before driving off.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Mark, without wishing to sound like a defender of the EU, there are particular differences with the negotiation with the UK.
1) It's about moving further apart, not closer, the opposite of most such deals.
2) There's a very short time limit, because the man who wrote Article 50 as a cretin.
3) There's a political wish to hurt the UK because we don't love the EU enough (damn you, vile heretics!).
4) There may be a desire from the EU for a second vote. A cliff-edge increases the chances of it happening, and decreases the chances of a decent deal being sorted (NB it also increases the chance of a disorderly departure. Which would be bad for the UK. And for the EU).

archer101au

FF43 said:

Nigelb said:

On topic, another very good article, Alastair.
Though the EU negotiators have said, have they not, that Canada is possible ?
Whether they can deliver an agreement in principle prior to next spring, and a ratified deal within the two year extension period is of course still in question.
If nothing else, Canada though a deeply undesirable outcome in its own right, would reduce the risk of a no deal exit next year ?

These kind of deep FTAs typically take a decade and often don't happen at all. EU/Japan has been on and off and seems to be on again. EU/India is off but may come back on. EU/US is definitely off. EU/China has never been on. EU/Canada has made it to implementation but as Alastair points out there are risks. The world is turning away from globalisation. Brexit is evidence of that in itself. Brexiteers shouldn't expect others to be more rational than themselves.

I am doubtful Canada will see light of day. We can't stand a decade of uncertainty.

You are making the case for Brexit. The EU can't negotiate trade deals because they have 27 nations trying to protect their various interests.

The UK desires very little protectionism because unlike the EU, we are mostly a services economy. All we really want is trade deals that give access to our markets for goods in return for access to overseas markets for services. This is a win/win for most counterparties. UK manufacturing does not need tariff protection to a large degree and outside the EU we are not tied down by state aid rules if we want to help them. As the EU said themselves, being outside EU regulation will save us more billions than any tariffs we might forgo via free trade.

If you are in favour of free trade, the UK outside the EU will be a beacon of hope to the World.

Foxy

FF43 said:

Nigelb said:

On topic, another very good article, Alastair.
Though the EU negotiators have said, have they not, that Canada is possible ?
Whether they can deliver an agreement in principle prior to next spring, and a ratified deal within the two year extension period is of course still in question.
If nothing else, Canada though a deeply undesirable outcome in its own right, would reduce the risk of a no deal exit next year ?

These kind of deep FTAs typically take a decade and often don't happen at all. EU/Japan has been on and off and seems to be on again. EU/India is off but may come back on. EU/US is definitely off. EU/China has never been on. EU/Canada has made it to implementation but as Alastair points out there are risks. The world is turning away from globalisation. Brexit is evidence of that in itself. Brexiteers shouldn't expect others to be more rational than themselves.

I am doubtful Canada will see light of day. We can't stand a decade of uncertainty.

Yes, it is hard to know how Trump's trade wars will end, but certainly trade globalisation seems to be stalled, if not heading to reverse. Whether that leads to a Thirties style spiral of trade decline, or is just a blip we do not know. We had a much stronger and more dynamic economy and a large empire then, but it could be a bit different now.

IanB2

"The more I hear about the Olympic Stadium contract with West Ham the more frustrated I get. Boris’ team signed this off and currently we are told each match day costs the tax payer around £250k in subsidy...... unbelievable." @CarolinePidgeon

ydoethur

Mr Dancer, objection.

Your second point is deeply unfair.

On penalty of being thrashed with an enormo-haddock, I demand you apologise to all cretins for comparing them to Lord Kerr.

ydoethur

IanB2 said:

"The more I hear about the Olympic Stadium contract with West Ham the more frustrated I get. Boris’ team signed this off and currently we are told each match day costs the tax payer around £250k in subsidy...... unbelievable." @CarolinePidgeon

I'm sure there's a great pun to be made there about Boris attempting to support gammons...

Charles

hamiltonace said:

The problem with Canada deal is not tarrifs but rules. Canada has it's own medical device agency with its own licenses and rules. The cost of an application depends on risk of device. Our company is having our European annual audit next month. The cost of the EC agency is £20k. The cost in internal time is another £40k on labour. The costs of regulations are already killing small medical device companies. Another system with similar fees for just the UK market will close down many companies and lead to even higher prices as competition dies out. Most of our devices do not have Canadian approval and we would depending on cost and complexity withdraw many of our devices from the UK as not worth the investment. This would hurt both us and the NHS..

I spend quite some time in the Canadian healthcare market. Few people bother as a priority - the size of the market makes it unattractive. That’s not the case with the U.K.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. B2, almost as if Boris is an incompetent buffoon who shouldn't be anywhere near the levers of power...

Mr. Doethur, I do apologise to the cretinous cabal.

SquareRoot

IanB2 said:

"The more I hear about the Olympic Stadium contract with West Ham the more frustrated I get. Boris’ team signed this off and currently we are told each match day costs the tax payer around £250k in subsidy...... unbelievable." @CarolinePidgeon

And what would MS Pidgeon have done. Pray do tell us...

williamglenn

archer101au said:

FF43 said:

Nigelb said:

On topic, another very good article, Alastair.
Though the EU negotiators have said, have they not, that Canada is possible ?
Whether they can deliver an agreement in principle prior to next spring, and a ratified deal within the two year extension period is of course still in question.
If nothing else, Canada though a deeply undesirable outcome in its own right, would reduce the risk of a no deal exit next year ?

These kind of deep FTAs typically take a decade and often don't happen at all. EU/Japan has been on and off and seems to be on again. EU/India is off but may come back on. EU/US is definitely off. EU/China has never been on. EU/Canada has made it to implementation but as Alastair points out there are risks. The world is turning away from globalisation. Brexit is evidence of that in itself. Brexiteers shouldn't expect others to be more rational than themselves.

I am doubtful Canada will see light of day. We can't stand a decade of uncertainty.

