politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CNN reveals document on Russian tower deal signed by Trump con

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CNN reveals document on Russian tower deal signed by Trump contradicting what his lawyer’s been saying

A newly obtained document shows President Donald Trump signed a letter of intent to move forward with negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Russia, despite his attorney Rudy Giuliani claiming on Sunday the document was never signed. https://t.co/FqppeMkkVa pic.twitter.com/yZyTiRMYs5

Read the full story here

Foxy

The first shall be last and the last shall be first!

Nigelb

You can only lie for so long before it comes back to bite you.
Mike is right.

Trump’s last throw of the dice is the court of public opinion:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/trump-law-collusion-court-public-opinion-mueller.html
And I think it will find him wanting.

Nigelb

Notable that the most heavily redacted parts of the documents in the Flynn sentencing debacle related to Russia. That is the real focus of the Mueller enquiry; conspiracy to defraud the US of a fair election.

Though state attorney generals will be investigating his financial affairs long after he leaves office.

Foxy

I must confess to be rather lost amongst the claims and counter claims of the Trump investigations.

What is clear is that Trump is that rarity, a human being with no redeeming features. That Americans voted for him shows an astonishing lack of judgement, or that America is in a very dark place.

MarqueeMark

But didn't Trump go all through January - October 2016 as too much of an electoral liability? Until he won in November.....

Jonathan

MarqueeMark said:

But didn't Trump go all through January - October 2016 as too much of an electoral liability? Until he won in November.....

Good point. He has always been an electoral liability, there is no reason to believe he won’t continue to be a liability well into his second term.

Trump may well simply want to move on, but his masters probably won’t let him.

MarqueeMark

FPT - CarlottaVance "Unfortunately Mr Sheerman has already voted for “No Deal” when he voted for Article 50....."

He will not be alone in SLOWLY realising this. It's Article 50 No Deal - or May's Shit Deal. Choose.

"But something must be done!" Yeah, like inventing a time machine, you dumb mofos....

MarqueeMark

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

But didn't Trump go all through January - October 2016 as too much of an electoral liability? Until he won in November.....

Good point. He has always been an electoral liability, there is no reason to believe he won’t continue to be a liability well into his second term.

Trump may well simply want to move on, but his masters probably won’t let him.

Turns out Hillary was an even bigger electoral liability.

We need to see who the Dumb-acrats choose this time, before coming to a judgement on Trump's chances. Gotta be a risk their Convention delegates will pick someone who doesn't get the swing states either.

edmundintokyo

Nigelb said:

You can only lie for so long before it comes back to bite you.
Mike is right.

Trump’s last throw of the dice is the court of public opinion:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/trump-law-collusion-court-public-opinion-mueller.html
And I think it will find him wanting.

The thing is he doesn't need to win public opinion to be the nominee next time, he only needs to win Republican Primary Voter opinion.

In theory the Republican Primary Voters would rather not back a general election loser, but Trump has come back from way behind before and his supporters don't believe the media anyway, so even if he was obviously doomed, how would they know? I suppose if Fox figured he was a liability and decided to cut him off then he might have a problem, but he's survived their opposition before.

The other possibility is that Trump will decide to go willingly, but as long as he can use his powers to protect himself from prosecution and pardon his people, why would he do it? He'd have to be sure that he was going to lose, but he has the same problem as his base: The people around him (apparently) encourage him to stick to news channels that say nice things about him to avoid putting him in a bad mood, and he seems to have a fairly high opinion of his own abilities. And they've written him off before...

Jonathan

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

But didn't Trump go all through January - October 2016 as too much of an electoral liability? Until he won in November.....

Good point. He has always been an electoral liability, there is no reason to believe he won’t continue to be a liability well into his second term.

Trump may well simply want to move on, but his masters probably won’t let him.

Turns out Hillary was an even bigger electoral liability.

We need to see who the Dumb-acrats choose this time, before coming to a judgement on Trump's chances. Gotta be a risk their Convention delegates will pick someone who doesn't get the swing states either.

I don’t envy the democrats choice. Do they essentially ignore Trump or do they choose a candidate that can take him on?

No republican or Democrat candidate has laid a finger on him.

edmundintokyo

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

But didn't Trump go all through January - October 2016 as too much of an electoral liability? Until he won in November.....

Good point. He has always been an electoral liability, there is no reason to believe he won’t continue to be a liability well into his second term.

Trump may well simply want to move on, but his masters probably won’t let him.

Turns out Hillary was an even bigger electoral liability.

We need to see who the Dumb-acrats choose this time, before coming to a judgement on Trump's chances. Gotta be a risk their Convention delegates will pick someone who doesn't get the swing states either.

Yup, although I don't think there's currently anyone as bad as Hillary in the potential nomination pool. I mean, Bernie might turn out to be a big voter turn-off (although he could go either way), and Elizabeth Warren's ratings are looking weak, but Biden would be strong, Beto would be strong, KLOBUCHAR would be EXTRA-STRONG...

