The EU is, perhaps unknowingly, guaranteeing that Britain will never rejoin the EU. This upsets me greatly.
A ‘no deal’ will simply lead to an unstoppable wave of resentment of the EU. It doesn’t matter if its unjustified.
It’s acting like a superpower rather than as a collection of nations.
I am/was an EU federalist but this whole escapade has really disappointed me.
I don't think it's by any means a given that the EU will blamed for a no deal. It has not been blamed for the difficulties in the negotiations so far - the evidence suggests that there has been something of a shift to remain, which is counter-intuitive as there is usually a shift of opinion toward the winner after an election or referendum.
And the utterly shambolic approach of the government will make it easy for the EU and remainers to blame the Tories. Which I fully expect them to do.
Mr. Pulpstar, no need to worry, comrade. Once Comrade Corbyn is installed as chairman of the Cabinet Committee the Approve List of People's Reporters will ensure only those of impeccable truth-bearing credentials will be deemed worthy of informing the proletariat of Comrade Corbyn's wisdom.
Here's the worrying thing, James O'Brien is many things, but certainly NOT a Corbynista; I know it sounds like something that Momentum would come out with but this whole implicit deplatforming/wrongthink has gone beyond the hard left now.
O'Brien divides the world into the good (left wing Europhiles) and the bad (everyone else).
Yes, hence why I make the point that whilst he is many things, he isn't a Corbynite
He's a conspiracy theorist. He ought to be a Corbynista, but his views on the EU prevent him from being one.
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
Killing him by itself is surely enough to frighten dissidents into silence. This just makes the Saudi regime look psychotic, worse than North Korea, and deserving of similar isolation.
That's why we prop up the Saudi royals. Because the alternative, incredibly, is even WORSE.
No it isn't. It is never worth propping up such a regime.
Emotionally I agree with you. I despise Saudi Arabia. But look what's happened almost everywhere else in the Muslim world when autocrats have been toppled, either by their own people or with our "help".
Jihadists have moved in.
Saudi Arabia is the HQ of jihadism, the cradle of Waahabism. They are the only credible opposition to the royals. They would take over. And that WOULD be worse.
The best thing we can do is slowly wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil (which we are doing) and pray that over time the fires ofworldwide jihadism simply burn out. I think they surely will (all things must pass) but it could take decades.
The only realistic option to one Saudi prince is another Saudi prince. But western governments tread in a minefield if they get involved in palace coups there given the sensitivity of the control of Mecca and Medina.
I fully agree that becoming less reliant on ME oil is a big part of the answer - though that of itself may starve the tiger that the Saudi royals are riding.
The whole House of Saud is rotten. A palace coup is not enough.
That's easy to say (and may well be right). All the same, if you want to topple the House of Saud, you need to say what you want to replace it with, and how. To me, it's pretty damn clear that if the Saudi state loses control of the Peninsula, there's little that the Islamic extremists would love more than to occupy Mecca and establish their supposed new caliphate there. Good luck sorting that out.
It's not for us to choose their successors, indeed it was rather foolish of us to put the House of Saud in control after WW1.
Our dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire left more than a few legacy issues!
On the Irish point, can contributors help on this question: To what extent did the 'Remain' campaign make the point, before the referendum, that it was quite possible that the Irish border question might make many versions of 'Leave' impossible?
They say, quite rightly, that Britain chose Brexit and therefore things cannot be as they were when Britain was a member. It will be a third country and be in a less favourable position than it was before.
And yet at the same time it is saying that nothing must change in Ireland, that things must stay exactly as they were, as if Britain were still an EU member.
This really cannot be, can it. It's a prime example of cherry-picking, surely.
They are saying, as Simon Coveney said this morning, that NI is a special case and must be treated differently, even though the country of which it is an integral part, voted to leave. That seems to me absurd, though I understand why he says it and why the Irish do view NI as a special place.
But in effect he - and the EU - are saying that NI should be detached from Britain because this will benefit Ireland and the EU, regardless of the expressed wishes of Britain and, indeed, NI.
If NI voters were to agree to it, then fine. But that is not on offer though it might provide one way out of the impasse.
But then if that is a solution for NI, why not for Scotland or London or other areas which voted Remain?
If the integrity of the SM is inviolable then the integrity of the UK is also inviolable.
I see no way out, if Parliamentary arithmetic won't permit, other than either another referendum or a NI vote on whether the Barnier proposal is a runner.
But there is a risk that not only will this stir up passions in Ireland but that this is doing no good for any future British/EU relationship either.
It is a mess and I fear that our current government - or any possible alternative - is simply not up to the task of sorting it out.
Anyway off to the hospital to find out if I'll ever be able to raise my right arm ever again without pain. Wish me luck!!
I really hope the hospital helps you. Health is far more important than brexit. All the best
The best thing we can do is slowly wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil (which we are doing) and pray that over time the fires ofworldwide jihadism simply burn out. I think they surely will (all things must pass) but it could take decades.
Are we? I thought I heard recently that global oil production hit a new high. I suppose that means Middle East oil is a lower percentage, but that's not the same as stopping to need to use it.
If we want to stop buying their oil (or Qatari gas) we have a lot to do.
There is actually a reasonable argument in favour of fracking.
It is going to take a couple of decades to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, even with a massive government commitment to wind, solar and tidal power (which IF planned right, makes a great deal of economic sense). In the meantime we are better off morally and economically to be burning our own gas.
My feeling is that fracking will delay any move away from fossil fuels. This means that one way or another we remain dependent on the Middle East, either directly or indirectly.
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
If not the Italians, then Viktor Orban's Hungary. For the shitz and giggles.
I can see a much more lively EU Parlt,
I reckon we could have up to 40% of Brussels composed of anti establishment parties.
