I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
See people have finally decided Brexit is a bit bloody complex...and moved on to quantum physics...
Brexit fails to deal with reality. Quantum Physics is reality.
It makes a refreshing change...
Actually quantum physics suggests that there is no such thing as objective reality. Reality is determined by the interaction with the observer. So it is just like Brexit!
Len McCluskey has claimed there could be ‘dark forces at play’ working to undermine Jeremy Corbyn.
The general secretary of the Unite union said he would not be surprised if the ‘deep state’ was plotting to stop the Labour leader from ever becoming prime minister.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
Do you want to offer me some odds that my scenario plays out? May calls a GE and leads the Tory party into that GE, seeking endorsement of the deal she has negotiated with the EU.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
May calls a GE and leads the Tory party into that GE, seeking endorsement of the deal she has negotiated with the EU.
You presume Corbyn will help Mrs May with the FTPA? "Calling a GE" is no longer immediately within the gift of the PM.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
May calls a GE and leads the Tory party into that GE, seeking endorsement of the deal she has negotiated with the EU.
You presume Corbyn will help Mrs May with the FTPA? "Calling a GE" is no longer immediately within the gift of the PM.
Yes.
Corbyn would look foolish if he opposed a General Election when he's been calling for one ever since the last one - and claims that his party could deliver a better Brexit if only they were in government.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
Do you want to offer me some odds that my scenario plays out? May calls a GE and leads the Tory party into that GE, seeking endorsement of the deal she has negotiated with the EU.
Sure, but I have no idea what odds are appropriate. PM me if you want to discuss. How about odds that she will lose her 'majority' as well?
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
May calls a GE and leads the Tory party into that GE, seeking endorsement of the deal she has negotiated with the EU.
You presume Corbyn will help Mrs May with the FTPA? "Calling a GE" is no longer immediately within the gift of the PM.
Yes.
Corbyn would look foolish if he opposed a General Election when he's been calling for one ever since the last one - and claims that his party could deliver a better Brexit if only they were in government.
I can't really see Corbyn not going for an election if it is offered. More than that he would jump at the chance.
More fun to discuss it here! It is after all a political betting site.
I described my scenario playing out as, "very possible".
Your response was, "I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader" - which I equate to a "very unlikely" assessment on your part.
How about 6/1 I'm right that the below happens:
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. So May will bring her deal to the country and lead her party in a General Election, called for this purpose.
Or the above plus,
3. May forms a government after the General Election that delivers her negotiated Brexit.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a pro-EU Labour MP (which is most of them) for a second.
If you think that Mrs May - or her successor - will not go to the country if her deal is rejected, then why vote it down?
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a pro-EU Labour MP (which is most of them) for a second.
If you think that Mrs May - or her successor - will not go to the country if her deal is rejected, then why vote it down?
A lots depends on if a deal vote is a defacto confidence motion. I don't think it is.
Could May survive a rejected deal? Probably not, but it wouldn't bring the government down. The Tories would survive under another leader.
There'd be enormous pressure on them to go to the country, but no legal obligation or way to force them to for the next 3.5 years. ("not the right time", "need to pull together and deliver")
It's a gamble for a pro-EU labour MP, if they have confidence the Tories will collapse then maybe you reject. Big if though....
I think May could survive a narrowly rejected deal. I think most Tory MPs would wish to avoid the Brexit outcome uncertainty of a change of leadership. Plus if parliament can't ratify a negotiated deal then I think it's either No Deal or go back to the electorate in some form.
A 2nd referendum is felt to be democratically toxic - so logically, it seems to me it becomes,
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
May calls a GE and leads the Tory party into that GE, seeking endorsement of the deal she has negotiated with the EU.
You presume Corbyn will help Mrs May with the FTPA? "Calling a GE" is no longer immediately within the gift of the PM.
Corbyn would look foolish if he opposed a General Election when he's been calling for one ever since the last one - and claims that his party could deliver a better Brexit if only they were in government.
Corbyn might easily argue that the country does not have the luxury of time for a GE Campaign at this time with Brexit imminent and the Tories having made a complete mess of it and if Mrs May will not govern she should step aside and let him lead a Labour minority government - if the Tories vote it down that will just show they are not fit to govern.
More fun to discuss it here! It is after all a political betting site.
I described my scenario playing out as, "very possible".
Your response was, "I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader" - which I equate to a "very unlikely" assessment on your part.
How about 6/1 I'm right that the below happens:
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. So May will bring her deal to the country and lead her party in a General Election, called for this purpose.
Or the above plus,
3. May forms a government after the General Election that delivers her negotiated Brexit.
at 12/1.
Happy with small or larger stakes. £5-£100 range?
P.S. Any other scenarios, you win.
Sure, have £20 at 6/1 on the first scenario. I am sure lots of people in the UK would happily pay £120 if they didn't have to sit through another Theresa May election campaign.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a pro-EU Labour MP (which is most of them) for a second.
If you think that Mrs May - or her successor - will not go to the country if her deal is rejected, then why vote it down?
They will not know what May will do, but in any event they are not going to want to take any responsibility for a bad deal. They will be whipped to vote against - I said this months ago and everyone disagreed, but they have now confirmed it. That is why the Labour 'tests' are obviously impossible to achieve.
Sure, some hardcore Lab remainers will vote against but May has a lot of ERG votes to overcome.
They will not know what May will do, but in any event they are not going to want to take any responsibility for a bad deal. They will be whipped to vote against - I said this months ago and everyone disagreed, but they have now confirmed it. That is why the Labour 'tests' are obviously impossible to achieve.
Sure, some hardcore Lab remainers will vote against but May has a lot of ERG votes to overcome.
Agree with this on Lab. I'd expect the vast majority to vote against, assuming that's what Corbyn tells them to do.
If I was TMay I'd be looking to cut a deal with the SNP. They're also in government, so they're much more exposed to damage if somebody sets the economy on fire, and regional parties are much easier to buy off than oppositions, since their relationship with the government is less zero-sum.
More fun to discuss it here! It is after all a political betting site.
I described my scenario playing out as, "very possible".
Your response was, "I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader" - which I equate to a "very unlikely" assessment on your part.
How about 6/1 I'm right that the below happens:
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. So May will bring her deal to the country and lead her party in a General Election, called for this purpose.
Or the above plus,
3. May forms a government after the General Election that delivers her negotiated Brexit.
at 12/1.
Happy with small or larger stakes. £5-£100 range?
P.S. Any other scenarios, you win.
Not offering you odds but a fun variation on this is that TMay calls the election, narrowly wins amd *still* can't get her deal through parliament...
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said on Thursday that he did not believe Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed, citing his "performance in the hearings" before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
The Tories would be foolish to call a GE over this matter - it would be tantamount to offering Corbyn the keys to 10 Downing Street - there is no guarantee that the deep state could prevent this happening.
If her deal is rejected, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain - and hope secretly that the expected win for remain occurs, so that normal service can be resumed and implementation of article 50 cancelled.
On topic, has Kavanaugh got no moral perspective? A supreme court judge should be a person beyond reproach, and it is quite clear from reports involving different people that he behaved like a drunken lout as a teenager, even if he has been on the straight and narrow for the last 30 years. He is tainted and any honorable person would withdraw their nomination in these circumstances.