Yellow_Submarine

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

Jonathan

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

Yellow_Submarine

On topic: We need public polling on what an Independent Trump Candidacy would do to the Electoral College in 2020. Who's vote does he take and where ? The Republicans will already have that data privately. Which leaves us with three questions. 1. Is Trump a bigger electoral disaster for the Republicans as an Independent than as a Republican ? 2. How credible is Trump's threat to stand as an Independent ? 3. What would Trump want to not stand voluntarily ?

There are of course other variables. If a close family member is indicted his behaviour might prompt the 25A, he could just die given his weight and stress levels and the chances of a major Global financial disaster before Nov '20 are not zero.

Overall I've come to find Trump quite reassuring in one huge aspect of the system. If there really was a Deep State/Illuminati/Lizard thing going on Trump would be dead by now. There hasn't been a president more deserving of a massive Heart Attack *and* in whom one happening would appear so credible. Yet despite the daily threat of global conflageration 2 years on he's still there. The election result has been allowed to run it's course.

OldKingCole

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

CarlottaVance

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

Unless.....it’s gradually dawning on some MPs that they’ve already voted for “Article 50 No Deal” and that the only alternative to that is “the Deal” as the government won’t propose anything else and it’s doubtful there is a majority in the HoC for anything else (apart from “No Deal” - but they’ve already voted for that...)

CarlottaVance

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

edmundintokyo

Yellow_Submarine said:

On topic: We need public polling on what an Independent Trump Candidacy would do to the Electoral College in 2020. Who's vote does he take and where ? The Republicans will already have that data privately. Which leaves us with three questions. 1. Is Trump a bigger electoral disaster for the Republicans as an Independent than as a Republican ? 2. How credible is Trump's threat to stand as an Independent ? 3. What would Trump want to not stand voluntarily ?

In a world where Trump has lost Republican primary voters, he's lost everyone.

not_on_fire

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Appalling educational systems

OldKingCole

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

Ha ha. (Ironic laugh!!) Agree, though; it's not a good time elsewhere. Although the strength of Belgium is that it does seem to manage quite well without a Government. Long years of practice, perhaps!

Yellow_Submarine

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

So yes May could yet end up as the Sorcerer's Apprentice unleashing forces she can't channel. But that risk cuts both ways for Brexiters who have to judge May's deal in the hand against the bush.

DavidL

Clients eh? Life would be so more straight forward without them (if rather less well remunerated).

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

Unless.....it’s gradually dawning on some MPs that they’ve already voted for “Article 50 No Deal” and that the only alternative to that is “the Deal” as the government won’t propose anything else and it’s doubtful there is a majority in the HoC for anything else (apart from “No Deal” - but they’ve already voted for that...)

Bingo! (Or perhaps in this case, House.....)

A salutory thought for Labour MPs who have to argue to the voters that yeah, No Deal is a Tory No Deal.

"So you didn't vote to trigger Article 50 then?

"Er......."

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

....and the UK leaving with No Deal is going to push all of them into recession.

Merry Christmas, Europe.

CarlottaVance

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

Unless.....it’s gradually dawning on some MPs that they’ve already voted for “Article 50 No Deal” and that the only alternative to that is “the Deal” as the government won’t propose anything else and it’s doubtful there is a majority in the HoC for anything else (apart from “No Deal” - but they’ve already voted for that...)

Bingo! (Or perhaps in this case, House.....)

A salutory thought for Labour MPs who have to argue to the voters that yeah, No Deal is a Tory No Deal.

"So you didn't vote to trigger Article 50 then?

"Er......."

All those who voted for No Deal Article 50

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-50-parliament-mps-vote-brexit-theresa-may-eu-negotiations-labour-conservative-how-voted-a7558291.html

Jonathan

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

So yes May could yet end up as the Sorcerer's Apprentice unleashing forces she can't channel. But that risk cuts both ways for Brexiters who have to judge May's deal in the hand against the bush.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

CarlottaVance

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

So yes May could yet end up as the Sorcerer's Apprentice unleashing forces she can't channel. But that risk cuts both ways for Brexiters who have to judge May's deal in the hand against the bush.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

That would be the population that voted to leave then voted in this Parliament? That one?

DavidL

The problem with the US system is that it is so dominated by what Trump would call fake news that it becomes very hard to tell when a genuinely bad one comes along. So Clinton spent most of his Presidency mired in trivia about getting a blow job in the Oval office and what seemed to amount to nothing about Whitewater. Obama spent the latter period of his Presidency trying to defend himself (and Hillary) over Benghazi and faced numerous accusations of soliciting funds from regulated bodies such as health companies. "Scandal" is the meat and drink of US politics, it is how it functions.

All this hysteria about trivia, incompetence and misdemeanors means that Trump looks like more of the same. But it isn't. It really isn't. Trump worked closely with a foreign power to use their bots, hacking ability and online propaganda to win a US election. That is serious and Mueller is on the trail. I have money on Trump being re-elected. I still think that will prove to be a winner but, like Nixon, the chances of him completing a second term are slight.

OldKingCole

To be fair, May's deal is better than no deal! Not a lot, maybe.

DavidL

OldKingCole said:

To be fair, May's deal is better than no deal! Not a lot, maybe.