They say, quite rightly, that Britain chose Brexit and therefore things cannot be as they were when Britain was a member. It will be a third country and be in a less favourable position than it was before.
And yet at the same time it is saying that nothing must change in Ireland, that things must stay exactly as they were, as if Britain were still an EU member.
This really cannot be, can it. It's a prime example of cherry-picking, surely.
They are saying, as Simon Coveney said this morning, that NI is a special case and must be treated differently, even though the country of which it is an integral part, voted to leave. That seems to me absurd, though I understand why he says it and why the Irish do view NI as a special place.
But in effect he - and the EU - are saying that NI should be detached from Britain because this will benefit Ireland and the EU, regardless of the expressed wishes of Britain and, indeed, NI.
If NI voters were to agree to it, then fine. But that is not on offer though it might provide one way out of the impasse.
But then if that is a solution for NI, why not for Scotland or London or other areas which voted Remain?
If the integrity of the SM is inviolable then the integrity of the UK is also inviolable.
I see no way out, if Parliamentary arithmetic won't permit, other than either another referendum or a NI vote on whether the Barnier proposal is a runner.
But there is a risk that not only will this stir up passions in Ireland but that this is doing no good for any future British/EU relationship either.
It is a mess and I fear that our current government - or any possible alternative - is simply not up to the task of sorting it out.
Anyway off to the hospital to find out if I'll ever be able to raise my right arm ever again without pain. Wish me luck!!
Good luck. There's an obvious Ken Livingstone joke in there which I will refrain from making.
The logic of Brexit is that there *must* be a customs/regulatory border in Ireland.
The logic of Brexit is that the Republic of Ireland finally becomes properly independent of the UK.
Yes, all 32 counties.
that always makes laugh. Ireland had no counties prior to english rule,
It looks like one of those things that should have been the case but actually isn't - I don't think there has... EVER been a single country or kingdom existing on the island of Ireland.
They say, quite rightly, that Britain chose Brexit and therefore things cannot be as they were when Britain was a member. It will be a third country and be in a less favourable position than it was before.
And yet at the same time it is saying that nothing must change in Ireland, that things must stay exactly as they were, as if Britain were still an EU member.
This really cannot be, can it. It's a prime example of cherry-picking, surely.
They are saying, as Simon Coveney said this morning, that NI is a special case and must be treated differently, even though the country of which it is an integral part, voted to leave. That seems to me absurd, though I understand why he says it and why the Irish do view NI as a special place.
But in effect he - and the EU - are saying that NI should be detached from Britain because this will benefit Ireland and the EU, regardless of the expressed wishes of Britain and, indeed, NI.
If NI voters were to agree to it, then fine. But that is not on offer though it might provide one way out of the impasse.
But then if that is a solution for NI, why not for Scotland or London or other areas which voted Remain?
If the integrity of the SM is inviolable then the integrity of the UK is also inviolable.
I see no way out, if Parliamentary arithmetic won't permit, other than either another referendum or a NI vote on whether the Barnier proposal is a runner.
But there is a risk that not only will this stir up passions in Ireland but that this is doing no good for any future British/EU relationship either.
It is a mess and I fear that our current government - or any possible alternative - is simply not up to the task of sorting it out.
Anyway off to the hospital to find out if I'll ever be able to raise my right arm ever again without pain. Wish me luck!!
I won't say, break a leg. No really, maximum wish power over the internet that it is Ok
On the Irish point, can contributors help on this question: To what extent did the 'Remain' campaign make the point, before the referendum, that it was quite possible that the Irish border question might make many versions of 'Leave' impossible?
To quite a large extent. How many people cared? That's a different question.
The logic of Brexit is that there *must* be a customs/regulatory border in Ireland.
The logic of Brexit is that the Republic of Ireland finally becomes properly independent of the UK.
Yes, all 32 counties.
that always makes laugh. Ireland had no counties prior to english rule,
It looks like one of those things that should have been the case but actually isn't - I don't think there has... EVER been a single country or kingdom existing on the island of Ireland.
It depends. There were High Kings of Ireland, but they did not exercise functional political power on the Island as a whole. Think EU president.
That's why we prop up the Saudi royals. Because the alternative, incredibly, is even WORSE.
No it isn't. It is never worth propping up such a regime.
Emotionally I agree with you. I despise Saudi Arabia. But look what's happened almost everywhere else in the Muslim world when autocrats have been toppled, either by their own people or with our "help".
Jihadists have moved in.
Saudi Arabia is the HQ of jihadism, the cradle of Waahabism. They are the only credible opposition to the royals. They would take over. And that WOULD be worse.
The best thing we can do is slowly wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil (which we are doing) and pray that over time the fires ofworldwide jihadism simply burn out. I think they surely will (all things must pass) but it could take decades.
The only realistic option to one Saudi prince is another Saudi prince. But western governments tread in a minefield if they get involved in palace coups there given the sensitivity of the control of Mecca and Medina.
I fully agree that becoming less reliant on ME oil is a big part of the answer - though that of itself may starve the tiger that the Saudi royals are riding.
The whole House of Saud is rotten. A palace coup is not enough.
That's easy to say (and may well be right). All the same, if you want to topple the House of Saud, you need to say what you want to replace it with, and how. To me, it's pretty damn clear that if the Saudi state loses control of the Peninsula, there's little that the Islamic extremists would love more than to occupy Mecca and establish their supposed new caliphate there. Good luck sorting that out.
It's not for us to choose their successors, indeed it was rather foolish of us to put the House of Saud in control after WW1.
Our dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire left more than a few legacy issues!
Yes, if you connive in the toppling of a regime then it is absolutely your responsibility to do your best to put in place a replacement that is more stable, effective and friendly than what went before - otherwise you should not be engaging in regime change.