The UK desires very little protectionism because unlike the EU, we are mostly a services economy. All we really want is trade deals that give access to our markets for goods in return for access to overseas markets for services.

France: 78.9% services
UK: 80.2% services

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/thescotsman/status/1045567043343388672?s=21

OldKingCole

Foxy said:

hamiltonace said:

The problem with Canada deal is not tarrifs but rules. Canada has it's own medical device agency with its own licenses and rules. The cost of an application depends on risk of device. Our company is having our European annual audit next month. The cost of the EC agency is £20k. The cost in internal time is another £40k on labour. The costs of regulations are already killing small medical device companies. Another system with similar fees for just the UK market will close down many companies and lead to even higher prices as competition dies out. Most of our devices do not have Canadian approval and we would depending on cost and complexity withdraw many of our devices from the UK as not worth the investment. This would hurt both us and the NHS..

Yes, I am geninely sympathetic to businesses like yours. The Brexit destination is of much less consequence to folk like me, in the safest of safe jobs. I have arranged my own finances so that I can profit from any outcome.

Brexit is more likely to go with a whimper than a bang, as we limp into Blind Brexit, but watching the Tory party negotiating strategy is like watching a drunk fumbling with his keys in the car door before driving off.

Really, really like Dr Foxy's second paragraph.

Nigelb

FF43 said:

Nigelb said:

On topic, another very good article, Alastair.
Though the EU negotiators have said, have they not, that Canada is possible ?
Whether they can deliver an agreement in principle prior to next spring, and a ratified deal within the two year extension period is of course still in question.
If nothing else, Canada though a deeply undesirable outcome in its own right, would reduce the risk of a no deal exit next year ?

These kind of deep FTAs typically take a decade and often don't happen at all. EU/Japan has been on and off and seems to be on again. EU/India is off but may come back on. EU/US is definitely off. EU/China has never been on. EU/Canada has made it to implementation but as Alastair points out there are risks. The world is turning away from globalisation. Brexit is evidence of that in itself. Brexiteers shouldn't expect others to be more rational than themselves.

I am doubtful Canada will see light of day. We can't stand a decade of uncertainty.

I totally agree.
The only reason it might get traction is postponing the crunch, but that just means another couple of years of arguments.

Nigelb

archer101au said:

FF43 said:

Nigelb said:

On topic, another very good article, Alastair.
Though the EU negotiators have said, have they not, that Canada is possible ?
Whether they can deliver an agreement in principle prior to next spring, and a ratified deal within the two year extension period is of course still in question.
If nothing else, Canada though a deeply undesirable outcome in its own right, would reduce the risk of a no deal exit next year ?

These kind of deep FTAs typically take a decade and often don't happen at all. EU/Japan has been on and off and seems to be on again. EU/India is off but may come back on. EU/US is definitely off. EU/China has never been on. EU/Canada has made it to implementation but as Alastair points out there are risks. The world is turning away from globalisation. Brexit is evidence of that in itself. Brexiteers shouldn't expect others to be more rational than themselves.

I am doubtful Canada will see light of day. We can't stand a decade of uncertainty.

You are making the case for Brexit. The EU can't negotiate trade deals because they have 27 nations trying to protect their various interests.

The UK desires very little protectionism because unlike the EU, we are mostly a services economy. All we really want is trade deals that give access to our markets for goods in return for access to overseas markets for services. This is a win/win for most counterparties. UK manufacturing does not need tariff protection to a large degree and outside the EU we are not tied down by state aid rules if we want to help them. As the EU said themselves, being outside EU regulation will save us more billions than any tariffs we might forgo via free trade.

If you are in favour of free trade, the UK outside the EU will be a beacon of hope to the World.

Or an object lesson in what happens when you rip up decades of cooperation.

williamglenn

The voice of the Tory grassroots:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/28/theresa-may-tory-grassroots-brexit-tension-boils-over

“She’s trying her best to get a deal but personally I’d rather have no deal than a bad deal … If this country had a chance and an opportunity it could look after itself. In the second world war we were feeding ourselves.”

DavidL

The main reason that CETA took so long was that it was necessary to reach an agreed standard acceptable to both sides in those areas where there was to be free trade. With countries coming from very different traditions that was tricky and required a dispute resolution service to iron out areas of ambiguity.

We start in perfect alignment with the EU and with identical standards for everything. In those areas we want free trade we will probably have to agree to maintain that going forward too (a Chequers style common rule book).

The technical requirements for such a deal are therefore already dealt with but this does not mean it is going to be straightforward. What is lacking is the political will to enter into such an agreement, particularly on the EU side. From their perspective this once again looks like cherry picking, we get free trade access to the SM without any of the responsibilities or costs of membership. If we get that what are the chances some of the other members thinking that looks attractive too?

I think we are at the point that we need to give up on the big deal. We need to focus on the little deals that allow planes to fly, customs to be as efficient as possible, medicines to travel, existing rights of residence etc. We also need to start focusing on what we can do unilaterally to enhance our position and provide clarity.

edmundintokyo

Foxy said:

Yes, it is hard to know how Trump's trade wars will end, but certainly trade globalisation seems to be stalled, if not heading to reverse. Whether that leads to a Thirties style spiral of trade decline, or is just a blip we do not know. We had a much stronger and more dynamic economy and a large empire then, but it could be a bit different now.

I can see how it would look that way from the UK and the US but overall I don't think it's true. Ratifying anything unanimously across the EU takes ages, but treaties do eventually get done; CETA ratification is plodding along but by no means DOA, and there are a bunch of other EU trade deals in the works.

More importantly, the rest of the world didn't respond to Trump by starting trade wars with each other; A lot of people thought TPP would be dead without America, but CPTPP is happening, maybe even faster than TPP would have. And apart from Trump and Brexit, the movement is all in the free-trade direction; Hardly anyone actually *believes* in protectionism any more, although people occasionally pretend they do to win elections.