It is a lot better because it allows certainty and time for businesses to plan. The hysteria over no deal gets ever more ridiculous but it would be a modest dislocation at a time when European economies generally, including ours, are at a relatively low ebb. We really don't need it.

OldKingCole

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

To be fair, May's deal is better than no deal! Not a lot, maybe.

It is a lot better because it allows certainty and time for businesses to plan. The hysteria over no deal gets ever more ridiculous but it would be a modest dislocation at a time when European economies generally, including ours, are at a relatively low ebb. We really don't need it.

It's disadvantage is that it makes us rule-takers, although of course, that is what the (small) majority voted for. In effect, anyway.

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

So yes May could yet end up as the Sorcerer's Apprentice unleashing forces she can't channel. But that risk cuts both ways for Brexiters who have to judge May's deal in the hand against the bush.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

That would be the population that voted to leave then voted in this Parliament? That one?

To be fair, 86% of the votes cast by that population were for parties pledging to implement Brexit. The poor wee mites had no way of knowing that is what MPs might actually do.

Alanbrooke

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

To be fair, May's deal is better than no deal! Not a lot, maybe.

It is a lot better because it allows certainty and time for businesses to plan. The hysteria over no deal gets ever more ridiculous but it would be a modest dislocation at a time when European economies generally, including ours, are at a relatively low ebb. We really don't need it.

It's disadvantage is that it makes us rule-takers, although of course, that is what the (small) majority voted for. In effect, anyway.

in lots of areas weve been rule takers for ages

DavidL

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

To be fair, May's deal is better than no deal! Not a lot, maybe.

It is a lot better because it allows certainty and time for businesses to plan. The hysteria over no deal gets ever more ridiculous but it would be a modest dislocation at a time when European economies generally, including ours, are at a relatively low ebb. We really don't need it.

It's disadvantage is that it makes us rule-takers, although of course, that is what the (small) majority voted for. In effect, anyway.

I see that as one of the relatively minor flaws. The backstop is the big one because it threatens the integrity of the UK. The level playing field provisions, which essentially give us access to the SM in exchange for not doing anything to make ourselves more competitive and reducing our frightening trade deficit with it, are another big one. But this is not a time for chaos, as Blair very nearly said.

Alanbrooke

Chinese tell Europe to keep their distance from Dali Lama and Taiwan and offer better market access in return

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/supermacht-china/pekings-wunschliste-an-bruessel-15948931.html

DavidL

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

So yes May could yet end up as the Sorcerer's Apprentice unleashing forces she can't channel. But that risk cuts both ways for Brexiters who have to judge May's deal in the hand against the bush.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

That would be the population that voted to leave then voted in this Parliament? That one?

To be fair, 86% of the votes cast by that population were for parties pledging to implement Brexit. The poor wee mites had no way of knowing that is what MPs might actually do.

Yeah, once you start disregarding peoples' votes on the premise that they didn't really understand what they were voting for, democracy becomes a decorative part of our constitution.

OldKingCole

Alanbrooke said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

To be fair, May's deal is better than no deal! Not a lot, maybe.

It is a lot better because it allows certainty and time for businesses to plan. The hysteria over no deal gets ever more ridiculous but it would be a modest dislocation at a time when European economies generally, including ours, are at a relatively low ebb. We really don't need it.

It's disadvantage is that it makes us rule-takers, although of course, that is what the (small) majority voted for. In effect, anyway.

in lots of areas weve been rule takers for ages

Although we shared in the rule-making process.

OldKingCole

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

To be fair, May's deal is better than no deal! Not a lot, maybe.

It is a lot better because it allows certainty and time for businesses to plan. The hysteria over no deal gets ever more ridiculous but it would be a modest dislocation at a time when European economies generally, including ours, are at a relatively low ebb. We really don't need it.

It's disadvantage is that it makes us rule-takers, although of course, that is what the (small) majority voted for. In effect, anyway.

I see that as one of the relatively minor flaws. The backstop is the big one because it threatens the integrity of the UK. The level playing field provisions, which essentially give us access to the SM in exchange for not doing anything to make ourselves more competitive and reducing our frightening trade deficit with it, are another big one. But this is not a time for chaos, as Blair very nearly said.

The whole issue of the backstop could be sorted by a vote in N Ireland to rejoin the rest of the island.

Alanbrooke

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

To be fair, May's deal is better than no deal! Not a lot, maybe.

It is a lot better because it allows certainty and time for businesses to plan. The hysteria over no deal gets ever more ridiculous but it would be a modest dislocation at a time when European economies generally, including ours, are at a relatively low ebb. We really don't need it.

It's disadvantage is that it makes us rule-takers, although of course, that is what the (small) majority voted for. In effect, anyway.

I see that as one of the relatively minor flaws. The backstop is the big one because it threatens the integrity of the UK. The level playing field provisions, which essentially give us access to the SM in exchange for not doing anything to make ourselves more competitive and reducing our frightening trade deficit with it, are another big one. But this is not a time for chaos, as Blair very nearly said.

The whole issue of the backstop could be sorted by a vote in N Ireland to rejoin the rest of the island.

what if they voted not to ? Would the issue be sorted ?

Roger

A mere terminological inexactitude.