The best thing we can do is slowly wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil (which we are doing) and pray that over time the fires ofworldwide jihadism simply burn out. I think they surely will (all things must pass) but it could take decades.
Are we? I thought I heard recently that global oil production hit a new high. I suppose that means Middle East oil is a lower percentage, but that's not the same as stopping to need to use it.
If we want to stop buying their oil (or Qatari gas) we have a lot to do.
There is actually a reasonable argument in favour of fracking.
It is going to take a couple of decades to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, even with a massive government commitment to wind, solar and tidal power (which IF planned right, makes a great deal of economic sense). In the meantime we are better off morally and economically to be burning our own gas.
Using gas for electricity generation is better for the environment than coal. We will need oil for fertiliser production and plastic feedstock
That's why we prop up the Saudi royals. Because the alternative, incredibly, is even WORSE.
No it isn't. It is never worth propping up such a regime.
Emotionally I agree with you. I despise Saudi Arabia. But look what's happened almost everywhere else in the Muslim world when autocrats have been toppled, either by their own people or with our "help".
Jihadists have moved in.
Saudi Arabia is the HQ of jihadism, the cradle of Waahabism. They are the only credible opposition to the royals. They would take over. And that WOULD be worse.
The best thing we can do is slowly wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil (which we are doing) and pray that over time the fires ofworldwide jihadism simply burn out. I think they surely will (all things must pass) but it could take decades.
The only realistic option to one Saudi prince is another Saudi prince. But western governments tread in a minefield if they get involved in palace coups there given the sensitivity of the control of Mecca and Medina.
I fully agree that becoming less reliant on ME oil is a big part of the answer - though that of itself may starve the tiger that the Saudi royals are riding.
The whole House of Saud is rotten. A palace coup is not enough.
That's easy to say (and may well be right). All the same, if you want to topple the House of Saud, you need to say what you want to replace it with, and how. To me, it's pretty damn clear that if the Saudi state loses control of the Peninsula, there's little that the Islamic extremists would love more than to occupy Mecca and establish their supposed new caliphate there. Good luck sorting that out.
It's not for us to choose their successors, indeed it was rather foolish of us to put the House of Saud in control after WW1.
Our dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire left more than a few legacy issues!
Yes, if you connive in the toppling of a regime then it is absolutely your responsibility to do your best to put in place a replacement that is more stable, effective and friendly than what went before - otherwise you should not be engaging in regime change.
The rule of thumb in the Middle East is that bad gets replaced by worse.
The logic of Brexit is that there *must* be a customs/regulatory border in Ireland.
The logic of Brexit is that the Republic of Ireland finally becomes properly independent of the UK.
Yes, all 32 counties.
that always makes laugh. Ireland had no counties prior to english rule,
It looks like one of those things that should have been the case but actually isn't - I don't think there has... EVER been a single country or kingdom existing on the island of Ireland.
Looking back it seems you could make an argument for it being the case pre 1171... though its a bit like England pre-Alfred the Great with all the various Kingdoms of Leinster, Connacht, Munster..
The logic of Brexit is that there *must* be a customs/regulatory border in Ireland.
The logic of Brexit is that the Republic of Ireland finally becomes properly independent of the UK.
Yes, all 32 counties.
that always makes laugh. Ireland had no counties prior to english rule,
It looks like one of those things that should have been the case but actually isn't - I don't think there has... EVER been a single country or kingdom existing on the island of Ireland.
It depends. There were High Kings of Ireland, but they did not exercise functional political power on the Island as a whole. Think EU president.
The logic of Brexit is that there *must* be a customs/regulatory border in Ireland.
The logic of Brexit is that the Republic of Ireland finally becomes properly independent of the UK.
Yes, all 32 counties.
that always makes laugh. Ireland had no counties prior to english rule,
It looks like one of those things that should have been the case but actually isn't - I don't think there has... EVER been a single country or kingdom existing on the island of Ireland.
Historically, the Romans recorded Ireland had 16 kingdoms - Mr Dancer probably has the details to hand.
They say, quite rightly, that Britain chose Brexit and therefore things cannot be as they were when Britain was a member. It will be a third country and be in a less favourable position than it was before.
And yet at the same time it is saying that nothing must change in Ireland, that things must stay exactly as they were, as if Britain were still an EU member.
The EU view seems to be that while we have to leave our departure cannot be seen to be disadvantageous to a particular EU member. It's our choice to leave, it wasn't the ROI's choice and they cannot be seen to suffer any consequences as a result of our leaving.
We therefore need a solution which reflects the fact of our departure from the EU's economic and political embrace but at the same time does not in any time affect or impinge on Ireland's continuing membership of and adherence to the EU and SM hence the idea (which seems perfectly reasonable to the EU) of an economic status for NI which maintains that of the EU (thereby not affecting the Republic).
Unfortunately, that bumps up against our Union and its economic and political structures.
We seem completely blind on "our precious Union" and seem (in some cases) to be willing to go over the cliff of a "No Deal" departure in order to safeguard said Union rather than seek a deal which may weaken the Union but not the rest of the UK economically.
Paris was reportedly not worth a mass, what is Belfast worth or not worth?
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Which boils down to “don’t put up a hard border or we’ll put up a hard border”.
The Irish/EU position is entirely consistent. They don't want to legitimise a hard border through agreement. One that emerges through the absence of agreement has not been legitimised by them.
Whether you think that is a wise position is a different matter, but it is based on principle.
If the UK and Ireland refuse a border is the EU going to build their own wall
Well I would absolutely love to see that, and the look on Varadkar's face. But it will never happen. WTO rules no not, contrary to Topping's comment, require a 'hard border'.