Bloomberg has an excellent article on the Chinese hardware hack: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies In one case, the malicious chips were thin enough that they’d been embedded between the layers of fiberglass onto which the other components were attached, according to one person who saw pictures of the chips. That generation of chips was smaller than a sharpened pencil tip, the person says. (Amazon denies that AWS knew of servers found in China containing malicious chips.)...
The refusal of either Apple or Amazon even to acknowledge the hack is interesting.
And detecting other attacks isn’t going to be easy: In the three years since the briefing in McLean, no commercially viable way to detect attacks like the one on Supermicro’s motherboards has emerged—or has looked likely to emerge. Few companies have the resources of Apple and Amazon, and it took some luck even for them to spot the problem. “This stuff is at the cutting edge of the cutting edge, and there is no easy technological solution,” one of the people present in McLean says. “You have to invest in things that the world wants. You cannot invest in things that the world is not ready to accept yet.”
They will not know what May will do, but in any event they are not going to want to take any responsibility for a bad deal. They will be whipped to vote against - I said this months ago and everyone disagreed, but they have now confirmed it. That is why the Labour 'tests' are obviously impossible to achieve.
Sure, some hardcore Lab remainers will vote against but May has a lot of ERG votes to overcome.
Agree with this on Lab. I'd expect the vast majority to vote against, assuming that's what Corbyn tells them to do.
If I was TMay I'd be looking to cut a deal with the SNP. They're also in government, so they're much more exposed to damage if somebody sets the economy on fire, and regional parties are much easier to buy off than oppositions, since their relationship with the government is less zero-sum.
The only deal that the SNP would accept surely involves Scotland staying in the SM/CU along with NI - which is also impossible because it just creates another border issue.
They will not know what May will do, but in any event they are not going to want to take any responsibility for a bad deal. They will be whipped to vote against - I said this months ago and everyone disagreed, but they have now confirmed it. That is why the Labour 'tests' are obviously impossible to achieve.
Sure, some hardcore Lab remainers will vote against but May has a lot of ERG votes to overcome.
Agree with this on Lab. I'd expect the vast majority to vote against, assuming that's what Corbyn tells them to do.
If I was TMay I'd be looking to cut a deal with the SNP. They're also in government, so they're much more exposed to damage if somebody sets the economy on fire, and regional parties are much easier to buy off than oppositions, since their relationship with the government is less zero-sum.
The only deal that the SNP would accept surely involves Scotland staying in the SM/CU along with NI - which is also impossible because it just creates another border issue.
A border along the Cheviots, with the 6 counties and Scotland remaining in the EU, or at least the SM/CU, would most closely represent the people's will as expressed on 23/6/16 and would have my support.
They will not know what May will do, but in any event they are not going to want to take any responsibility for a bad deal. They will be whipped to vote against - I said this months ago and everyone disagreed, but they have now confirmed it. That is why the Labour 'tests' are obviously impossible to achieve.
Sure, some hardcore Lab remainers will vote against but May has a lot of ERG votes to overcome.
Agree with this on Lab. I'd expect the vast majority to vote against, assuming that's what Corbyn tells them to do.
If I was TMay I'd be looking to cut a deal with the SNP. They're also in government, so they're much more exposed to damage if somebody sets the economy on fire, and regional parties are much easier to buy off than oppositions, since their relationship with the government is less zero-sum.
The only deal that the SNP would accept surely involves Scotland staying in the SM/CU along with NI - which is also impossible because it just creates another border issue.
It works if the deal already has the rest of the UK more-or-less staying in the SM/CU, which is the obvious way to solve the NI issue.
Also I'd imagine they'd go for it if they got a re-referendum, assuming such a thing looked winnable.
Looking at the maths, who is going to vote for a TMay deal ?
250 Tory mps at most. Lib Dems will probably back it.
There the ERG Götterdämmerung squad or perhaps 45 - 50 MPs who will vote against anything short of the Treaty of Troyes.
Where do the other 75 votes comes from ?
30 or 40 labour MPs maybe ? Corbyn will surely prefer to collapse the government. Burn the house down and take over in the ashes.
It may all come down to the 35 SNP members, would they really vote for a "tory brexit" ? The best chance of another Indy Ref is no deal, they just need to have clean hands.
Tricky.
I don’t think the Lib Dems will back it. Voting through Conservative policies opposed by 90% of their supporters is what put them in life support back in 2010. Doing it a second time would kill off the party.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
Looking at the maths, who is going to vote for a TMay deal ?
250 Tory mps at most. Lib Dems will probably back it.
There the ERG Götterdämmerung squad or perhaps 45 - 50 MPs who will vote against anything short of the Treaty of Troyes.
Where do the other 75 votes comes from ?
30 or 40 labour MPs maybe ? Corbyn will surely prefer to collapse the government. Burn the house down and take over in the ashes.
It may all come down to the 35 SNP members, would they really vote for a "tory brexit" ? The best chance of another Indy Ref is no deal, they just need to have clean hands.
Tricky.
I don’t think the Lib Dems will back it. Voting through Conservative policies opposed by 90% of their supporters is what put them in life support back in 2010. Doing it a second time would kill off the party.
They might abstain, but don’t bet on that.
TMay would have to offer them a re-referendum, that's the only way they could vote for it.
The question is then how many extra votes doing that loses her on the Con side.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
Agree. It’s not that he was quite obnoxious in his student days, but that he didn’t admit it, apologise and point out that more recently; perhaps since marrying and becoming a father he’s been a model citizen. Which would have endeared him to many people.
Looking at the maths, who is going to vote for a TMay deal ?
250 Tory mps at most. Lib Dems will probably back it.
There the ERG Götterdämmerung squad or perhaps 45 - 50 MPs who will vote against anything short of the Treaty of Troyes.
Where do the other 75 votes comes from ?
30 or 40 labour MPs maybe ? Corbyn will surely prefer to collapse the government. Burn the house down and take over in the ashes.
It may all come down to the 35 SNP members, would they really vote for a "tory brexit" ? The best chance of another Indy Ref is no deal, they just need to have clean hands.
Tricky.
I don’t think the Lib Dems will back it. Voting through Conservative policies opposed by 90% of their supporters is what put them in life support back in 2010. Doing it a second time would kill off the party.
They might abstain, but don’t bet on that.
Quite. Also the DUP weren't mentioned and they are pivotal as to whether there even is a TMay government. There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
They will not know what May will do, but in any event they are not going to want to take any responsibility for a bad deal. They will be whipped to vote against - I said this months ago and everyone disagreed, but they have now confirmed it. That is why the Labour 'tests' are obviously impossible to achieve.
Sure, some hardcore Lab remainers will vote against but May has a lot of ERG votes to overcome.
Agree with this on Lab. I'd expect the vast majority to vote against, assuming that's what Corbyn tells them to do.
If I was TMay I'd be looking to cut a deal with the SNP. They're also in government, so they're much more exposed to damage if somebody sets the economy on fire, and regional parties are much easier to buy off than oppositions, since their relationship with the government is less zero-sum.