He said 'didn't' when he meant 'did'

OldKingCole

Alanbrooke said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

To be fair, May's deal is better than no deal! Not a lot, maybe.

It is a lot better because it allows certainty and time for businesses to plan. The hysteria over no deal gets ever more ridiculous but it would be a modest dislocation at a time when European economies generally, including ours, are at a relatively low ebb. We really don't need it.

It's disadvantage is that it makes us rule-takers, although of course, that is what the (small) majority voted for. In effect, anyway.

I see that as one of the relatively minor flaws. The backstop is the big one because it threatens the integrity of the UK. The level playing field provisions, which essentially give us access to the SM in exchange for not doing anything to make ourselves more competitive and reducing our frightening trade deficit with it, are another big one. But this is not a time for chaos, as Blair very nearly said.

The whole issue of the backstop could be sorted by a vote in N Ireland to rejoin the rest of the island.

what if they voted not to ? Would the issue be sorted ?

No.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

I see that as one of the relatively minor flaws. The backstop is the big one because it threatens the integrity of the UK.

I'm genuinely puzzled by this claim. The USA has similar checks between the borders of different states. Does that threaten the integrity of the USA? I agree there's clearly some psychological issues with freer access to Ireland than the UK for a handful of very dedicated Unionists. But ultimately given the constraints in place on the backstop anyway it would in practice not likely be a major feature.

Of course, that may not be the intention of the EU...

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

So yes May could yet end up as the Sorcerer's Apprentice unleashing forces she can't channel. But that risk cuts both ways for Brexiters who have to judge May's deal in the hand against the bush.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

That would be the population that voted to leave then voted in this Parliament? That one?

To be fair, 86% of the votes cast by that population were for parties pledging to implement Brexit. The poor wee mites had no way of knowing that is what MPs might actually do.

Yeah, once you start disregarding peoples' votes on the premise that they didn't really understand what they were voting for, democracy becomes a decorative part of our constitution.

Over 50% of voters voted for parties with manifesto commitments to avoid No Deal.

Alanbrooke

OldKingCole said:

Alanbrooke said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

To be fair, May's deal is better than no deal! Not a lot, maybe.

It is a lot better because it allows certainty and time for businesses to plan. The hysteria over no deal gets ever more ridiculous but it would be a modest dislocation at a time when European economies generally, including ours, are at a relatively low ebb. We really don't need it.

It's disadvantage is that it makes us rule-takers, although of course, that is what the (small) majority voted for. In effect, anyway.

I see that as one of the relatively minor flaws. The backstop is the big one because it threatens the integrity of the UK. The level playing field provisions, which essentially give us access to the SM in exchange for not doing anything to make ourselves more competitive and reducing our frightening trade deficit with it, are another big one. But this is not a time for chaos, as Blair very nearly said.

The whole issue of the backstop could be sorted by a vote in N Ireland to rejoin the rest of the island.

what if they voted not to ? Would the issue be sorted ?

No.

so not only do you have to persuade 1.9 million people to vote for something which will be a bigger economic shick than Brexit but you also have to convince 4.9 million people in another country to take an 11% hit to their standard of living.

Seems quite a tall order.

Foxy

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

So yes May could yet end up as the Sorcerer's Apprentice unleashing forces she can't channel. But that risk cuts both ways for Brexiters who have to judge May's deal in the hand against the bush.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

That would be the population that voted to leave then voted in this Parliament? That one?

Yes, in this way Parliament well represents the people. Divided, conflicted, turning on each other and incoherently shouting at a lampost on the High St.

matt

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

....and the UK leaving with No Deal is going to push all of them into recession.

Merry Christmas, Europe.

Welcome to leaver world, where covering oneself in shit is fine provided that third parties get hit by the odd splatter.

ydoethur

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

So yes May could yet end up as the Sorcerer's Apprentice unleashing forces she can't channel. But that risk cuts both ways for Brexiters who have to judge May's deal in the hand against the bush.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

That would be the population that voted to leave then voted in this Parliament? That one?

Yes, in this way Parliament well represents the people. Divided, conflicted, turning on each other and incoherently shouting at a lampost on the High St.

Sounds like Juncker, except the lamp post would presumably be outside the Palais Royal du Bruxelles.

IanB2

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date.(snip).

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

Yes, I said, when the deal was announced, that Mrs May plays chess in an extra dimension and we will just have to sit back and marvel as she slowly pulls off the impossible. And we are seeing a masterclass, which is starting to come good. Somehow she got the Tory leadership vote taken at the perfect time and has been relentless in screwing down on the ultras. Mogg's two interviews about May, just a day or two apart, are polar opposites.

No male PM (nor Mrs T) would have allowed the media to be briefed that the PM's own team in no. 10 were gaming indicative votes and meeting Labour to talk about referendums; their ego wouldn't have stood it and they would have feared for their position when they were forced into a denial. Yet May is so focused on the end game that she doesn't mind looking weak or out of control (because she is controlling it all) meanwhile. And, despite all the "worst PM" and "hopeless" criticism, the pressure on the ERG has been significant, and whilst we haven't seen mass conversions yet, they have certainly gone very quiet.