Even Trump might actually end up doing free trade deals, especially if he gets a second term; Most of the heat has gone out of all his battles except China, and part of the US-China argument is the US wanting China to open up their markets. Trump has no coherent view on trade apart from that America is getting screwed, and as we saw with North Korea, he *really* wants to sell himself on the art of the deal, and that works much better if he actually makes deals.

williamglenn

DavidL said:

I think we are at the point that we need to give up on the big deal.

The big deal was what Vote Leave sold people. You are making the case for a second referendum because we need a new mandate for any potential new direction.

HYUFD

The best option would probably be to park ourselves in the Norway option and effectively remain in the EEA after Brexit which would avoid problems of No Deal and the Irish border and still technically be Brexit while longer term trying to negotiate a CETA style FTA

DavidL

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

I think we are at the point that we need to give up on the big deal.

The big deal was what Vote Leave sold people. You are making the case for a second referendum because we need a new mandate for any potential new direction.

No I am not. The vote was to leave and leave won. So we leave. Everything else is detail.

OldKingCole

williamglenn said:

The voice of the Tory grassroots:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/28/theresa-may-tory-grassroots-brexit-tension-boils-over

“She’s trying her best to get a deal but personally I’d rather have no deal than a bad deal … If this country had a chance and an opportunity it could look after itself. In the second world war we were feeding ourselves.”

I read that; clearly the guy who said that doesn't remember rationing. I don't as a buyer, but there's certainly a lot more food about theae days!

MarqueeMark

ydoethur said:

Mr Dancer, objection.

Your second point is deeply unfair.

On penalty of being thrashed with an enormo-haddock, I demand you apologise to all cretins for comparing them to Lord Kerr.

Art. 50 looks ever more as if it was designed to be unfit for purpose. Surely it was obvious to provide for whether an Art. 50 notice could be revoked by the party issuing it?

MarqueeMark

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

I think we are at the point that we need to give up on the big deal.

The big deal was what Vote Leave sold people. You are making the case for a second referendum because we need a new mandate for any potential new direction.

You're the only person always making the case for a second referendum.

hamiltonace

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

hamiltonace said:

The problem with Canada deal is not tarrifs but rules. Canada has it's own medical device agency with its own licenses and rules. The cost of an application depends on risk of device. Our company is having our European annual audit next month. The cost of the EC agency is £20k. The cost in internal time is another £40k on labour. The costs of regulations are already killing small medical device companies. Another system with similar fees for just the UK market will close down many companies and lead to even higher prices as competition dies out. Most of our devices do not have Canadian approval and we would depending on cost and complexity withdraw many of our devices from the UK as not worth the investment. This would hurt both us and the NHS..

Yes, I am geninely sympathetic to businesses like yours. The Brexit destination is of much less consequence to folk like me, in the safest of safe jobs. I have arranged my own finances so that I can profit from any outcome.

Brexit is more likely to go with a whimper than a bang, as we limp into Blind Brexit, but watching the Tory party negotiating strategy is like watching a drunk fumbling with his keys in the car door before driving off.

Really, really like Dr Foxy's second paragraph.

Sometimes we can forget the little people who have to deal with the circumstances of any change. I am not a big supporter of the EC but any change needs to be planned in detail. If there are losers we need to compensate them as far as possible.

JohnRussell

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

I think we are at the point that we need to give up on the big deal.

The big deal was what Vote Leave sold people. You are making the case for a second referendum because we need a new mandate for any potential new direction.

Before the referendum, were you the Little Britain character who managed to make everything lead to the story of her being Mollie Sugden’s bridesmaid?

JackW

OldKingCole said:

williamglenn said:

The voice of the Tory grassroots:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/28/theresa-may-tory-grassroots-brexit-tension-boils-over

“She’s trying her best to get a deal but personally I’d rather have no deal than a bad deal … If this country had a chance and an opportunity it could look after itself. In the second world war we were feeding ourselves.”

I read that; clearly the guy who said that doesn't remember rationing. I don't as a buyer, but there's certainly a lot more food about theae days!

The WWll generation was considered the most healthy of modern times, so perhaps the No Deal BREXIT Conservative proposal is a cunning plan to dramatically improve the nations health with food rationing reducing the rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Slimfast With The Tories - A surefire election winner.

FF43

DavidL said:

The main reason that CETA took so long was that it was necessary to reach an agreed standard acceptable to both sides in those areas where there was to be free trade. With countries coming from very different traditions that was tricky and required a dispute resolution service to iron out areas of ambiguity.

We start in perfect alignment with the EU and with identical standards for everything. In those areas we want free trade we will probably have to agree to maintain that going forward too (a Chequers style common rule book).

The technical requirements for such a deal are therefore already dealt with but this does not mean it is going to be straightforward. What is lacking is the political will to enter into such an agreement, particularly on the EU side. From their perspective this once again looks like cherry picking, we get free trade access to the SM without any of the responsibilities or costs of membership. If we get that what are the chances some of the other members thinking that looks attractive too?

I think we are at the point that we need to give up on the big deal. We need to focus on the little deals that allow planes to fly, customs to be as efficient as possible, medicines to travel, existing rights of residence etc. We also need to start focusing on what we can do unilaterally to enhance our position and provide clarity.

As long as we commit to no divergence from current and future EU policy, what you say is true. Otherwise the fact we are fully aligned now doesn't make the slightest difference to the negotiation. But if we do commit to no divergence we might as well go for a Norway+ and get the better access and least disruption.

FF43

On Kavanaugh. I expect him to be nominated. Many conservatives will reckon nevertheless that they have got the wrong postholder. Democrats will link Kavanaugh to Trump on a misogyny narrative hoping to win over women who are largely disgusted by Trump.

Bromptonaut

HYUFD said:

The best option would probably be to park ourselves in the Norway option and effectively remain in the EEA after Brexit which would avoid problems of No Deal and the Irish border and still technically be Brexit while longer term trying to negotiate a CETA style FTA

FOM?