The only deal that the SNP would accept surely involves Scotland staying in the SM/CU along with NI - which is also impossible because it just creates another border issue.
A border along the Cheviots, with the 6 counties and Scotland remaining in the EU, or at least the SM/CU, would most closely represent the people's will as expressed on 23/6/16 and would have my support.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
Is anyone genuinely surprised that Kavanaugh is partisan? That's the reason he was chosen.
Perhaps we can stop pretending the Supreme Court at the present time is anything more than another political body.
If people want it to become depoliticised, then congress needs to be empowered to make difficult political judgments. Abolishing the filibuster would be a good start.
Strange conversation with a very well informed, well connected, and super intelligent lady friend today. She predicted the Brexit win and the Trump win. She's centre right and was a reluctant Remainer.
She told me that 1. her strongly Remainer, successful businessman husband has switched to Leave, because of the behaviour of the EU
2. Yet she also put the chances of a 2nd referendum at 70/30, or 80/20, because no deal (including no deal) can be pushed through parliament, so the politicians will be forced to ask the people again
3. She predicted that if and when that happened, there was a very good chance Leave would win again, by a bigger margin
Clearly she is speculating wildly, but she is highly astute and also knows a lot of clever and senior political people. So there ya go.
Have you stopped being all gaylord ponceyboots yet?
There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
Unfortunately there's no majority for that either...
I think there's a majority for a Brexit which keeps us in the customs union and either in the SM or very close to it. It would pass with a lot of Labour votes and might prove the end of TM.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
Surely their real mistake is not focussing on his behaviour in front of the committee? I think even most Republicans would privately consider his behaviour there to have made his nomination unthinkable.
In a sense, to be rather cold-blooded, this does highlight a key problem with the Democrats at the moment. They are obsessed with issues that they find incredibly important but that have little meaningful impact on the day to day lives of the majority of ordinary people - gay marriage and transgender rights spring to mind - rather than the economy or living standards.
By concentrating on Dr Ford, they are missing the fundamental point that Kavanaugh's appointment compromises the integrity of the Supreme Court not because he is probably a sleazebag but because he is undoubtedly unfit to be a judge.
Yet again: a referendum does not absolutely need Parliament’s sanction. Australia just had a non-statutory referendum on gay marriage.
The bigger question is whether the government could ever be persuaded to want one. Time is not really the question.
And, yet again, you are wrong.
There is no basis for a non-statutory referendum (when the previous one was very much statutory, and even then the result argued to be “advisory”) having anything like the legitimacy it would need for its result to carry weight. There’d be all sorts of accusations of conspiracy, ballot rigging, unfairness, cheating and very probably boycotting too.
Any referendum held on anything less than the equivalent basis of last time would be courting disaster. Such a referendum could only work to rubber stamp a decision (and not make it) where there was already an overwhelming majority in favour of the desired outcome.
On your last point, that is more true. The Government would have to want it. There is next to zero chance of that ever happening whilst Theresa May is Prime Minister and whilst the Tories/DUP hold a majority of seats in the Commons.
I think May could survive a narrowly rejected deal. I think most Tory MPs would wish to avoid the Brexit outcome uncertainty of a change of leadership. Plus if parliament can't ratify a negotiated deal then I think it's either No Deal or go back to the electorate in some form.
A 2nd referendum is felt to be democratically toxic - so logically, it seems to me it becomes,
No Ratified Deal = No Deal or a General Election.
Or as Edmund points out "that TMay calls the election, narrowly wins amd *still* can't get her deal through parliament..." There's only one real definitive way out, isn't there?
More fun to discuss it here! It is after all a political betting site.
I described my scenario playing out as, "very possible".
Your response was, "I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader" - which I equate to a "very unlikely" assessment on your part.
How about 6/1 I'm right that the below happens:
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. So May will bring her deal to the country and lead her party in a General Election, called for this purpose.
Or the above plus,
3. May forms a government after the General Election that delivers her negotiated Brexit.
at 12/1.
Happy with small or larger stakes. £5-£100 range?
P.S. Any other scenarios, you win.
Not offering you odds but a fun variation on this is that TMay calls the election, narrowly wins amd *still* can't get her deal through parliament...
It’s possible that May could get a better result than last time just by dancing whilst smiling on the election stump and otherwise keeping her mouth shut.
There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
Unfortunately there's no majority for that either...
I think there's a majority for a Brexit which keeps us in the customs union and either in the SM or very close to it. It would pass with a lot of Labour votes and might prove the end of TM.
Given Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back your scenario would be the end of him and the Labour movement as well.
Yet again: a referendum does not absolutely need Parliament’s sanction. Australia just had a non-statutory referendum on gay marriage.
The bigger question is whether the government could ever be persuaded to want one. Time is not really the question.
And, yet again, you are wrong.
There is no basis for a non-statutory referendum (when the previous one was very much statutory, and even then the result argued to be “advisory”) having anything like the legitimacy it would need for its result to carry weight. There’d be all sorts of accusations of conspiracy, ballot rigging, unfairness, cheating and very probably boycotting too.
Any referendum held on anything less than the equivalent basis of last time would be courting disaster. Such a referendum could only work to rubber stamp a decision (and not make it) where there was already an overwhelming majority in favour of the desired outcome.
On your last point, that is more true. The Government would have to want it. There is next to zero chance of that ever happening whilst Theresa May is Prime Minister and whilst the Tories/DUP hold a majority of seats in the Commons.
There is no basis for a non-statutory referendum (when the previous one was very much statutory, and even then the result argued to be “advisory”) having anything like the legitimacy it would need for its result to carry weight. There’d be all sorts of accusations of conspiracy, ballot rigging, unfairness, cheating and very probably boycotting too.
Leaving aside the constitutional point, I simply cannot see how any referendum not organised by the government would have either the financial resources to run at all or the nationwide coverage needed to be legitimate. For a start, who would run it in Northern Ireland?
The increasingly hysterical desire for a second referendum is I think based on past experience that when the EU loses a referendum it always demands a second one to reverse the first. The crucial difference this time is that it isn't about tinkering with the EU, it was about leaving.
Profound though the shock is to the EU - although not so profound that anyone has resigned, I notice - it will make little difference to its structure in the short term, therefore that area of pressure is not here this time.
I just don't see how it happens. Another election might be possible, not another referendum.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
Is anyone genuinely surprised that Kavanaugh is partisan? That's the reason he was chosen.
Perhaps we can stop pretending the Supreme Court at the present time is anything more than another political body.
If people want it to become depoliticised, then congress needs to be empowered to make difficult political judgments. Abolishing the filibuster would be a good start.
Republicans chose partisan candidate shouldn't really be a surprise.
A large part, or maybe even the whole reason they have a huge evangelical vote is about Roe vs Wade.
Which is maybe why this angle of attack (if we want to put it down to politics) is actually a better one. Simply blocking a nominee for being partisan would probably be widely ignored and not generate any real support. Even some sketchy past outside of the serious allegations. Being a big drinker in his younger days is neither here nor there to me. Some lies about it whilst bad isn't really dramatically outside political norms.
Given it is a political partisan body the main argument I can see for barring him is the serious charges that have been brought.