ConHome opponents console themselves with the number of MPs who have pledged to oppose the deal who "won't change their mind", forgetting that we are talking not about a hundred vicars but about Tory MPs.

Yesterday the plan changed tack and is now screwing down on remainers with all the "planning" for no deal. She has no intention of no deal, but everyone now seems to think she has. She's willing to take all the panic and accusations, if it concentrates minds,

Mrs M doesn't need to assemble a majority, just a bigger minority than for any of the potential amendments. She may not do it, but she may get close - anyone with money on a big MV defeat, take profits!

And, yes, you may have spotted her next move: everyone assumes Jan 14 is the vote date, but she said 'week commencing'. When the business motion is put tomorrow afternoon, on Parliament's last day, we may well find that the MV isn't scheduled firmly for the Monday after all.

She became PM when all the other options destroyed themselves, one by one, and she was left as the only one standing. It's her playbook.

Roger

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

That would be the population that voted to leave then voted in this Parliament? That one?

Yes, in this way Parliament well represents the people. Divided, conflicted, turning on each other and incoherently shouting at a lampost on the High St.

I'm not even sure about that anymore. No one from the brightest to the stupidest had the slightest idea what the vote was all about let alone the implications.

As Blair said after 42 years of our economies intertwining with Europe and our politics following suit it was never possible to make a clean break.

If you tossed a coin 100 times the result would be winthin the 48-52 range either way. Games of chance are no way to determine a country's future.

IanB2

Betting post: the 1.01 against a VONC in the government during 2018 is starting to look like free pennies.

ydoethur

IanB2 said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date.(snip).

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

Yes, I said, when the deal was announced, that Mrs May plays chess in an extra dimension and we will just have to sit back and marvel as she slowly pulls off the impossible. And we are seeing a masterclass, which is starting to come good. Somehow she got the Tory leadership vote taken at the perfect time and has been relentless in screwing down on the ultras. Mogg's two interviews about May, just a day or two apart, are polar opposites.

No male PM (nor Mrs T) would have allowed the media to be briefed that the PM's own team in no. 10 were gaming indicative votes and meeting Labour to talk about referendums; their ego wouldn't have stood it and they would have feared for their position when they were forced into a denial. Yet May is so focused on the end game that she doesn't mind looking weak or out of control (because she is controlling it all) meanwhile. And, despite all the "worst PM" and "hopeless" criticism, the pressure on the ERG has been significant, and whilst we haven't seen mass conversions yet, they have certainly gone very quiet.

ConHome opponents console themselves with the number of MPs who have pledged to oppose the deal who "won't change their mind", forgetting that we are talking not about a hundred vicars but about Tory MPs.

Yesterday the plan changed tack and is now screwing down on remainers with all the "planning" for no deal. She has no intention of no deal, but everyone now seems to think she has. She's willing to take all the panic and accusations, if it concentrates minds,

Mrs M doesn't need to assemble a majority, just a bigger minority than for any of the potential amendments. She may not do it, but she may get close - anyone with money on a big MV defeat, take profits!

And, yes, you may have spotted her next move: everyone assumes Jan 14 is the vote date, but she said 'week commencing'. When the business motion is put tomorrow afternoon, on Parliament's last day, we may well find that the MV isn't scheduled firmly for the Monday after all.

She became PM when all the other options destroyed themselves, one by one, and she was left as the only one standing. It's her playbook.

Is she a member of the Illuminati?

Roger

There seems to be a massive campaign in the media by Remainers at the moment. It almost seems orchestrated. You can't switch on a radio without hearing from a business person how 'leaving' is taking UK PLC to the brink of destruction. Those few voices still bleating about 'sovereignty' are soundind very shrill.

However we arrive there favourite must now be strongly in favour of staying in.

IanB2

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date.(snip).

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

Yes, I said, when the deal was announced, that Mrs May plays chess in an extra dimension and we will just have to sit back and marvel as she slowly pulls off the impossible. And we are seeing a masterclass, which is starting to come good. Somehow she got the Tory leadership vote taken at the perfect time and has been relentless in screwing down on the ultras. Mogg's two interviews about May, just a day or two apart, are polar opposites.

No male PM (nor Mrs T) would have allowed the media to be briefed that the PM's own team in no. 10 were gaming indicative votes and meeting Labour to talk about referendums; their ego wouldn't have stood it and they would have feared for their position when they were forced into a denial. Yet May is so focused on the end game that she doesn't mind looking weak or out of control (because she is controlling it all) meanwhile. And, despite all the "worst PM" and "hopeless" criticism, the pressure on the ERG has been significant, and whilst we haven't seen mass conversions yet, they have certainly gone very quiet.

ConHome opponents console themselves with the number of MPs who have pledged to oppose the deal who "won't change their mind", forgetting that we are talking not about a hundred vicars but about Tory MPs.

Yesterday the plan changed tack and is now screwing down on remainers with all the "planning" for no deal. She has no intention of no deal, but everyone now seems to think she has. She's willing to take all the panic and accusations, if it concentrates minds,

Mrs M doesn't need to assemble a majority, just a bigger minority than for any of the potential amendments. She may not do it, but she may get close - anyone with money on a big MV defeat, take profits!