FF43

OldKingCole said:

williamglenn said:

The voice of the Tory grassroots:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/28/theresa-may-tory-grassroots-brexit-tension-boils-over

“She’s trying her best to get a deal but personally I’d rather have no deal than a bad deal … If this country had a chance and an opportunity it could look after itself. In the second world war we were feeding ourselves.”

I read that; clearly the guy who said that doesn't remember rationing. I don't as a buyer, but there's certainly a lot more food about theae days!

The newly appointed Minister for Food Shortages will be busy !

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 43, if we're going for the minimal divergence possible then we might as well remain members, as we'd lose what little influence we have and yet still have to subscribe to the same rules.

Leaving only makes sense if we actually decide to be free.

NickPalmer

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

O/T: Blue wave building, though the latest polls are mostly in Democra states:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Can't help feeling it's unfortunate that the Kavenaugh hearings are turning out to be almost entirely partisan on both sides. The judge doesn't seem very suitable for the job, but I'm not sure I'd bar him on grounds of unsupported testimony, convincing though it sounded.

another_richard

On the issue of sexual assault allegations did the Bex Bailey claims of rape and cover up ever actually get investigated ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41821671

Dura_Ace

NickPalmer said:

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

The strategy, such as it is, is merely to survive until the next round of Sunday politics shows on BBC/Sky. There is no higher consideration than that at play.

HYUFD

Bromptonaut said:

HYUFD said:

The best option would probably be to park ourselves in the Norway option and effectively remain in the EEA after Brexit which would avoid problems of No Deal and the Irish border and still technically be Brexit while longer term trying to negotiate a CETA style FTA

FOM?

Of course we could have controlled FOM from the new accession nations in 2004 for 7 years with transition controls within the EU but Blair refused to do so, only doing so for the 2007 accession countries which were less populous.

I also said CETA where we could control FOM would be the longer term aim

TOPPING

archer101au said:

The OP has a point in that the EU may not even be able to deliver CETA to Canada, let alone the UK. However, surely if this is the case it suggests that they are a shambles and that we would be much better off on the outside. Leavers always argued that trade policy would be far more efficient and flexible outside the EU and this seems to prove it.

In terms of timing, I do not agree. The CETA deal exists and most of the changes required for the UK are easy because they involve taking out carve outs for things. The EU can agree that CETA applies provisionally from the end of the transition period, just as they have with CETA now. If it doesn't get ratified later we have plenty of notice and this can be fudged by the EU as they are doing with Canada.

But ultimately, if the EU cannot deal, the correct decision is to go for no deal and negotiate later from a position of strength. Staying in the EU because they are so useless that they cannot negotiate a trade deal with their largest trading partner is crazy.

We are not their largest trading partner on a country-by-country basis. We are 7-10% of each individual EU member's exports. Big difference. "The EU", meanwhile, accounts for nearly half ours.

People seem to ignore this.

TOPPING

HYUFD said:

The best option would probably be to park ourselves in the Norway option and effectively remain in the EEA after Brexit which would avoid problems of No Deal and the Irish border and still technically be Brexit while longer term trying to negotiate a CETA style FTA

Indeed but that does mean we get more and more foreigners and do we not like that.

AlastairMeeks

NickPalmer said:

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

O/T: Blue wave building, though the latest polls are mostly in Democra states:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Can't help feeling it's unfortunate that the Kavenaugh hearings are turning out to be almost entirely partisan on both sides. The judge doesn't seem very suitable for the job, but I'm not sure I'd bar him on grounds of unsupported testimony, convincing though it sounded.

Supreme Court judges, like Caesar’s wife, should be above suspicion. There is a case to answer and while the candidate like everyone else is entitled to a presumption of innocence, he should either withdraw or the decision should be postponed until the matter has been properly investigated.

The travesty is Republicans pushing ahead on the basis of an electoral timetable.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, it's a shame he can't be appointed pending the result of a proper investigation (and trial, if it comes to that).

Allegations should be taken seriously, yet innocence has to be presumed until guilt is proved. Otherwise we enter a realm where an accusation is considered proof of guilt, and the justice system becomes Cardassian.

Edited extra bit: got a bad habit of writing 'guilty' rather than 'guilt'...

Nigelb

NickPalmer said:

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

O/T: Blue wave building, though the latest polls are mostly in Democra states:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Can't help feeling it's unfortunate that the Kavenaugh hearings are turning out to be almost entirely partisan on both sides. The judge doesn't seem very suitable for the job, but I'm not sure I'd bar him on grounds of unsupported testimony, convincing though it sounded.

How could they be otherwise ofter the Merrick Garland affair ?

As far as Kavanaugh is concerned, it isn't just about a single allegation, but also his long record of political partisanship, and the suggestion that he perjured himself during his original Federal Court confirmation hearing. That 40,000 pages of his records were released 15 hours before the current hearing (and another 100,000 redacted) doesn't help.

Alastair has it right that "the travesty is Republicans pushing ahead on the basis of an electoral timetable."

The prima facie credible sexual assault allegations are just the final straw - particularly as, if appointed, this will be the man with the deciding vote on (for example) the future abortion rights of women throughout the US.

williamglenn

The Greens now joint second in Germany.
https://twitter.com/wahlrecht_de/status/1045561476092768256?s=21

Pulpstar

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/thescotsman/status/1045567043343388672?s=21

I have no idea if Kezia or the Rev. Campbell is in the right on this one, but Scottish Labours decision to pull the rug from under her seems disgraceful on the surface. It would have been better if they had not supported her in the first place as she would have known to settle or w/e/

FF43

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 43, if we're going for the minimal divergence possible then we might as well remain members, as we'd lose what little influence we have and yet still have to subscribe to the same rules.

Leaving only makes sense if we actually decide to be free.