Although he may have acted terribly in response in a hypothetical situation where he is innocent of these charges then an emotional response should be expected.
From my personal politics (and ignoring what might be right or wrong) I'd be delighted to see him barred and the Republicans fail to get a replacement through. From my personal ethical point of view the main thing I can use to justify blocking him is the serious accusations brought against him. Whilst the other stuff is bad it is (maybe unfortunately) not well outside of other bad political behaviour which isn't considered a bar but merely a slight negative.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a pro-EU Labour MP (which is most of them) for a second.
If you think that Mrs May - or her successor - will not go to the country if her deal is rejected, then why vote it down?
A possible strategy is that everyone (ERG /New Bastards and pro-EU Labour) is exhausted and agrees to keep their powder dry for the FTA fight, and the Withdrawal Act - with some very fudgey wording between the EU and UK, offering something for everyone- makes it through.
May gets some credit for this. Everyone else breathes a sign of relief. In the Spring, there’s then a popular budget/spending review and May calls another snap election, which she wins with an increased majority. Everyone realises she is human, she’s not doing too badly, she needs it to seal the final deal with the EU for good, and the economy is doing well, they do want a sane administration to start spending more on public services in a sustainable and effective way, and Corbyn would be a disaster.
Yes yes, it’s a very high risk strategy. But i wouldn’t rule it out. Maybe a 20% shot.
I haven’t yet decided whether to bet on it or not.
There is no basis for a non-statutory referendum (when the previous one was very much statutory, and even then the result argued to be “advisory”) having anything like the legitimacy it would need for its result to carry weight. There’d be all sorts of accusations of conspiracy, ballot rigging, unfairness, cheating and very probably boycotting too.
Leaving aside the constitutional point, I simply cannot see how any referendum not organised by the government would have either the financial resources to run at all or the nationwide coverage needed to be legitimate. For a start, who would run it in Northern Ireland?
The increasingly hysterical desire for a second referendum is I think based on past experience that when the EU loses a referendum it always demands a second one to reverse the first. The crucial difference this time is that it isn't about tinkering with the EU, it was about leaving.
Profound though the shock is to the EU - although not so profound that anyone has resigned, I notice - it will make little difference to its structure in the short term, therefore that area of pressure is not here this time.
I just don't see how it happens. Another election might be possible, not another referendum.
It doesn’t. Those who advocate it are starting from their desired conclusion that the UK remains in the EU, and working back from that to find a path. Any path.
There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
Unfortunately there's no majority for that either...
I think there's a majority for a Brexit which keeps us in the customs union and either in the SM or very close to it. It would pass with a lot of Labour votes and might prove the end of TM.
Given Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back your scenario would be the end of him and the Labour movement as well.
Actually he did outline a deal Labour would back which is something similar to what rkrkrk outlined, I think it was in his conference speech.
There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
Unfortunately there's no majority for that either...
I think there's a majority for a Brexit which keeps us in the customs union and either in the SM or very close to it. It would pass with a lot of Labour votes and might prove the end of TM.
Given Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back your scenario would be the end of him and the Labour movement as well.
What he actually said was: "“Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal. A deal that would be backed by most of the business world and trade unions too.”
There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
Unfortunately there's no majority for that either...
I think there's a majority for a Brexit which keeps us in the customs union and either in the SM or very close to it. It would pass with a lot of Labour votes and might prove the end of TM.
Given Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back your scenario would be the end of him and the Labour movement as well.
What he actually said was: "“Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal. A deal that would be backed by most of the business world and trade unions too.”
You missed the bit where he said 'and helps pigs to fly and me to understand basic accountancy.'
The only small problem with this idea is that bears no resemblance to any deal we might possibly get. Therefore I stand by my statement he will whip Labour to oppose it.
There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
Unfortunately there's no majority for that either...
I think there's a majority for a Brexit which keeps us in the customs union and either in the SM or very close to it. It would pass with a lot of Labour votes and might prove the end of TM.
Given Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back your scenario would be the end of him and the Labour movement as well.
What he actually said was: "“Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal. A deal that would be backed by most of the business world and trade unions too.”
You missed the bit where he said 'and helps pigs to fly and me to understand basic accountancy.'
The only small problem with this idea is that bears no resemblance to any deal we might possibly get. Therefore I stand by my statement he will whip Labour to oppose it.
Your statement was "Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back".
He has in fact said the opposite, as my link shows. You are completely wrong and are now trying to change what you originally said.
On your new point, I actually think you're wrong again, but it can't be known until the circumstance arises.
The Unilever board have cancelled the plan to move it's HQ to the Netherlands and end the dual share structure. Loads of people pointed out that if they wanted to do that then London makes a lot more sense, but there's no real need.
F1: weather improved, as per the changing forecast, so no upset in first practice. Two minutes of the second to go. Because third practice is at 4am, I'll be putting up the pre-qualifying ramble today.
Unilever wanted to move its HQ from the UK to the Netherlands to avoid UK rules that are easy on hostile takeovers. It would mean Unilever dropping out of the FTSE 100 thus affecting investment decisions. Shareholders didn't like that and presumably do like takeover rules that don't consider the interests of other stakeholders such as workers.
There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
Unfortunately there's no majority for that either...
I think there's a majority for a Brexit which keeps us in the customs union and either in the SM or very close to it. It would pass with a lot of Labour votes and might prove the end of TM.
Given Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back your scenario would be the end of him and the Labour movement as well.
What he actually said was: "“Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal. A deal that would be backed by most of the business world and trade unions too.”
You missed the bit where he said 'and helps pigs to fly and me to understand basic accountancy.'
The only small problem with this idea is that bears no resemblance to any deal we might possibly get. Therefore I stand by my statement he will whip Labour to oppose it.
Your statement was "Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back".
He has in fact said the opposite, as my link shows. You are completely wrong and are now trying to change what you originally said.
On your new point, I actually think you're wrong again, but it can't be known until the circumstance arises.
No. I am saying that what he said was impossible, therefore he was in effect saying he will whip Labour to oppose any deal that comes back. He is good at doublespeak like that. Look at student loans or wreath laying ceremonies.
There is no basis for a non-statutory referendum (when the previous one was very much statutory, and even then the result argued to be “advisory”) having anything like the legitimacy it would need for its result to carry weight. There’d be all sorts of accusations of conspiracy, ballot rigging, unfairness, cheating and very probably boycotting too.
The increasingly hysterical desire for a second referendum is I think based on past experience that when the EU loses a referendum it always demands a second one to reverse the first. The crucial difference this time is that it isn't about tinkering with the EU, it was about leaving.
It isn't the EU calling for a #peoplesvote, it is a considerable number of British politicians in all parties, and a lot of voters.
It would require A50 extension to make time, and that in itself may well collapse the government.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me t
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of a pro-EU Labour MP (which is most of them) for a second.
If you think that Mrs May - or her successor - will not go to the country if her deal is rejected, then why vote it down?
A possible strategy is that everyone (ERG /New Bastards and pro-EU Labour) is exhausted and agrees to keep their powder dry for the FTA fight, and the Withdrawal Act - with some very fudgey wording between the EU and UK, offering something for everyone- makes it through.