And, yes, you may have spotted her next move: everyone assumes Jan 14 is the vote date, but she said 'week commencing'. When the business motion is put tomorrow afternoon, on Parliament's last day, we may well find that the MV isn't scheduled firmly for the Monday after all.

She became PM when all the other options destroyed themselves, one by one, and she was left as the only one standing. It's her playbook.

Is she a member of the Illuminati?

Perhaps she made up the illuminati story as cover for an even more shocking truth?

kle4

MarqueeMark said:

FPT - CarlottaVance "Unfortunately Mr Sheerman has already voted for “No Deal” when he voted for Article 50....."

He will not be alone in SLOWLY realising this. It's Article 50 No Deal - or May's Shit Deal. Choose.

You think he and others will ever realise it? I'm far from sure of that. But the theatrical whining about the unacceptability of no deal from mps rings very hollow and cynical indeed.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I see Chrome has decided to unilaterally uglify its tabs again.

kle4

Roger said:

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

That would be the population that voted to leave then voted in this Parliament? That one?

Yes, in this way Parliament well represents the people. Divided, conflicted, turning on each other and incoherently shouting at a lampost on the High St.

I'm not even sure about that anymore. No one from the brightest to the stupidest had the slightest idea what the vote was all about let alone the implications.

As Blair said after 42 years of our economies intertwining with Europe and our politics following suit it was never possible to make a clean break.

If you tossed a coin 100 times the result would be winthin the 48-52 range either way. Games of chance are no way to determine a country's future.

You're not wrong there.

kle4

matt said:

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

....and the UK leaving with No Deal is going to push all of them into recession.

Merry Christmas, Europe.

Welcome to leaver world, where covering oneself in shit is fine provided that third parties get hit by the odd splatter.

Actually that's the position of the EU as well considering their insistence on the main remaining point of contention even though no one seems to need it as there's no desire on any side for a hard border.

rcs1000

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Is it something to do with allowing women the vote?

IanB2

kle4 said:

matt said:

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

....and the UK leaving with No Deal is going to push all of them into recession.

Merry Christmas, Europe.

Welcome to leaver world, where covering oneself in shit is fine provided that third parties get hit by the odd splatter.

Actually that's the position of the EU as well considering their insistence on the main remaining point of contention even though no one seems to need it as there's no desire on any side for a hard border.

Keep up.

TOPPING

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date. If we can't explore alternatives to May's deal till it's voted down and alternatives need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

So yes May could yet end up as the Sorcerer's Apprentice unleashing forces she can't channel. But that risk cuts both ways for Brexiters who have to judge May's deal in the hand against the bush.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

That would be the population that voted to leave then voted in this Parliament? That one?

Yes. That one. Why even some learned PB-ers have admitted to voting Leave while knowing there was a chance of a political mistake of the first magnitude.

Can you imagine?

kle4

Foxy said:

I must confess to be rather lost amongst the claims and counter claims of the Trump investigations.

What is clear is that Trump is that rarity, a human being with no redeeming features. That Americans voted for him shows an astonishing lack of judgement, or that America is in a very dark place.

He must have at least one redeeming quality. Um. Er. Well, he showed quite remarkable energy in the campaign and, we, I'm sure there's more.

More seriously even as partisan as America is you don't get that many votes without any redeeming quality surely.

ydoethur

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Is it something to do with allowing women the vote?

Such a claim skirts the real issues, but will undoubtedly cause a flapper.

ydoethur

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

I must confess to be rather lost amongst the claims and counter claims of the Trump investigations.

What is clear is that Trump is that rarity, a human being with no redeeming features. That Americans voted for him shows an astonishing lack of judgement, or that America is in a very dark place.

He must have at least one redeeming quality. Um. Er. Well, he showed quite remarkable energy in the campaign and, we, I'm sure there's more.

More seriously even as partisan as America is you don't get that many votes without any redeeming quality surely.

As long as he is alive, nobody can seriously claim anyone else has the worst hairstyle in the world?

HYUFD

Trump will very likely still be Republican nominee in 2020 was ultimately the establishment of the GOP cannot block him, only the Republican base who vote in the primaries can do that and at the moment they are still firmly behind Trump.

Even if the Democratic House launches investigations into Trump, the Republican controlled Senate is also unlikely to have a majority to convict him

Foxy

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Is it something to do with allowing women the vote?

I dont think so. Women voted Remain and Democrat.

It is men voting that is the problem!

kle4

Roger said:

There seems to be a massive campaign in the media by Remainers at the moment. It almost seems orchestrated. You can't switch on a radio without hearing from a business person how 'leaving' is taking UK PLC to the brink of destruction. Those few voices still bleating about 'sovereignty' are soundind very shrill.

However we arrive there favourite must now be strongly in favour of staying in.

It's still not easy but remainers should be quietly confident. It requires thatcthey play a reckless game of chicken as well as May, but revocation is in their back pocket, opinion is turning strongly to them compared to the deal which is still hated even if some see a path for it to pass. It's theirs to lose at this point considering almost all labour mps outside the leadership, a growing number of Tories and the snp have been waiting to overturn things this whole time.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Doethur, Jedward?

ydoethur

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Doethur, Jedward?