Indeed. We can keep most but not all of the current benefits of EU membership but lose our influence (Norway). We can go through years of uncertainty leading to an outcome that is guaranteed to be worse than what we have now, the only question is the degree (Canada). We can have no meaningful arrangement with the EU at a big cost to our lifestyles and opportunities (WTO).

Or we can have the most opportunities, prosperity and influence (EU membership). That's the only option we have formally rejected.

The Brexit conundrum.

Alistair

NickPalmer said:

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

O/T: Blue wave building, though the latest polls are mostly in Democra states:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Can't help feeling it's unfortunate that the Kavenaugh hearings are turning out to be almost entirely partisan on both sides. The judge doesn't seem very suitable for the job, but I'm not sure I'd bar him on grounds of unsupported testimony, convincing though it sounded.

Ignoring the sexual assault allegations there were 3 clear cut instances of perjury in his testimony that should get him removed from his current position never mind bar him getting a SCOTUS seat.

And then there's his "not backed up by any financial records" story about his large debts being wiped out and house payments.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 43, I'd disagree with your characterisation of EU membership. Ever decreasing control and membership of a project dreaming of statehood is not without significant costs.

However, we do agree that leaving the EU yet remaining aligned to its regulations would seem to be the worst of all worlds, incurring the costs of membership without either the influence of membership of the freedom of really leaving.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

F1: reminder that both the big and little Red Bull teams will likely be starting from the back (certain for Toro Rosso, probable for Red Bull).

Red Bull penalties confirmed.

FF43

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 43, I'd disagree with your characterisation of EU membership. Ever decreasing control and membership of a project dreaming of statehood is not without significant costs.

However, we do agree that leaving the EU yet remaining aligned to its regulations would seem to be the worst of all worlds, incurring the costs of membership without either the influence of membership of the freedom of really leaving.

I don't agree with that. I think leaving the EU yet remaining aligned to its regulations is the least bad Brexit outcome given the stupid situation we have put ourselves into. We are where we are.

Morris_Dancer

F1: Haas retain both drivers for next season.

Not many teams doing that. Mercedes are. And... I think that's it.

Edited extra bit: cheers for that info, Mr. Sandpit.

Mr. 43, fair enough. We can at least agree that neither of us want to do that, even if it's for different reasons.

TOPPING

FF43 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 43, if we're going for the minimal divergence possible then we might as well remain members, as we'd lose what little influence we have and yet still have to subscribe to the same rules.

Leaving only makes sense if we actually decide to be free.

Indeed. We can keep most but not all of the current benefits of EU membership but lose our influence (Norway). We can go through years of uncertainty leading to an outcome that is guaranteed to be worse than what we have now, the only question is the degree (Canada). We can have no meaningful arrangement with the EU at a big cost to our lifestyles and opportunities (WTO).

Or we can have the most opportunities, prosperity and influence (EU membership). That's the only option we have formally rejected.

The Brexit conundrum.

Tonga. You have completely and wilfully neglected to mention our forthcoming trade deals with Tonga once we leave.

FF43

Brexit might mean Brexit, but No Deal means deals, according to HMG no deal scenario planning. We actually cannot manage without a "transition period" and the associated Withdrawal Agreement. Once we are in transition I doubt the EU will have a huge urgency in coming to new arrangements.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/thescotsman/status/1045567043343388672?s=21

I have no idea if Kezia or the Rev. Campbell is in the right on this one, but Scottish Labours decision to pull the rug from under her seems disgraceful on the surface. It would have been better if they had not supported her in the first place as she would have known to settle or w/e/

A guy I know tangled with a very rich chap in the courts. He was convinced he would be getting a payout of c £2m. Instead he lost and now has to find £400k to cover the other guys costs.

HYUFD

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

The best option would probably be to park ourselves in the Norway option and effectively remain in the EEA after Brexit which would avoid problems of No Deal and the Irish border and still technically be Brexit while longer term trying to negotiate a CETA style FTA

Indeed but that does mean we get more and more foreigners and do we not like that.

Polling shows we like skilled foreigners and as I said CETA would remain the long term aim

Pulpstar

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/thescotsman/status/1045567043343388672?s=21

I have no idea if Kezia or the Rev. Campbell is in the right on this one, but Scottish Labours decision to pull the rug from under her seems disgraceful on the surface. It would have been better if they had not supported her in the first place as she would have known to settle or w/e/

A guy I know tangled with a very rich chap in the courts. He was convinced he would be getting a payout of c £2m. Instead he lost and now has to find £400k to cover the other guys costs.

Yes, obviously libel is an expensive game. You absolubtely need to know where you stand before either being the defendant or the accused though.
On the surface , SLAB's behaviousr is disgraceful. I've not looked into the substance of the matter.

AlastairMeeks

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, it's a shame he can't be appointed pending the result of a proper investigation (and trial, if it comes to that).

Allegations should be taken seriously, yet innocence has to be presumed until guilt is proved. Otherwise we enter a realm where an accusation is considered proof of guilt, and the justice system becomes Cardassian.

Edited extra bit: got a bad habit of writing 'guilty' rather than 'guilt'...

There’s no hurry, nor can the Republicans claim that there is. They ran down the clock on Barack Obama’s presidency for many months when there was a previous vacancy. The time can be taken to vet him properly.

The fact that the Republicans are so reluctant to do that against the current electoral backdrop tells you all you need to know about their view of the likely results of the looming elections and the calibre of the candidate.

Big_G_NorthWales

FF43 said:

On Kavanaugh. I expect him to be nominated. Many conservatives will reckon nevertheless that they have got the wrong postholder. Democrats will link Kavanaugh to Trump on a misogyny narrative hoping to win over women who are largely disgusted by Trump.

Not only women disgusted with Trump and Kavanaugh.

I do not follow US politics but watched yesterday's hearing and it was just so depressing. How has a once great nation descended into the gutter like this. The courage of the woman to put herself through that ordeal was immense and reduced Kavanaugh to a blubbering, simpering mess of a man.

The hatred between the republicans and democrats was electric but the disregard to the accusers feelings by some republicans was terrible.