.
Yes, a Blind Brexit is probably the way out, though nobodies desired one. There is probably a majority for that.
There is no basis for a non-statutory referendum (when the previous one was very much statutory, and even then the result argued to be “advisory”) having anything like the legitimacy it would need for its result to carry weight. There’d be all sorts of accusations of conspiracy, ballot rigging, unfairness, cheating and very probably boycotting too.
The increasingly hysterical desire for a second referendum is I think based on past experience that when the EU loses a referendum it always demands a second one to reverse the first. The crucial difference this time is that it isn't about tinkering with the EU, it was about leaving.
It isn't the EU calling for a #peoplesvote, it is a considerable number of British politicians in all parties, and a lot of voters.
It would require A50 extension to make time, and that in itself may well collapse the government.
If you read the whole comment you will notice I made that very point.
Unilever wanted to move its HQ from the UK to the Netherlands to avoid UK rules that are easy on hostile takeovers. It would mean Unilever dropping out of the FTSE 100 thus affecting investment decisions. Shareholders didn't like that and presumably do like takeover rules that don't consider the interests of other stakeholders such as workers.
Lol, you really do eat up that European shit every morning don't you.
The Unilever board have cancelled the plan to move it's HQ to the Netherlands and end the dual share structure. Loads of people pointed out that if they wanted to do that then London makes a lot more sense, but there's no real need.
It might be Board groupthink who might all have believed their own propaganda on Brexit, given they all hated it, and wanted to prove it too.
The Unilever board have cancelled the plan to move it's HQ to the Netherlands and end the dual share structure. Loads of people pointed out that if they wanted to do that then London makes a lot more sense, but there's no real need.
It might be Board groupthink who might all have believed their own propaganda on Brexit, given they all hated it, and wanted to prove it too.
Both of them are Marmite plans. One of them has now gone for a Burton. What about the other? Are we still going to be driven up the Walls by Brexit?
Unilever wanted to move its HQ from the UK to the Netherlands to avoid UK rules that are easy on hostile takeovers. It would mean Unilever dropping out of the FTSE 100 thus affecting investment decisions. Shareholders didn't like that and presumably do like takeover rules that don't consider the interests of other stakeholders such as workers.
I think the shareholders (I am one) were more bothered by the implications of Dutch tax structure.
The Unilever board have cancelled the plan to move it's HQ to the Netherlands and end the dual share structure. Loads of people pointed out that if they wanted to do that then London makes a lot more sense, but there's no real need.
It might be Board groupthink who might all have believed their own propaganda on Brexit, given they all hated it, and wanted to prove it too.
Oddly, if they had given Brexit as the primary reason then they may just have squeaked through. It was their weak and frankly stupid idea that they should never be a takeover target and a supposedly more friendly tax environment in the Netherlands that didn't make any sense. Especially given that the dividend witholding tax looks dead in the water now and the company would have to pay out of pocket to compensate UK shareholders, potentially hurting investment plans in the UK arm of the business.
There is no basis for a non-statutory referendum (when the previous one was very much statutory, and even then the result argued to be “advisory”) having anything like the legitimacy it would need for its result to carry weight. There’d be all sorts of accusations of conspiracy, ballot rigging, unfairness, cheating and very probably boycotting too.
The increasingly hysterical desire for a second referendum is I think based on past experience that when the EU loses a referendum it always demands a second one to reverse the first. The crucial difference this time is that it isn't about tinkering with the EU, it was about leaving.
It isn't the EU calling for a #peoplesvote, it is a considerable number of British politicians in all parties, and a lot of voters.
It would require A50 extension to make time, and that in itself may well collapse the government.
If you read the whole comment you will notice I made that very point.
Yes, but my point was to correct you. It is not the EU asking for another referendum, it is an increasing number of Britons.
Unilever wanted to move its HQ from the UK to the Netherlands to avoid UK rules that are easy on hostile takeovers. It would mean Unilever dropping out of the FTSE 100 thus affecting investment decisions. Shareholders didn't like that and presumably do like takeover rules that don't consider the interests of other stakeholders such as workers.
I think the shareholders (I am one) were more bothered by the implications of Dutch tax structure.
Indeed. That has been the primary motivation, the main justification was to take advantage of lower taxes that aren't now going to materialise.
The Unilever board have cancelled the plan to move it's HQ to the Netherlands and end the dual share structure. Loads of people pointed out that if they wanted to do that then London makes a lot more sense, but there's no real need.
It might be Board groupthink who might all have believed their own propaganda on Brexit, given they all hated it, and wanted to prove it too.
Both of them are Marmite plans. One of them has now gone for a Burton. What about the other? Are we still going to be driven up the Walls by Brexit?
More fun to discuss it here! It is after all a political betting site.
I described my scenario playing out as, "very possible".
Your response was, "I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader" - which I equate to a "very unlikely" assessment on your part.
How about 6/1 I'm right that the below happens:
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. So May will bring her deal to the country and lead her party in a General Election, called for this purpose.
Or the above plus,
3. May forms a government after the General Election that delivers her negotiated Brexit.
at 12/1.
Happy with small or larger stakes. £5-£100 range?
P.S. Any other scenarios, you win.
Sure, have £20 at 6/1 on the first scenario. I am sure lots of people in the UK would happily pay £120 if they didn't have to sit through another Theresa May election campaign.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
With all due respect, that's nonsense, Nick. Any candidate that Trump might have nominated will be a reactionary who will vote to erode Roe v Wade (I think a straightforward overturn is unlikely to be the conservative strategy). On that basis the 51 Republicans would confirm any of them.
The 'focus' simply is what it is; irrespective of his constitutional views, Kavanaugh is simply unfit to be a Justice on the highest court.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
Is anyone genuinely surprised that Kavanaugh is partisan? That's the reason he was chosen.
Perhaps we can stop pretending the Supreme Court at the present time is anything more than another political body.
If people want it to become depoliticised, then congress needs to be empowered to make difficult political judgments. Abolishing the filibuster would be a good start.
And what does the filibuster have to so with the constitutional balance of powers between Congress and the Supreme Court ?
The real big story today, Chinese spying. If true, a totally different level of spying and we should all be worried.
There is a high degree of computer expertise on this board and this most emphatically does not include me but I am having real problems in understanding how an extra chip would affect control or the operation of a motherboard. Surely the instructions for how chips operate is in the software/coding? Unless the chip had some built in code that operated when triggered to do so? Is that even possible?
As I say I would love to tap the expertise available on this.
The original Bloomberg article does a decent job of explaining this for the layman.
Well not this one because I read it. It said that a chip smaller than a grain of rice had been added to the motherboard. It claimed that this chip allowed access to the system once it was in place giving control or access to the remote user. It didn’t say how.
Simplfying massively ....
The small chip only has connect to an external computer and download a larger piece of software into memory. Computer firewalls often do not block outgoing traffic, particularly if that traffic originates from a process identifying itself as a security admin.
The larger piece of software can then be loaded into memory and tagged as a top-level process and then run unimpeded.
Helpfully, in many server systems, any software tagged as belonging to userId 0 (zero) has the highest level of security clearance on the machine, so tagging rogue software is not a difficult process.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
Is anyone genuinely surprised that Kavanaugh is partisan? That's the reason he was chosen.