They require the ability to manage customs and regulatory checks and these could be managed by a technology based border. The WTO does not have prescriptive rules on what is required nor on exactly how effective it needs to be - as long as declarations are made and there is an enforcement mechanism, it complies. The WTO already have exemptions for special situations.
One of my suggestions is that May says to the EU that we need to appoint the WTO as 'referee' to scope the requirements of the soft border and conclude when it meets WTO rules.
Of course, the EU won't agree as it will solve the problem and May won't agree because it would lead to CETA. Which basically shows neither party is being remotely honest about the NI border and what they are trying to achieve.
Mrs C, the Romans hated the Irish. It's why they refused to invade, so Ireland wouldn't have any Roman ruin tourist attractions millennia later.
[My vague memory is that it was determined Ireland didn't have anything valuable enough to warrant invasion, and Britain was already being a pain in the arse, requiring three legions to Iberia's one, despite being smaller].
So we're all agreed we should get fracking to reduce dependency on the Middle East?
No. Perhaps we ***UGH*** and this cuts deeply into my soul... need to get on with the hideously expensive Hinkley Point and other overpriced nuclear facilities whilst we develop the capability to build them ourselves for a reasonable price once more. That and renewables. Between the Saudis, fracking and Hinkley point I'm afraid it has to be Hinkley though.
This Government should be beaten around the head on a daily basis with an inflated puffer fish, until they agree to pursue a series of tidal barrages.....
Agreed, but isn't there something heavier, harder and with more spikes than a puffer fish?
Ada Lovelace is the face of a campaign about women in STEM - she's probably better known now than she has been in a long time
Whether or not she ought to be known as “the first computer programmer,” her program was specified with a degree of rigor that far surpassed anything that came before.
In many ways her insight was utterly remarkable:
She foresaw that a computing machine's fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations and therefore should be also be manipulable by adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the machine. She was the first person to use branches, loops and subroutines in a program. She was the first person to realise the full scope of what might be computable, given the necessary resources.
In that sense she stumbled across the idea of the universal Turing machine a whole *century* before Turing did.
That has got to be worth commemorating.
FPT - absolutely agree. What Turing achieved was immense because of the effect it had on the war. In terms of discovery, Ada Lovelace was well ahead of her time.
It would be great to see her get some proper recognition. Also given her gambling problems being on the £50 would be fitting.
They say, quite rightly, that Britain chose Brexit and therefore things cannot be as they were when Britain was a member. It will be a third country and be in a less favourable position than it was before.
And yet at the same time it is saying that nothing must change in Ireland, that things must stay exactly as they were, as if Britain were still an EU member.
This really cannot be, can it. It's a prime example of cherry-picking, surely.
They are saying, as Simon Coveney said this morning, that NI is a special case and must be treated differently, even though the country of which it is an integral part, voted to leave. That seems to me absurd, though I understand why he says it and why the Irish do view NI as a special place.
But in effect he - and the EU - are saying that NI should be detached from Britain because this will benefit Ireland and the EU, regardless of the expressed wishes of Britain and, indeed, NI.
If NI voters were to agree to it, then fine. But that is not on offer though it might provide one way out of the impasse.
But then if that is a solution for NI, why not for Scotland or London or other areas which voted Remain?
If the integrity of the SM is inviolable then the integrity of the UK is also inviolable.
I see no way out, if Parliamentary arithmetic won't permit, other than either another referendum or a NI vote on whether the Barnier proposal is a runner.
But there is a risk that not only will this stir up passions in Ireland but that this is doing no good for any future British/EU relationship either.
It is a mess and I fear that our current government - or any possible alternative - is simply not up to the task of sorting it out.
Anyway off to the hospital to find out if I'll ever be able to raise my right arm ever again without pain. Wish me luck!!
Good luck. There's an obvious Ken Livingstone joke in there which I will refrain from making.
I'm sure Ken is trying to get in touch with Cycle free now and tell her about another person who liked raising his right arm.
They say, quite rightly, that Britain chose Brexit and therefore things cannot be as they were when Britain was a member. It will be a third country and be in a less favourable position than it was before.
And yet at the same time it is saying that nothing must change in Ireland, that things must stay exactly as they were, as if Britain were still an EU member.
This really cannot be, can it. It's a prime example of cherry-picking, surely.
They are saying, as Simon Coveney said this morning, that NI is a special case and must be treated differently, even though the country of which it is an integral part, voted to leave. That seems to me absurd, though I understand why he says it and why the Irish do view NI as a special place.
But in effect he - and the EU - are saying that NI should be detached from Britain because this will benefit Ireland and the EU, regardless of the expressed wishes of Britain and, indeed, NI.
If NI voters were to agree to it, then fine. But that is not on offer though it might provide one way out of the impasse.
But then if that is a solution for NI, why not for Scotland or London or other areas which voted Remain?
If the integrity of the SM is inviolable then the integrity of the UK is also inviolable.
I see no way out, if Parliamentary arithmetic won't permit, other than either another referendum or a NI vote on whether the Barnier proposal is a runner.
But there is a risk that not only will this stir up passions in Ireland but that this is doing no good for any future British/EU relationship either.
It is a mess and I fear that our current government - or any possible alternative - is simply not up to the task of sorting it out.
Anyway off to the hospital to find out if I'll ever be able to raise my right arm ever again without pain. Wish me luck!!
Good luck. There's an obvious Ken Livingstone joke in there which I will refrain from making.
I'm sure Ken is trying to get in touch with Cycle free now and tell her about another person who liked raising his right arm.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Which boils down to “don’t put up a hard border or we’ll put up a hard border”.
The Irr, but it is based on principle.