I cannot believe Kavanaugh, even if he is telling the truth, is a fit person to hold high office

I just hope Trump gets trounched in the mid terms

I expect many women will be on the march over this

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, the political aspect isn't one-sided, though. Would Democrats be so keen to believe the allegations if the shoe were on the other foot?

I agree with your view that this indicates a potentially good night for the blues when the midterms happen.

Edited extra bit: to add to the first paragraph: "Would the Republicans be so keen to dismiss them, if roles were reversed?"

Big_G_NorthWales

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

The best option would probably be to park ourselves in the Norway option and effectively remain in the EEA after Brexit which would avoid problems of No Deal and the Irish border and still technically be Brexit while longer term trying to negotiate a CETA style FTA

Indeed but that does mean we get more and more foreigners and do we not like that.

I have no problem with immigration. We need thousands to come and as long as we can control our immigration policy I see no problem

Nigelb

Pulpstar said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/thescotsman/status/1045567043343388672?s=21

I have no idea if Kezia or the Rev. Campbell is in the right on this one, but Scottish Labours decision to pull the rug from under her seems disgraceful on the surface. It would have been better if they had not supported her in the first place as she would have known to settle or w/e/

A guy I know tangled with a very rich chap in the courts. He was convinced he would be getting a payout of c £2m. Instead he lost and now has to find £400k to cover the other guys costs.

Yes, obviously libel is an expensive game. You absolubtely need to know where you stand before either being the defendant or the accused though.
On the surface , SLAB's behaviousr is disgraceful. I've not looked into the substance of the matter.

I haven't either.
However, (without opining one way or another on the merits of this particular case) it does seem extraordinary that a politician should be unable to call out what they see as homophobic discourse without risking the entirety of their assets.
If that is truly the case here, then you are effectively saying that only the wealthy have freedom of speech.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, the political aspect isn't one-sided, though. Would Democrats be so keen to believe the allegations if the shoe were on the other foot?

I agree with your view that this indicates a potentially good night for the blues when the midterms happen.

Edited extra bit: to add to the first paragraph: "Would the Republicans be so keen to dismiss them, if roles were reversed?"

Like almost everything at the moment in American politics, the merits of the candidate and the truth of the accusations against him don’t matter, all that matters are the Rs and Ds.

He’ll probably be confirmed, and his name will be used for decades by both sides as an illustration of Trump’s legacy.

Pulpstar

Nigelb said:

Pulpstar said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/thescotsman/status/1045567043343388672?s=21

I have no idea if Kezia or the Rev. Campbell is in the right on this one, but Scottish Labours decision to pull the rug from under her seems disgraceful on the surface. It would have been better if they had not supported her in the first place as she would have known to settle or w/e/

A guy I know tangled with a very rich chap in the courts. He was convinced he would be getting a payout of c £2m. Instead he lost and now has to find £400k to cover the other guys costs.

Yes, obviously libel is an expensive game. You absolubtely need to know where you stand before either being the defendant or the accused though.
On the surface , SLAB's behaviousr is disgraceful. I've not looked into the substance of the matter.

I haven't either.
However, (without opining one way or another on the merits of this particular case) it does seem extraordinary that a politician should be unable to call out what they see as homophobic discourse without risking the entirety of their assets.
If that is truly the case here, then you are effectively saying that only the wealthy have freedom of speech.

I haven't looked into the allegations (And personally am not a massive fan of London's libel laws (Particularly the expense for those not of welathy means)) but sometimes the accuser is very right (Jack Monroe vs Katie Hopkins), and sometimes the defendant is right (Irving vs Lipstadt).
My point is if SLAB said they'd support Kezia through this process then it is abhorrent to pull the rug from under her halfway through.

TheKrakenAwakes

All these talks of deals and option surely misses the point that the individual countries of the EU individually have to ratify the final deal. I have to ask myself why would an EU member state that is in the Single Market and the Customs Union want to allow a nation outside of the EU, access to that market when by doing so may impact on their own economies. After all if the UK stops selling dairy products to the rest of the EU does that not mean that there is greater opportunities for French or Polish dairy producers to increase their own sales to other EU states?

Roger

Alistair said:

NickPalmer said:

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

O/T: Blue wave building, though the latest polls are mostly in Democra states:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Can't help feeling it's unfortunate that the Kavenaugh hearings are turning out to be almost entirely partisan on both sides. The judge doesn't seem very suitable for the job, but I'm not sure I'd bar him on grounds of unsupported testimony, convincing though it sounded.

Ignoring the sexual assault allegations there were 3 clear cut instances of perjury in his testimony that should get him removed from his current position never mind bar him getting a SCOTUS seat.

And then there's his "not backed up by any financial records" story about his large debts being wiped out and house payments.

What were the three instances of perjury? To European sensibilities he has a particularly belligerent and unattractive personality but that doesn't seem to be the way he's viewed over there if the vox pops are representative.

edmundintokyo

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, the political aspect isn't one-sided, though. Would Democrats be so keen to believe the allegations if the shoe were on the other foot?

This guy? I think so. Maybe not quite as keen, but they'd have ditched him, as they did with Al Franken.

Stereotomy

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, the political aspect isn't one-sided, though. Would Democrats be so keen to believe the allegations if the shoe were on the other foot?

I agree with your view that this indicates a potentially good night for the blues when the midterms happen.

Edited extra bit: to add to the first paragraph: "Would the Republicans be so keen to dismiss them, if roles were reversed?"

The Dems dumped Al Franken while the GOP stuck with Roy Moore

Nigelb

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, the political aspect isn't one-sided, though. Would Democrats be so keen to believe the allegations if the shoe were on the other foot?

I agree with your view that this indicates a potentially good night for the blues when the midterms happen.

Edited extra bit: to add to the first paragraph: "Would the Republicans be so keen to dismiss them, if roles were reversed?"