Perhaps we can stop pretending the Supreme Court at the present time is anything more than another political body.
If people want it to become depoliticised, then congress needs to be empowered to make difficult political judgments. Abolishing the filibuster would be a good start.
And what does the filibuster have to so with the constitutional balance of powers between Congress and the Supreme Court ?
Indeed, Congress is the worst part of American politics and full of the worst type of politician. Not sure how giving them more power would help.
Unilever wanted to move its HQ from the UK to the Netherlands to avoid UK rules that are easy on hostile takeovers. It would mean Unilever dropping out of the FTSE 100 thus affecting investment decisions. Shareholders didn't like that and presumably do like takeover rules that don't consider the interests of other stakeholders such as workers.
Lol, you really do eat up that European shit every morning don't you.
Eh? This is a shareholder decision. They were very clear what their objections were.
The broader point I might make is that red tape and protection are often two sides of the same coin. In this case the argument for less red tape won and so the HQ stays in the UK. Another time there might be a takeover that sees a British company broken up when it wouldn't happen in the Netherlands, say. There is no absolute right or wrong on this.
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain - and hope secretly that the expected win for remain occurs, so that normal service can be resumed and implementation of article 50 cancelled.
If there is no deal, do as above without the option of "deal" on the ballot paper. The result would be the same.
There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
Unfortunately there's no majority for that either...
I think there's a majority for a Brexit which keeps us in the customs union and either in the SM or very close to it. It would pass with a lot of Labour votes and might prove the end of TM.
Given Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back your scenario would be the end of him and the Labour movement as well.
What he actually said was: "“Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal. A deal that would be backed by most of the business world and trade unions too.”
You missed the bit where he said 'and helps pigs to fly and me to understand basic accountancy.'
The only small problem with this idea is that bears no resemblance to any deal we might possibly get. Therefore I stand by my statement he will whip Labour to oppose it.
Your statement was "Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back".
He has in fact said the opposite, as my link shows. You are completely wrong and are now trying to change what you originally said.
On your new point, I actually think you're wrong again, but it can't be known until the circumstance arises.
No. I am saying that what he said was impossible, therefore he was in effect saying he will whip Labour to oppose any deal that comes back. He is good at doublespeak like that. Look at student loans or wreath laying ceremonies.
Well I think you're wrong on that too (although you don't need to be wrong on it to have been wrong in your original assertion).
A deal which protects jobs, workers' rights, environmental and consumer standards?
For one thing that's a fairly vague bar to meet, ergo unlikely to be impossible. For another, staying in the SM and CU meets that test.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
Kavanaugh was always going to be confirmed. There was no way for the Democrats to prevent it.
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain...
There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
Unfortunately there's no majority for that either...
I think there's a majority for a Brexit which keeps us in the customs union and either in the SM or very close to it. It would pass with a lot of Labour votes and might prove the end of TM.
Given Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back your scenario would be the end of him and the Labour movement as well.
What he actually said was: "“Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal. A deal that would be backed by most of the business world and trade unions too.”
You missed the bit where he said 'and helps pigs to fly and me to understand basic accountancy.'
The only small problem with this idea is that bears no resemblance to any deal we might possibly get. Therefore I stand by my statement he will whip Labour to oppose it.
Your statement was "Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back".
He has in fact said the opposite, as my link shows. You are completely wrong and are now trying to change what you originally said.
On your new point, I actually think you're wrong again, but it can't be known until the circumstance arises.
No. I am saying that what he said was impossible, therefore he was in effect saying he will whip Labour to oppose any deal that comes back. He is good at doublespeak like that. Look at student loans or wreath laying ceremonies.
Didn't we clear up your confusion on the whole student thing the other day.
Labour still has the same policy, we are not the government so haven't brought in our policies. Even if we know decided to drop the policy that would be fine as we are the opposition. Our manifesto was not voted in.
Although that doesn't really matter as I pointed out we still have the same policy now.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
Errr, he was going to sail through the nomination process despite all the lies he told prior to the assault allegations being raised.
Collins and murkowski had already said they were yesses at that point.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
Is anyone genuinely surprised that Kavanaugh is partisan? That's the reason he was chosen.
Perhaps we can stop pretending the Supreme Court at the present time is anything more than another political body.
If people want it to become depoliticised, then congress needs to be empowered to make difficult political judgments. Abolishing the filibuster would be a good start.
And what does the filibuster have to so with the constitutional balance of powers between Congress and the Supreme Court ?
Sorry - I probably should have spelled out my theory a bit more. Having the filibuster makes it much more difficult to pass controversial laws.
But sometimes laws have to be made or changed. As Congress is unable to act from the gridlock, it falls to the courts. They twist themselves all over the place arguing they are merely interpreting, but really they are making law.
On topic, isn’t the Kavanaugh story the most boring story ever?
Indeed, it’s so boring I haven’t even been bothered to read all the detail beneath the headline. All I know is he’s a proposed judge who blubbed because he drunk a lot and was sexually aggressive, and got found out. The Samuel Jackson meme was the most interesting thing about it.
On topic - in retrospect it turns out that the Democrats were mistaken to focus their effort on Kavanaugh's alleged sexual behaviour, since I think most people will concede that the case is not proven. Their underlying objection that he's argusbly an irritable reactionary who may vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on ideological grounds is a more substantial argument, but too late to press at this point.
I think that is applying the wrong test Nick. The real question is whether he is a fit and proper person to be a Supreme Court Justice. That can involve evidence of matters that are not proven, either beyond a reasonable doubt or even on the balance of possibilities. We have similar laws here for people who look after vulnerable adults or children, for example. If you get an enhanced disclosure certificate you will have reports which show when your behaviour has come to the attention of the police even if you were never charged because that behaviour may raise concerns given the nature of responsibilities you are undertaking.
Many people and no doubt Kavanaugh would say this is unfair but that is looking at it from their perspective rather than the perspective of people who will be at risk should they misbehave. In this case K is facing a series of allegations about mistreatment of women. If I was a woman in the USA would I be comfortable that someone who has apparently had such a pattern of behaviour is an appropriate person to determine my rights to deal with my body? The polling is giving a pretty clear answer to that.
Unilever wanted to move its HQ from the UK to the Netherlands to avoid UK rules that are easy on hostile takeovers. It would mean Unilever dropping out of the FTSE 100 thus affecting investment decisions. Shareholders didn't like that and presumably do like takeover rules that don't consider the interests of other stakeholders such as workers.
Lol, you really do eat up that European shit every morning don't you.
Eh? This is a shareholder decision. They were very clear what their objections were.
The broader point I might make is that red tape and protection are often two sides of the same coin. In this case the argument for less red tape won and so the HQ stays in the UK. Another time there might be a takeover that sees a British company broken up when it wouldn't happen in the Netherlands, say. There is no absolute right or wrong on this.
Yes, the move was abandoned because the complexity of the move had tax, compensation, and structural considerations that were a distraction from the main business of the company, despite the difficulties in dual listing.
Can anyone else think of a parallel political event that is proving more complex than thought and a major distraction from more fundamental issues that may also be abandoned?