If the UK and Ireland refuse a border is the EU going to build their own wall
Well I would absolutely love to see that, and the look on Varadkar's face. But it will never happen. WTO rules no not, contrary to Topping's comment, require a 'hard border'.
They require the ability to manage customs and regulatory checks and these could be managed by a technology based border. The WTO does not have prescriptive rules on what is required nor on exactly how effective it needs to be - as long as declarations are made and there is an enforcement mechanism, it complies. The WTO already have exemptions for special situations.
One of my suggestions is that May says to the EU that we need to appoint the WTO as 'referee' to scope the requirements of the soft border and conclude when it meets WTO rules.
Of course, the EU won't agree as it will solve the problem and May won't agree because it would lead to CETA. Which basically shows neither party is being remotely honest about the NI border and what they are trying to achieve.
You haven't been paying attention. Unlike you, being such a keen details man. Or perhaps you have yet to have your first coffee of the day.
As I have said many times, WTO rules don't mandate a border. But if, for example, we allowed unfettered access to EU products across the NI border, another WTO member could raise a dispute under WTO MFN terms objecting to the fact that we were offering special rules to the EU and not to them. As such, if the dispute were to be upheld, we would either have to offer unfettered access to the claimant (and others) or institute a "hard" border for everyone.
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
That poll is weird, though. 65% of Italians want Italy to be a member of the Eurozone, and 44% want them to be in the EU.
I want to see what set of questions, in what order, led to those answers.
So we're all agreed we should get fracking to reduce dependency on the Middle East?
No. Perhaps we ***UGH*** and this cuts deeply into my soul... need to get on with the hideously expensive Hinkley Point and other overpriced nuclear facilities whilst we develop the capability to build them ourselves for a reasonable price once more. That and renewables. Between the Saudis, fracking and Hinkley point I'm afraid it has to be Hinkley though.
This Government should be beaten around the head on a daily basis with an inflated puffer fish, until they agree to pursue a series of tidal barrages.....
Agreed, but isn't there something heavier, harder and with more spikes than a puffer fish?
Personally, I'd have used a selection of lion fish, electric eels and a marlin - but their services are required by the Saudi Govt.
[My vague memory is that it was determined Ireland didn't have anything valuable enough to warrant invasion, and Britain was already being a pain in the arse, requiring three legions to Iberia's one, despite being smaller].
Sounds fairly normal - for both parts of the British Isles
Ada Lovelace is the face of a campaign about women in STEM - she's probably better known now than she has been in a long time
Whether or not she ought to be known as “the first computer programmer,” her program was specified with a degree of rigor that far surpassed anything that came before.
In many ways her insight was utterly remarkable:
She foresaw that a computing machine's fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations and therefore should be also be manipulable by adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the machine. She was the first person to use branches, loops and subroutines in a program. She was the first person to realise the full scope of what might be computable, given the necessary resources.
In that sense she stumbled across the idea of the universal Turing machine a whole *century* before Turing did.
That has got to be worth commemorating.
FPT - absolutely agree. What Turing achieved was immense because of the effect it had on the war. In terms of discovery, Ada Lovelace was well ahead of her time.
It would be great to see her get some proper recognition. Also given her gambling problems being on the £50 would be fitting.
I read earlier the complete wiki entry for Frank Whittle - another amazing person.
So we're all agreed we should get fracking to reduce dependency on the Middle East?
No. Perhaps we ***UGH*** and this cuts deeply into my soul... need to get on with the hideously expensive Hinkley Point and other overpriced nuclear facilities whilst we develop the capability to build them ourselves for a reasonable price once more. That and renewables. Between the Saudis, fracking and Hinkley point I'm afraid it has to be Hinkley though.
This Government should be beaten around the head on a daily basis with an inflated puffer fish, until they agree to pursue a series of tidal barrages.....
Agreed, but isn't there something heavier, harder and with more spikes than a puffer fish?
Mrs C, the Vikings weren't choosy. Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales, they'd go anywhere.
Didn't leave buildings as nice, but they did found a couple of good settlements for you.
Experience in Caledonia might've put off the Romans too. Too many tribes, no central authority for proper submissions (and not enough shiny stuff in the ground to warrant the expense).
Well I would absolutely love to see that, and the look on Varadkar's face. But it will never happen. WTO rules no not, contrary to Topping's comment, require a 'hard border'.
They require the ability to manage customs and regulatory checks and these could be managed by a technology based border. The WTO does not have prescriptive rules on what is required nor on exactly how effective it needs to be - as long as declarations are made and there is an enforcement mechanism, it complies. The WTO already have exemptions for special situations.
One of my suggestions is that May says to the EU that we need to appoint the WTO as 'referee' to scope the requirements of the soft border and conclude when it meets WTO rules.
Of course, the EU won't agree as it will solve the problem and May won't agree because it would lead to CETA. Which basically shows neither party is being remotely honest about the NI border and what they are trying to achieve.
You haven't been paying attention. Unlike you, being such a keen details man. Or perhaps you have yet to have your first coffee of the day.
As I have said many times, WTO rules don't mandate a border. But if, for example, we allowed unfettered access to EU products across the NI border, another WTO member could raise a dispute under WTO MFN terms objecting to the fact that we were offering special rules to the EU and not to them. As such, if the dispute were to be upheld, we would either have to offer unfettered access to the claimant (and others) or institute a "hard" border for everyone.
I'm not sure if I am missing something regarding the 'technology solution' but doesn't this still require some physical checks at the border as otherwise it is pointless. It will simply mean that those who comply are ok and those that don't just swan across merrily anyway.
I'm thinking of my days of using carnets. In those days they were filled in manually. With technology it will be filled in on a computer and the customs officer will see it on his computer when I arrive, but he will still stop me to check and if past experience is to go by he will find something wrong and hold me up while I have to answer boring questions before waving me on.