I don't think there is the slightest chance that the Democrats would push on with the appointment of a nominee in such a position.
One only need to look at what happened recently to Al Franken - who is a mere politician, rather than candidate for a lifetime appointment.

rottenborough

Fraser Nelson: Cabinet in a "vegetative state".

Labour running with all the ideas.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/27/theresa-may-needs-sack-philip-hammond-install-new-cabinet-radicals/

Morris_Dancer

Must admit, I'm not sure I ever heard about Al Franken, although given the similarity of responses it does suggest my question should not have been rhetorical.

david_herdson

Good article from Alastair. Two points I'd pick up on.

He is absolutely right to focus on N Ireland as the most difficult and intractable problem. CETA doesn't provide a solution, unless married to the mythical technological solutions of Chequers. As such, I don't think CETA is a blind alley so much as a distraction. In principle, it's no more of a blind alley than Chequers; it's just that while addressing some secondary problems and opening up others, it doesn't deal with the primary one.

On the other hand, I think Alastair over-rates the difficulty of getting a CETA deal agreed. There are two big advantages to a tweaked CETA over a bespoke UK deal. Firstly, it's already there. It might have taken seven years to negotiate the deal but that's been done now: it's a model that can be picked off the shelf. And secondly, Britain is starting from a point of regulatory alignment. There's also the fact that an A50 deal is done under QMV rather than unanimity and requires no ratification outside the UK and EU parliaments (though that assumes that the trade deal *can* be done as part of an extended A50 process rather than a separate stage).

But the elephant in the room is Ireland and looking to Canada ignores it.

kjh

FF43 said:

OldKingCole said:

williamglenn said:

The voice of the Tory grassroots:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/28/theresa-may-tory-grassroots-brexit-tension-boils-over

“She’s trying her best to get a deal but personally I’d rather have no deal than a bad deal … If this country had a chance and an opportunity it could look after itself. In the second world war we were feeding ourselves.”

I read that; clearly the guy who said that doesn't remember rationing. I don't as a buyer, but there's certainly a lot more food about theae days!

The newly appointed Minister for Food Shortages will be busy !

He also doesn't remember or has heard of convoys. Very depressing.

Big_G_NorthWales

Perfect antidote for Brexit and politics for the next three days

The Ryder Cup from Paris on Sky sports

Current score 3 - 1 to Europe with all matches in progress

Charles

NickPalmer said:

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

O/T: Blue wave building, though the latest polls are mostly in Democra states:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Can't help feeling it's unfortunate that the Kavenaugh hearings are turning out to be almost entirely partisan on both sides. The judge doesn't seem very suitable for the job, but I'm not sure I'd bar him on grounds of unsupported testimony, convincing though it sounded.

I watched the testimony live last night.

Lindsey Graham had it spot on.

Whatever you think of the merits of the Judge, the Democrats have behaved appallingly. They had the allegations in July and sat on them until it was too late for the FBI to include them in the investigation

But I suspect the outcome is that Democrats will believe the Democrats and Republicans believe the Republicans. Voters will become even more entrenched and divided

Roger

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/thescotsman/status/1045567043343388672?s=21

I have no idea if Kezia or the Rev. Campbell is in the right on this one, but Scottish Labours decision to pull the rug from under her seems disgraceful on the surface. It would have been better if they had not supported her in the first place as she would have known to settle or w/e/

It does seem like she's been hung out to dry though she looks to have been badly advised. It's a tricky one for Labour. Paying damages to Wings Over Scotland was probaly more than they could bear

Roger

.

TGOHF

Mr Meek's article once again highlights the bureaucratic mess that is the EU - slow, ponderous , unable to make decisions in a hurry.

We are better off out.

notme

TheKrakenAwakes said:

All these talks of deals and option surely misses the point that the individual countries of the EU individually have to ratify the final deal. I have to ask myself why would an EU member state that is in the Single Market and the Customs Union want to allow a nation outside of the EU, access to that market when by doing so may impact on their own economies. After all if the UK stops selling dairy products to the rest of the EU does that not mean that there is greater opportunities for French or Polish dairy producers to increase their own sales to other EU states?

Is there a nation in the EU that is a net importer of UK goods?

Big_G_NorthWales

rottenborough said:

Fraser Nelson: Cabinet in a "vegetative state".

Labour running with all the ideas.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/27/theresa-may-needs-sack-philip-hammond-install-new-cabinet-radicals/

The Telegraph (Boris own mouthpiece) has a go at Hammond. Nothing new

TGOHF

re Irish border. It's a far far bigger issue for the EU than the Uk.

Our default position should be is to leave it as it is. If their protectionist cartel wants to build a border then it will end in their tears.

Stereotomy

Morris_Dancer said:

Must admit, I'm not sure I ever heard about Al Franken, although given the similarity of responses it does suggest my question should not have been rhetorical.

The other thing is that it's actually not in the GOP's interest to keep him. They easily have time to get somebody equally or more conservative through the process. What's happening now seems to be about emotion and, possibly, Trump saving face. The Dems would be more hard-nosed

Charles

AlastairMeeks said:

NickPalmer said:

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

O/T: Blue wave building, though the latest polls are mostly in Democra states:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Can't help feeling it's unfortunate that the Kavenaugh hearings are turning out to be almost entirely partisan on both sides. The judge doesn't seem very suitable for the job, but I'm not sure I'd bar him on grounds of unsupported testimony, convincing though it sounded.

Supreme Court judges, like Caesar’s wife, should be above suspicion. There is a case to answer and while the candidate like everyone else is entitled to a presumption of innocence, he should either withdraw or the decision should be postponed until the matter has been properly investigated.

The travesty is Republicans pushing ahead on the basis of an electoral timetable.