It's bad, but it doesn't look as bad.

ydoethur

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Is it something to do with allowing women the vote?

I dont think so. Women voted Remain and Democrat.

It is men voting that is the problem!

They're cocking it up?

paulyork64

IanB2 said:

Betting post: the 1.01 against a VONC in the government during 2018 is starting to look like free pennies.

Skybet are 1/66 the HoC wont pass a vote to accept the WA in 2018. I can't see how this comes about either.

Charles

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

The media, both social and traditional

HYUFD

Yellow_Submarine said:

On topic: We need public polling on what an Independent Trump Candidacy would do to the Electoral College in 2020. Who's vote does he take and where ? The Republicans will already have that data privately. Which leaves us with three questions. 1. Is Trump a bigger electoral disaster for the Republicans as an Independent than as a Republican ? 2. How credible is Trump's threat to stand as an Independent ? 3. What would Trump want to not stand voluntarily ?

There are of course other variables. If a close family member is indicted his behaviour might prompt the 25A, he could just die given his weight and stress levels and the chances of a major Global financial disaster before Nov '20 are not zero.

Overall I've come to find Trump quite reassuring in one huge aspect of the system. If there really was a Deep State/Illuminati/Lizard thing going on Trump would be dead by now. There hasn't been a president more deserving of a massive Heart Attack *and* in whom one happening would appear so credible. Yet despite the daily threat of global conflageration 2 years on he's still there. The election result has been allowed to run it's course.

More likely Bloomberg runs as an independent, especially if the choice is say Trump v Sanders it Trump v Warren

williamglenn

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date.(snip).

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

Yes, I said, when the deal was announced, that Mrs May plays chess in an extra dimension and we will just have to sit back and marvel as she slowly pulls off the impossible. And we are seeing a masterclass, which is starting to come good. Somehow she got the Tory leadership vote taken at the perfect time and has been relentless in screwing down on the ultras. Mogg's two interviews about May, just a day or two apart, are polar opposites.

No male PM (nor Mrs T) would have allowed the media to be briefed that the PM's own team in no. 10 were gaming indicative votes and meeting Labour to talk about referendums; their ego wouldn't have stood it and they would have feared for their position when they were forced into a denial. Yet May is so focused on the end game that she doesn't mind looking weak or out of control (because she is controlling it all) meanwhile. And, despite all the "worst PM" and "hopeless" criticism, the pressure on the ERG has been significant, and whilst we haven't seen mass conversions yet, they have certainly gone very quiet.

ConHome opponents console themselves with the number of MPs who have pledged to oppose the deal who "won't change their mind", forgetting that we are talking not about a hundred vicars but about Tory MPs.

Yesterday the plan changed tack and is now screwing down on remainers with all the "planning" for no deal. She has no intention of no deal, but everyone now seems to think she has. She's willing to take all the panic and accusations, if it concentrates minds,

Mrs M doesn't need to assemble a majority, just a bigger minority than for any of the potential amendments. She may not do it, but she may get close - anyone with money on a big MV defeat, take profits!

And, yes, you may have spotted her next move: everyone assumes Jan 14 is the vote date, but she said 'week commencing'. When the business motion is put tomorrow afternoon, on Parliament's last day, we may well find that the MV isn't scheduled firmly for the Monday after all.

She became PM when all the other options destroyed themselves, one by one, and she was left as the only one standing. It's her playbook.

Is she a member of the Illuminati?

“Prime Minister has political skills” isn’t really a conspiracy theory.

MarqueeMark

matt said:

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

....and the UK leaving with No Deal is going to push all of them into recession.

Merry Christmas, Europe.

Welcome to leaver world, where covering oneself in shit is fine provided that third parties get hit by the odd splatter.

I'm so sorry that reality has splattered your pristine garments.....

The EU will pick up your dry-cleaning bill. After all, they are the ones flingng the backstop shit.

felix

kle4 said:

Roger said:

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

That would be the population that voted to leave then voted in this Parliament? That one?

Yes, in this way Parliament well represents the people. Divided, conflicted, turning on each other and incoherently shouting at a lampost on the High St.

I'm not even sure about that anymore. No one from the brightest to the stupidest had the slightest idea what the vote was all about let alone the implications.

As Blair said after 42 years of our economies intertwining with Europe and our politics following suit it was never possible to make a clean break.

If you tossed a coin 100 times the result would be winthin the 48-52 range either way. Games of chance are no way to determine a country's future.

You're not wrong there.

Except a democratic vote is not the same as tossing coins.

HYUFD

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

To be fair, May's deal is better than no deal! Not a lot, maybe.

It is a lot better because it allows certainty and time for businesses to plan. The hysteria over no deal gets ever more ridiculous but it would be a modest dislocation at a time when European economies generally, including ours, are at a relatively low ebb. We really don't need it.

It's disadvantage is that it makes us rule-takers, although of course, that is what the (small) majority voted for. In effect, anyway.