If I just swan straight through with no checks I can break any rules I like. So you still need checks.
Ada Lovelace is the face of a campaign about women in STEM - she's probably better known now than she has been in a long time
Whether or not she ought to be known as “the first computer programmer,” her program was specified with a degree of rigor that far surpassed anything that came before.
In many ways her insight was utterly remarkable:
She foresaw that a computing machine's fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations and therefore should be also be manipulable by adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the machine. She was the first person to use branches, loops and subroutines in a program. She was the first person to realise the full scope of what might be computable, given the necessary resources.
In that sense she stumbled across the idea of the universal Turing machine a whole *century* before Turing did.
That has got to be worth commemorating.
FPT - absolutely agree. What Turing achieved was immense because of the effect it had on the war. In terms of discovery, Ada Lovelace was well ahead of her time.
It would be great to see her get some proper recognition. Also given her gambling problems being on the £50 would be fitting.
Whilst that is true, AIUI (and I would love to be corrected) her discoveries were a dead-end: they did not lead to more thinking and progress. Instead, they were re-discovered by others later in other contexts.
In this way, it's a bit like how Henry Cavendish discovered many things such as Ohm's law or Dalton's Law. But because he didn't publicise it, others later made the same discoveries and got the fame.
I'm fully in favour of Lovelace being commemorated. I'm just unsure her contribution is as important as people make out.
In fact, let's put Henry Cavendish on the £50. I'm sure James Clerk Maxwell would approve.
I'm not sure if I am missing something regarding the 'technology solution' but doesn't this still require some physical checks at the border as otherwise it is pointless. It will simply mean that those who comply are ok and those that don't just swan across merrily anyway.
I'm thinking of my days of using carnets. In those days they were filled in manually. With technology it will be filled in on a computer and the customs office will see it on his computer when I arrive, but he will still stop me to check and if past experience is to go by he will find something wrong and hold me up while I have to answer boring questions before waving me on.
If I just swan straight through what was the point of the forms anyway - there were no checks.
That of course is the nub of the "technology solution" and why it is so often bandied around as a panacea with examples from elsewhere (all of which, as you note, however, have checks at the border). If there is some kind of technology, trusted trader, totally invisible, no checks whatsoever type of solution....bring it on!
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
That poll is weird, though. 65% of Italians want Italy to be a member of the Eurozone, and 44% want them to be in the EU.
I want to see what set of questions, in what order, led to those answers.
I suppose in theory one could be outside the EU but using Euros as one's currency.
Ada Lovelace is the face of a campaign about women in STEM - she's probably better known now than she has been in a long time
Whether or not she ought to be known as “the first computer programmer,” her program was specified with a degree of rigor that far surpassed anything that came before.
In many ways her insight was utterly remarkable:
She foresaw that a computing machine's fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations and therefore should be also be manipulable by adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the machine. She was the first person to use branches, loops and subroutines in a program. She was the first person to realise the full scope of what might be computable, given the necessary resources.
In that sense she stumbled across the idea of the universal Turing machine a whole *century* before Turing did.
That has got to be worth commemorating.
FPT - absolutely agree. What Turing achieved was immense because of the effect it had on the war. In terms of discovery, Ada Lovelace was well ahead of her time.
It would be great to see her get some proper recognition. Also given her gambling problems being on the £50 would be fitting.
Whilst that is true, AIUI (and I would love to be corrected) her discoveries were a dead-end: they did not lead to more thinking and progress. Instead, they were re-discovered by others later in other contexts.
In this way, it's a bit like how Henry Cavendish discovered many things such as Ohm's law or Dalton's Law. But because he didn't publicise it, others later made the same discoveries and got the fame.
I'm fully in favour of Lovelace being commemorated. I'm just unsure her contribution is as important as people make out.
In fact, let's put Henry Cavendish on the £50. I'm sure James Clerk Maxwell would approve.
As part of my maths degree I studied Turing Machines. Now I'm showing my age here, but I think it is fair to say that most people would never have heard of him then. The disclosure of his work during the war and subsequent treatment expanded that group enormously.
The United States is pulling out of the Universal Postal Union.
For those who don't who or what the UPU is, here's a nice video:
Looks like a remarkably enduring international setup, persisting even between warring nations since the mid 19th century !But not proof from the Donald, who wants to, ahem, deliver a message to the Chinese, and stamp his authority on the trade situation .
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
That poll is weird, though. 65% of Italians want Italy to be a member of the Eurozone, and 44% want them to be in the EU.
I want to see what set of questions, in what order, led to those answers.
I suppose in theory one could be outside the EU but using Euros as one's currency.
Having a stable currency is attractive, having your budget dictated by Brussels and Berlin... less so. Using the € and being outside the eurozone is the ultimate cake and eat it scenario.
Mrs C, I do wonder what the reasoning* behind the decision is.
International messages, most notably embassies from one nation/city to another, being protected is one of the oldest cross-cultural customs. (Not always followed, of course. Messengers sometimes got their heads lopped off).
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
That poll is weird, though. 65% of Italians want Italy to be a member of the Eurozone, and 44% want them to be in the EU.
I want to see what set of questions, in what order, led to those answers.
I suppose in theory one could be outside the EU but using Euros as one's currency.
Montenegro do exactly this. It bugs the hell out of Brussels.
Mrs C, I do wonder what the reasoning* behind the decision is.
International messages, most notably embassies from one nation/city to another, being protected is one of the oldest cross-cultural customs. (Not always followed, of course. Messengers sometimes got their heads lopped off).
*Definitions may vary.
Every letter we get from Turkey comes in an envelope from the Royal Mail, saying that it has been opened before they get their hands on it. This even happens to letters sent to my parents.