The problem is that if it is delayed he will not be appointed

So he will be punished regardless of his guilt or innocence

I find it powerful that the 3 people Dr Ford alleged were in the room that might have all made statements under penalty of perjury that they don’t remember anything like that. Including one of Dr Ford’s closest friends

I suspect that Dr Ford has been abused or attacked at some point in her life. That is a tradegy and she should get all the help and support that she needs. There is no evidence beyond her claim that it was Kavanaugh who was the perpetrator

Alistair

Roger said:

Alistair said:

NickPalmer said:

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

O/T: Blue wave building, though the latest polls are mostly in Democra states:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Can't help feeling it's unfortunate that the Kavenaugh hearings are turning out to be almost entirely partisan on both sides. The judge doesn't seem very suitable for the job, but I'm not sure I'd bar him on grounds of unsupported testimony, convincing though it sounded.

Ignoring the sexual assault allegations there were 3 clear cut instances of perjury in his testimony that should get him removed from his current position never mind bar him getting a SCOTUS seat.

And then there's his "not backed up by any financial records" story about his large debts being wiped out and house payments.

What were the three instances of perjury? To European sensibilities he has a particularly belligerent and unattractive personality but that doesn't seem to be the way he's viewed over there if the vox pops are representative.

He claimed he wasn't involved with the William Prior vetting process. His emails show him discussing it.

He claimed he never handled stolen Democratic emails, his email records showed that he received them.

He claimed no knowledge of the warentless wiretap policy of the Bush administration he worked for which is also plainly untrue. I belive his get out for this one is that he though the question was about a very specific sub policy rather than the policy ib general.

Alistair

Roger said:

Alistair said:

NickPalmer said:

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

O/T: Blue wave building, though the latest polls are mostly in Democra states:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Can't help feeling it's unfortunate that the Kavenaugh hearings are turning out to be almost entirely partisan on both sides. The judge doesn't seem very suitable for the job, but I'm not sure I'd bar him on grounds of unsupported testimony, convincing though it sounded.

Ignoring the sexual assault allegations there were 3 clear cut instances of perjury in his testimony that should get him removed from his current position never mind bar him getting a SCOTUS seat.

And then there's his "not backed up by any financial records" story about his large debts being wiped out and house payments.

What were the three instances of perjury? To European sensibilities he has a particularly belligerent and unattractive personality but that doesn't seem to be the way he's viewed over there if the vox pops are representative.

He is the most unpopular SCOTUS pick of all time according to the polling.

Nigelb

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

NickPalmer said:

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

O/T: Blue wave building, though the latest polls are mostly in Democra states:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Can't help feeling it's unfortunate that the Kavenaugh hearings are turning out to be almost entirely partisan on both sides. The judge doesn't seem very suitable for the job, but I'm not sure I'd bar him on grounds of unsupported testimony, convincing though it sounded.

Supreme Court judges, like Caesar’s wife, should be above suspicion. There is a case to answer and while the candidate like everyone else is entitled to a presumption of innocence, he should either withdraw or the decision should be postponed until the matter has been properly investigated.

The travesty is Republicans pushing ahead on the basis of an electoral timetable.

The problem is that if it is delayed he will not be appointed

So he will be punished regardless of his guilt or innocence

I find it powerful that the 3 people Dr Ford alleged were in the room that might have all made statements under penalty of perjury that they don’t remember anything like that. Including one of Dr Ford’s closest friends

I suspect that Dr Ford has been abused or attacked at some point in her life. That is a tradegy and she should get all the help and support that she needs. There is no evidence beyond her claim that it was Kavanaugh who was the perpetrator

Mark Judge did not make any statement under penalty of perjury. He could, and should have been subpoenaed.

And, true to form, Kavanaugh mischaracterised the evidence of another witness:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-leland-keyser-statement.html

williamglenn

david_herdson said:

Good article from Alastair. Two points I'd pick up on.

He is absolutely right to focus on N Ireland as the most difficult and intractable problem. CETA doesn't provide a solution, unless married to the mythical technological solutions of Chequers. As such, I don't think CETA is a blind alley so much as a distraction. In principle, it's no more of a blind alley than Chequers; it's just that while addressing some secondary problems and opening up others, it doesn't deal with the primary one.

On the other hand, I think Alastair over-rates the difficulty of getting a CETA deal agreed. There are two big advantages to a tweaked CETA over a bespoke UK deal. Firstly, it's already there. It might have taken seven years to negotiate the deal but that's been done now: it's a model that can be picked off the shelf. And secondly, Britain is starting from a point of regulatory alignment. There's also the fact that an A50 deal is done under QMV rather than unanimity and requires no ratification outside the UK and EU parliaments (though that assumes that the trade deal *can* be done as part of an extended A50 process rather than a separate stage).

But the elephant in the room is Ireland and looking to Canada ignores it.

The A50 ratification process just relates to the withdrawal agreement so it wouldn’t allow a trade deal that would otherwise require full member state ratification to go through by the back door.

TheWhiteRabbit

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

Can't help feeling that May is continuing to take things one day or week at a time, and this week is simply focused on getting through the Tory conference unscathed, she'll have another think about negotiating strategy again after that. If there's a long-term strategy I don't see it.

O/T: Blue wave building, though the latest polls are mostly in Democra states:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Can't help feeling it's unfortunate that the Kavenaugh hearings are turning out to be almost entirely partisan on both sides. The judge doesn't seem very suitable for the job, but I'm not sure I'd bar him on grounds of unsupported testimony, convincing though it sounded.

I watched the testimony live last night.

Lindsey Graham had it spot on.

Whatever you think of the merits of the Judge, the Democrats have behaved appallingly. They had the allegations in July and sat on them until it was too late for the FBI to include them in the investigation

But I suspect the outcome is that Democrats will believe the Democrats and Republicans believe the Republicans. Voters will become even more entrenched and divided

It was all a sorry sorry mess. Half a trial without any proper investigation, witnesses missing (on both sides) etc. etc. I hold out no hope that Kavanaugh's nomination will ever rise out of the mire.

But there were signs that the broadcast was prompting a lot of conversations in households across the US. In the long run, the country will be better off for it.