Looking at the maths, who is going to vote for a TMay deal ?
250 Tory mps at most. Lib Dems will probably back it.
There the ERG Götterdämmerung squad or perhaps 45 - 50 MPs who will vote against anything short of the Treaty of Troyes.
Where do the other 75 votes comes from ?
30 or 40 labour MPs maybe ? Corbyn will surely prefer to collapse the government. Burn the house down and take over in the ashes.
It may all come down to the 35 SNP members, would they really vote for a "tory brexit" ? The best chance of another Indy Ref is no deal, they just need to have clean hands.
Tricky.
In a Noel Edmonds vote sufficient opposition MPs will abstain.
I cannot believe so many would abstain on such a crucial issue.
On topic, isn’t the Kavanaugh story the most boring story ever?
Indeed, it’s so boring I haven’t even been bothered to read all the detail beneath the headline. All I know is he’s a proposed judge who blubbed because he drunk a lot and was sexually aggressive, and got found out. The Samuel Jackson meme was the most interesting thing about it.
Otherwise I don’t care.
As most Brits should not, we do not even give the lead story to the appointment of our own SC judges
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain - and hope secretly that the expected win for remain occurs, so that normal service can be resumed and implementation of article 50 cancelled.
If there is no deal, do as above without the option of "deal" on the ballot paper. The result would be the same.
Except the deal will not be determined by March, all that will be determined is if we get a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period from March in which a trade deal can be negotiated.
Having a referendum on a Transition Period would be absurd
Was with one of the senior remainers last night... Plans are well advanced for a massive concert in Hyde park ahead of March 29 . It will be called Brexaid.. Prelim line up..U2. Tears for fears...Annie Lennox... Possibly Rick Ashley singing "Never going to give EU up"
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain...
She'd be gone in minutes.....
Yes, if her deal is rejected she goes. Even if it is not a VonC in the government it is beyond doubt a VonC in her.
The problem is what happens next? The Commons rejecting the deal does not create more options. They still have the choice of deal, no deal or ask nicely for some more time, something the EU is not obliged to give. I am far from convinced that the cosy assumption that the EU would give us time is correct. It requires unanimous agreement. They are being asked to renegotiate a deal which they will no doubt regard as a somewhat unsatisfactory compromise too to their disadvantage. Why would they do this?
These are difficult scenarios but they have led me to conclude that the Commons will not reject May's deal. It is just too much of a risk with too much uncertainty.
On topic, isn’t the Kavanaugh story the most boring story ever?
Indeed, it’s so boring I haven’t even been bothered to read all the detail beneath the headline. All I know is he’s a proposed judge who blubbed because he drunk a lot and was sexually aggressive, and got found out. The Samuel Jackson meme was the most interesting thing about it.
Otherwise I don’t care.
As most Brits should not, we do not even give the lead story to the appointment of our own SC judges
And isn't that how it should be?
The press and the public shouldn't need to take an interest in people picked for their legal expertise, experience and character with no interest paid to their political views.
The last thing Britain needs is to import the spectacle around the supreme court from America.
Comments
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole.
2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal.
3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election.
4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
https://politicalwire.com/2018/10/04/daines-says-he-wont-be-available-for-saturday-vote/
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
Len McCluskey has claimed there could be ‘dark forces at play’ working to undermine Jeremy Corbyn.
The general secretary of the Unite union said he would not be surprised if the ‘deep state’ was plotting to stop the Labour leader from ever becoming prime minister.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6241545/Dark-forces-trying-stop-Jeremy-Corbyn-claims-Len-McCluskey.html
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1047943777300701185
Corbyn would look foolish if he opposed a General Election when he's been calling for one ever since the last one - and claims that his party could deliver a better Brexit if only they were in government.
I described my scenario playing out as, "very possible".
Your response was, "I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader" - which I equate to a "very unlikely" assessment on your part.
How about 6/1 I'm right that the below happens:
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole.
2. So May will bring her deal to the country and lead her party in a General Election, called for this purpose.
Or the above plus,
3. May forms a government after the General Election that delivers her negotiated Brexit.
at 12/1.
Happy with small or larger stakes. £5-£100 range?
P.S. Any other scenarios, you win.
If you think that Mrs May - or her successor - will not go to the country if her deal is rejected, then why vote it down?
Could May survive a rejected deal? Probably not, but it wouldn't bring the government down. The Tories would survive under another leader.
There'd be enormous pressure on them to go to the country, but no legal obligation or way to force them to for the next 3.5 years. ("not the right time", "need to pull together and deliver")
It's a gamble for a pro-EU labour MP, if they have confidence the Tories will collapse then maybe you reject. Big if though....
A 2nd referendum is felt to be democratically toxic - so logically, it seems to me it becomes,
No Ratified Deal = No Deal or a General Election.
Sure, some hardcore Lab remainers will vote against but May has a lot of ERG votes to overcome.
If I was TMay I'd be looking to cut a deal with the SNP. They're also in government, so they're much more exposed to damage if somebody sets the economy on fire, and regional parties are much easier to buy off than oppositions, since their relationship with the government is less zero-sum.
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said on Thursday that he did not believe Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed, citing his "performance in the hearings" before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/john-paul-stevens-says-kavanaugh-shouldnt-be-on-supreme-court/?__twitter_impression=true
If her deal is rejected, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain - and hope secretly that the expected win for remain occurs, so that normal service can be resumed and implementation of article 50 cancelled.
On topic, has Kavanaugh got no moral perspective? A supreme court judge should be a person beyond reproach, and it is quite clear from reports involving different people that he behaved like a drunken lout as a teenager, even if he has been on the straight and narrow for the last 30 years. He is tainted and any honorable person would withdraw their nomination in these circumstances.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies
In one case, the malicious chips were thin enough that they’d been embedded between the layers of fiberglass onto which the other components were attached, according to one person who saw pictures of the chips. That generation of chips was smaller than a sharpened pencil tip, the person says. (Amazon denies that AWS knew of servers found in China containing malicious chips.)...
The refusal of either Apple or Amazon even to acknowledge the hack is interesting.
And detecting other attacks isn’t going to be easy:
In the three years since the briefing in McLean, no commercially viable way to detect attacks like the one on Supermicro’s motherboards has emerged—or has looked likely to emerge. Few companies have the resources of Apple and Amazon, and it took some luck even for them to spot the problem. “This stuff is at the cutting edge of the cutting edge, and there is no easy technological solution,” one of the people present in McLean says. “You have to invest in things that the world wants. You cannot invest in things that the world is not ready to accept yet.”
Also I'd imagine they'd go for it if they got a re-referendum, assuming such a thing looked winnable.
They might abstain, but don’t bet on that.
The question is then how many extra votes doing that loses her on the Con side.
There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
Perhaps we can stop pretending the Supreme Court at the present time is anything more than another political body.
If people want it to become depoliticised, then congress needs to be empowered to make difficult political judgments. Abolishing the filibuster would be a good start.
In a sense, to be rather cold-blooded, this does highlight a key problem with the Democrats at the moment. They are obsessed with issues that they find incredibly important but that have little meaningful impact on the day to day lives of the majority of ordinary people - gay marriage and transgender rights spring to mind - rather than the economy or living standards.