Oddly, this doesn't happen when the government send a letter asking to vote for them in the elections.
It's almost as though we're on a list somewhere...
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
That poll is weird, though. 65% of Italians want Italy to be a member of the Eurozone, and 44% want them to be in the EU.
I want to see what set of questions, in what order, led to those answers.
I suppose in theory one could be outside the EU but using Euros as one's currency.
Montenegro do exactly this. It bugs the hell out of Brussels.
Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican also use the Euro. Kosovo also uses the Euro, but as with Montenegro, it's a unilateral thing.
The United States is pulling out of the Universal Postal Union.
For those who don't who or what the UPU is, here's a nice video:
Looks like a remarkably enduring international setup, persisting even between warring nations since the mid 19th century !But not proof from the Donald, who wants to, ahem, deliver a message to the Chinese, and stamp his authority on the trade situation .
So if Im following this correctly the EU will reject Italys budget as it breaks the rules and will start proceedings against it, France also will breach EU budget guidelines but wont get prosecuted
The United States is pulling out of the Universal Postal Union.
For those who don't who or what the UPU is, here's a nice video:
Looks like a remarkably enduring international setup, persisting even between warring nations since the mid 19th century !But not proof from the Donald, who wants to, ahem, deliver a message to the Chinese, and stamp his authority on the trade situation .
So if Im following this correctly the EU will reject Italys budget as it breaks the rules and will start proceedings against it, France also will breach EU budget guidelines but wont get prosecuted
As Jean Claude Juncker put it in the 2016 EU gives budget leeway to France 'because it is France'
They say, quite rightly, that Britain chose Brexit and therefore things cannot be as they were when Britain was a member. It will be a third country and be in a less favourable position than it was before.
And yet at the same time it is saying that nothing must change in Ireland, that things must stay exactly as they were, as if Britain were still an EU member.
The EU view seems to be that while we have to leave our departure cannot be seen to be disadvantageous to a particular EU member. It's our choice to leave, it wasn't the ROI's choice and they cannot be seen to suffer any consequences as a result of our leaving.
We therefore need a solution which reflects the fact of our departure from the EU's economic and political embrace but at the same time does not in any time affect or impinge on Ireland's continuing membership of and adherence to the EU and SM hence the idea (which seems perfectly reasonable to the EU) of an economic status for NI which maintains that of the EU (thereby not affecting the Republic).
Unfortunately, that bumps up against our Union and its economic and political structures.
We seem completely blind on "our precious Union" and seem (in some cases) to be willing to go over the cliff of a "No Deal" departure in order to safeguard said Union rather than seek a deal which may weaken the Union but not the rest of the UK economically.
Paris was reportedly not worth a mass, what is Belfast worth or not worth?
My inner pedant compels me to point out that Paris was indeed worth a mass.
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
That poll is weird, though. 65% of Italians want Italy to be a member of the Eurozone, and 44% want them to be in the EU.
I want to see what set of questions, in what order, led to those answers.
I suppose in theory one could be outside the EU but using Euros as one's currency.
You can indeed. But it would probably be the worst of all possible worlds for Italy.
Democrats to get majority in the House of Representatives:
fivethirtyeight.com: 83.6% (Classic model) or 76% (Polls-only model).
Betfair price to back: 1.51
DYOR
Not research as much as possibly faulty memory... but didn’t they have Hilary a 1.01 shot?
No, they had her on something like a 65% to 70% shot (and got a lot of criticism for it at the time). There were some other models which did as you say have her as a virtual certainty.
So if Im following this correctly the EU will reject Italys budget as it breaks the rules and will start proceedings against it, France also will breach EU budget guidelines but wont get prosecuted
That is correct. There is some legal rationale to it, as the rules are much more prescriptive for those who have debt-to-GDP above 100%.
So if Im following this correctly the EU will reject Italys budget as it breaks the rules and will start proceedings against it, France also will breach EU budget guidelines but wont get prosecuted
As Jean Claude Juncker put it in the 2016 EU gives budget leeway to France 'because it is France'
which is why I want out of the damned thing. Its run in the interests of a handful of states
So if Im following this correctly the EU will reject Italys budget as it breaks the rules and will start proceedings against it, France also will breach EU budget guidelines but wont get prosecuted
As Jean Claude Juncker put it in the 2016 EU gives budget leeway to France 'because it is France'
which is why I want out of the damned thing. Its run in the interests of a handful of states
Just remember a bad Brexit might well see us sign up to the Euro as part of Rejoining cost.
So if Im following this correctly the EU will reject Italys budget as it breaks the rules and will start proceedings against it, France also will breach EU budget guidelines but wont get prosecuted
As Jean Claude Juncker put it in the 2016 EU gives budget leeway to France 'because it is France'
which is why I want out of the damned thing. Its run in the interests of a handful of states
Just remember a bad Brexit might well see us sign up to the Euro as part of Rejoining cost.
How are you going to feel then?
Ill think were effing mad. However I will respect the vote.
Democrats to get majority in the House of Representatives:
fivethirtyeight.com: 83.6% (Classic model) or 76% (Polls-only model).
Betfair price to back: 1.51
DYOR
Not research as much as possibly faulty memory... but didn’t they have Hilary a 1.01 shot?
No, they had her on something like a 65% to 70% shot (and got a lot of criticism for it at the time). There were some other models which did as you say have her as a virtual certainty.
Ah yes it was Nate Silver of 538 who rebuffed the 99% claim not made it
Democrats to get majority in the House of Representatives:
fivethirtyeight.com: 83.6% (Classic model) or 76% (Polls-only model).
Betfair price to back: 1.51
DYOR
Not research as much as possibly faulty memory... but didn’t they have Hilary a 1.01 shot?