By concentrating on Dr Ford, they are missing the fundamental point that Kavanaugh's appointment compromises the integrity of the Supreme Court not because he is probably a sleazebag but because he is undoubtedly unfit to be a judge.
There is no basis for a non-statutory referendum (when the previous one was very much statutory, and even then the result argued to be “advisory”) having anything like the legitimacy it would need for its result to carry weight. There’d be all sorts of accusations of conspiracy, ballot rigging, unfairness, cheating and very probably boycotting too.
Any referendum held on anything less than the equivalent basis of last time would be courting disaster. Such a referendum could only work to rubber stamp a decision (and not make it) where there was already an overwhelming majority in favour of the desired outcome.
On your last point, that is more true. The Government would have to want it. There is next to zero chance of that ever happening whilst Theresa May is Prime Minister and whilst the Tories/DUP hold a majority of seats in the Commons.
There's only one real definitive way out, isn't there?
Doesn't TMay's latest plan make it likely that the DUP will bring down the government?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/25/dup-threatens-bring-theresa-mays-government-climbs-brexit/
The increasingly hysterical desire for a second referendum is I think based on past experience that when the EU loses a referendum it always demands a second one to reverse the first. The crucial difference this time is that it isn't about tinkering with the EU, it was about leaving.
Profound though the shock is to the EU - although not so profound that anyone has resigned, I notice - it will make little difference to its structure in the short term, therefore that area of pressure is not here this time.
I just don't see how it happens. Another election might be possible, not another referendum.
A large part, or maybe even the whole reason they have a huge evangelical vote is about Roe vs Wade.
Which is maybe why this angle of attack (if we want to put it down to politics) is actually a better one. Simply blocking a nominee for being partisan would probably be widely ignored and not generate any real support. Even some sketchy past outside of the serious allegations. Being a big drinker in his younger days is neither here nor there to me. Some lies about it whilst bad isn't really dramatically outside political norms.
Given it is a political partisan body the main argument I can see for barring him is the serious charges that have been brought.
Although he may have acted terribly in response in a hypothetical situation where he is innocent of these charges then an emotional response should be expected.
From my personal politics (and ignoring what might be right or wrong) I'd be delighted to see him barred and the Republicans fail to get a replacement through. From my personal ethical point of view the main thing I can use to justify blocking him is the serious accusations brought against him. Whilst the other stuff is bad it is (maybe unfortunately) not well outside of other bad political behaviour which isn't considered a bar but merely a slight negative.
May gets some credit for this. Everyone else breathes a sign of relief. In the Spring, there’s then a popular budget/spending review and May calls another snap election, which she wins with an increased majority. Everyone realises she is human, she’s not doing too badly, she needs it to seal the final deal with the EU for good, and the economy is doing well, they do want a sane administration to start spending more on public services in a sustainable and effective way, and Corbyn would be a disaster.
Yes yes, it’s a very high risk strategy. But i wouldn’t rule it out. Maybe a 20% shot.
I haven’t yet decided whether to bet on it or not.
There’s very little evidence in it.
"“Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal. A deal that would be backed by most of the business world and trade unions too.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-deal-labour-conference-speech-theresa-may-general-election-a8555941.html
The only small problem with this idea is that bears no resemblance to any deal we might possibly get. Therefore I stand by my statement he will whip Labour to oppose it.
He has in fact said the opposite, as my link shows. You are completely wrong and are now trying to change what you originally said.
On your new point, I actually think you're wrong again, but it can't be known until the circumstance arises.
Mr. Max, was ist das?
It’s owners might want to consider getting a new Board.
Mr Max/Mr. Royale, ah. Cheers.
It would require A50 extension to make time, and that in itself may well collapse the government. Yes, a Blind Brexit is probably the way out, though nobodies desired one. There is probably a majority for that.
I'll get my coat...
Have a good morning.
Any candidate that Trump might have nominated will be a reactionary who will vote to erode Roe v Wade (I think a straightforward overturn is unlikely to be the conservative strategy).
On that basis the 51 Republicans would confirm any of them.
The 'focus' simply is what it is; irrespective of his constitutional views, Kavanaugh is simply unfit to be a Justice on the highest court.
I've e done a 180, this is not a sure thing slam dunk. It is on a knife edge.
The broader point I might make is that red tape and protection are often two sides of the same coin. In this case the argument for less red tape won and so the HQ stays in the UK. Another time there might be a takeover that sees a British company broken up when it wouldn't happen in the Netherlands, say. There is no absolute right or wrong on this.
If there is no deal, do as above without the option of "deal" on the ballot paper. The result would be the same.
A deal which protects jobs, workers' rights, environmental and consumer standards?
For one thing that's a fairly vague bar to meet, ergo unlikely to be impossible. For another, staying in the SM and CU meets that test.
Labour still has the same policy, we are not the government so haven't brought in our policies. Even if we know decided to drop the policy that would be fine as we are the opposition. Our manifesto was not voted in.
Although that doesn't really matter as I pointed out we still have the same policy now.
Collins and murkowski had already said they were yesses at that point.
Having the filibuster makes it much more difficult to pass controversial laws.
But sometimes laws have to be made or changed. As Congress is unable to act from the gridlock, it falls to the courts. They twist themselves all over the place arguing they are merely interpreting, but really they are making law.
Indeed, it’s so boring I haven’t even been bothered to read all the detail beneath the headline. All I know is he’s a proposed judge who blubbed because he drunk a lot and was sexually aggressive, and got found out. The Samuel Jackson meme was the most interesting thing about it.
Otherwise I don’t care.
Many people and no doubt Kavanaugh would say this is unfair but that is looking at it from their perspective rather than the perspective of people who will be at risk should they misbehave. In this case K is facing a series of allegations about mistreatment of women. If I was a woman in the USA would I be comfortable that someone who has apparently had such a pattern of behaviour is an appropriate person to determine my rights to deal with my body? The polling is giving a pretty clear answer to that.
Can anyone else think of a parallel political event that is proving more complex than thought and a major distraction from more fundamental issues that may also be abandoned?
Having a referendum on a Transition Period would be absurd
Plans are well advanced for a massive concert in Hyde park ahead of March 29 .
It will be called Brexaid..
Prelim line up..U2. Tears for fears...Annie Lennox...
Possibly Rick Ashley singing "Never going to give EU up"
I'm not kidding..
They expect 200000
The problem is what happens next? The Commons rejecting the deal does not create more options. They still have the choice of deal, no deal or ask nicely for some more time, something the EU is not obliged to give. I am far from convinced that the cosy assumption that the EU would give us time is correct. It requires unanimous agreement. They are being asked to renegotiate a deal which they will no doubt regard as a somewhat unsatisfactory compromise too to their disadvantage. Why would they do this?
These are difficult scenarios but they have led me to conclude that the Commons will not reject May's deal. It is just too much of a risk with too much uncertainty.
The press and the public shouldn't need to take an interest in people picked for their legal expertise, experience and character with no interest paid to their political views.
The last thing Britain needs is to import the spectacle around the supreme court from America.