No, they had her on something like a 65% to 70% shot (and got a lot of criticism for it at the time). There were some other models which did as you say have her as a virtual certainty.
Yes, 538 got a huge amount of stick for NOT showing it as a Hillary certainty. Their 2:1 shot on Donald Trump looks a pretty good forecast compared to... absolutely everybody else.
Are you attending this weekend's Pleb's People's Vote rally?
Probably not as I have other commitments. How about you?
I'm not a supporter of another referendum.
The original decision must be respected and implemented, it isn't like the voters weren't warned Leaving the EU might be bad for the UK economy and destroy the United Kingdom.
Are you attending this weekend's Pleb's People's Vote rally?
Probably not as I have other commitments. How about you?
I'm not a supporter of another referendum.
The original decision must be respected and implemented, it isn't like the voters weren't warned Leaving the EU might be bad for the UK economy and destroy the United Kingdom.
Me? Are you kidding? Hey, I was with you all the time! That was beautiful! Did you see the way they fell into our trap? Ha ha!
Comments
https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1052569520835981313
And the utterly shambolic approach of the government will make it easy for the EU and remainers to blame the Tories. Which I fully expect them to do.
Our dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire left more than a few legacy issues!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45891201
Good luck @Cyclefree
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1052213711295930368?s=21
We therefore need a solution which reflects the fact of our departure from the EU's economic and political embrace but at the same time does not in any time affect or impinge on Ireland's continuing membership of and adherence to the EU and SM hence the idea (which seems perfectly reasonable to the EU) of an economic status for NI which maintains that of the EU (thereby not affecting the Republic).
Unfortunately, that bumps up against our Union and its economic and political structures.
We seem completely blind on "our precious Union" and seem (in some cases) to be willing to go over the cliff of a "No Deal" departure in order to safeguard said Union rather than seek a deal which may weaken the Union but not the rest of the UK economically.
Paris was reportedly not worth a mass, what is Belfast worth or not worth?
They require the ability to manage customs and regulatory checks and these could be managed by a technology based border. The WTO does not have prescriptive rules on what is required nor on exactly how effective it needs to be - as long as declarations are made and there is an enforcement mechanism, it complies. The WTO already have exemptions for special situations.
One of my suggestions is that May says to the EU that we need to appoint the WTO as 'referee' to scope the requirements of the soft border and conclude when it meets WTO rules.
Of course, the EU won't agree as it will solve the problem and May won't agree because it would lead to CETA. Which basically shows neither party is being remotely honest about the NI border and what they are trying to achieve.
[My vague memory is that it was determined Ireland didn't have anything valuable enough to warrant invasion, and Britain was already being a pain in the arse, requiring three legions to Iberia's one, despite being smaller].
Well who would have thought it.
He should have written 'this is a total con'.
It would be great to see her get some proper recognition. Also given her gambling problems being on the £50 would be fitting.
[NB I am available as a proofread].
https://twitter.com/SuperApple80/status/921004071452102658
For those who don't who or what the UPU is, here's a nice video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHhkNwE7pr8
As I have said many times, WTO rules don't mandate a border. But if, for example, we allowed unfettered access to EU products across the NI border, another WTO member could raise a dispute under WTO MFN terms objecting to the fact that we were offering special rules to the EU and not to them. As such, if the dispute were to be upheld, we would either have to offer unfettered access to the claimant (and others) or institute a "hard" border for everyone.
I want to see what set of questions, in what order, led to those answers.
Wot - too soon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_star_(weapon)
Didn't leave buildings as nice, but they did found a couple of good settlements for you.
Experience in Caledonia might've put off the Romans too. Too many tribes, no central authority for proper submissions (and not enough shiny stuff in the ground to warrant the expense).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drumanagh
I'm thinking of my days of using carnets. In those days they were filled in manually. With technology it will be filled in on a computer and the customs officer will see it on his computer when I arrive, but he will still stop me to check and if past experience is to go by he will find something wrong and hold me up while I have to answer boring questions before waving me on.
If I just swan straight through with no checks I can break any rules I like. So you still need checks.
In this way, it's a bit like how Henry Cavendish discovered many things such as Ohm's law or Dalton's Law. But because he didn't publicise it, others later made the same discoveries and got the fame.
I'm fully in favour of Lovelace being commemorated. I'm just unsure her contribution is as important as people make out.
In fact, let's put Henry Cavendish on the £50. I'm sure James Clerk Maxwell would approve.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1052570783048974336
newsthump.com/2018/10/16/finalised-brexit-deal-immediately-shreds-itself-in-frame/
My work here is done. I don't ring twice...
So, are your fellow Americans going to resort to sticking stamps on their envelopes for every country the letter must pass through?
It seems like an insane decision on Trump's part but ....... err... oops! Silly me
International messages, most notably embassies from one nation/city to another, being protected is one of the oldest cross-cultural customs. (Not always followed, of course. Messengers sometimes got their heads lopped off).
*Definitions may vary.
Oddly, this doesn't happen when the government send a letter asking to vote for them in the elections.
It's almost as though we're on a list somewhere...
Is it really more important?
fivethirtyeight.com: 83.6% (Classic model) or 76% (Polls-only model).
Betfair price to back: 1.51
DYOR
[Reached the late 1930s in the Stalin book. It really is reminiscent of Animal Farm or 1984, only history rather than fiction. Bloody disturbing].
Their final projection gave Hillary Clinton a 71.4% chance.
The highest they had her chances was around 88%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Have been a few in Leeds as well.
How are you going to feel then?
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/nate-silver-huffington-post-polls-twitter-230815
The original decision must be respected and implemented, it isn't like the voters weren't warned Leaving the EU might be bad for the UK economy and destroy the United Kingdom.