I see that as one of the relatively minor flaws. The backstop is the big one because it threatens the integrity of the UK. The level playing field provisions, which essentially give us access to the SM in exchange for not doing anything to make ourselves more competitive and reducing our frightening trade deficit with it, are another big one. But this is not a time for chaos, as Blair very nearly said.

The whole issue of the backstop could be sorted by a vote in N Ireland to rejoin the rest of the island.

That is only a possibility with No Deal and a hard border, ironically most Northern Irish voters are happy with the Deal according to polls as it keeps Northern Ireland in the Single Market and Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border

ydoethur

williamglenn said:

“Prime Minister has political skills” isn’t really a conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately at the moment it is.

And if Corbyn gets in we'll be nostalgic for May, just as she is starting to make us almost nostalgic for Brown.

Have a good morning.

SandyRentool

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

May outlasts another one. Her cockroach powers should not be underestimated.

kle4

HYUFD said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

On topic: We need public polling on what an Independent Trump Candidacy would do to the Electoral College in 2020. Who's vote does he take and where ? The Republicans will already have that data privately. Which leaves us with three questions. 1. Is Trump a bigger electoral disaster for the Republicans as an Independent than as a Republican ? 2. How credible is Trump's threat to stand as an Independent ? 3. What would Trump want to not stand voluntarily ?

There are of course other variables. If a close family member is indicted his behaviour might prompt the 25A, he could just die given his weight and stress levels and the chances of a major Global financial disaster before Nov '20 are not zero.

Overall I've come to find Trump quite reassuring in one huge aspect of the system. If there really was a Deep State/Illuminati/Lizard thing going on Trump would be dead by now. There hasn't been a president more deserving of a massive Heart Attack *and* in whom one happening would appear so credible. Yet despite the daily threat of global conflageration 2 years on he's still there. The election result has been allowed to run it's course.

More likely Bloomberg runs as an independent, especially if the choice is say Trump v Sanders it Trump v Warren

Didn't people predict he might do that last time?

IanB2

kle4 said:

Roger said:

There seems to be a massive campaign in the media by Remainers at the moment. It almost seems orchestrated. You can't switch on a radio without hearing from a business person how 'leaving' is taking UK PLC to the brink of destruction. Those few voices still bleating about 'sovereignty' are soundind very shrill.

However we arrive there favourite must now be strongly in favour of staying in.

It's still not easy but remainers should be quietly confident. It requires thatcthey play a reckless game of chicken as well as May, but revocation is in their back pocket, opinion is turning strongly to them compared to the deal which is still hated even if some see a path for it to pass. It's theirs to lose at this point considering almost all labour mps outside the leadership, a growing number of Tories and the snp have been waiting to overturn things this whole time.

Parliament will return to a debate on the WA, which Mrs M will want to spin out as long as possible. Tons of MPs will want to speak and there'll be no mood to cut the debate short. She'll hope there'll be more heat than light, and a whole host of contradictory amendments or alternatives none of which MPs will be able to unite behind. At the end her deal could be rejected by much less than expected (indeed the expectations couldn't have better been managed down if someone had been trying....) and there'll be the tiniest window of a day or two, during which either the opposition plus Tory remainers come up both with a proposal and a plan for forcing it through, despite Mrs M controlling the agenda, or she waits until the last day and then puts her deal to a vote for a second time.

MarqueeMark

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Is it something to do with allowing women the vote?

Such a claim skirts the real issues, but will undoubtedly cause a flapper.

You should be made to suffer a jet of cold water for such puns.....

TheScreamingEagles

felix said:

kle4 said:

Roger said:

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

Jonathan said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I need time then delaying till mid January burns most of that time. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let her hold the country hostage like that. She has got to the Christmas recess without either losing the MV, being VoNC by her own party, being VoNC by the Commons or having been removed by the Cabinet. And she's avoided all those things while absorbing a good chunk of the enemies ammunition. That's quite an acheivement to the extent a negative is an acheivement.

The positional power of the PM is what made the difference not Mays skill. The PM holds all but one card. She controls everything, except that she doesn’t have the votes for the deal. The delay hasn’t changed that

May's strategy is not without signifigant risk I agree. 1. The Tory/Leave base could like the no deal theatrics too much. As we've discovered a big chunk of the country will quite like the idea of the army being out and about, hiring extra border/customs officers/men in high vis jackets concreting things. It's Barbara Tuchman stuff. 2. The Remain/Business base could hate the no deal theatrics so much the panic might start. What happens if Remain has hit 60% by mid January ? We are already getting several outliers in the 56%/57% range.

It is unedifying to see a pm use coercion and threats to force Parliament into accepting her flawed deal. But what is really wrong is to actually increase the risks for the population.

That would be the population that voted to leave then voted in this Parliament? That one?

Yes, in this way Parliament well represents the people. Divided, conflicted, turning on each other and incoherently shouting at a lampost on the High St.

I'm not even sure about that anymore. No one from the brightest to the stupidest had the slightest idea what the vote was all about let alone the implications.

As Blair said after 42 years of our economies intertwining with Europe and our politics following suit it was never possible to make a clean break.

If you tossed a coin 100 times the result would be winthin the 48-52 range either way. Games of chance are no way to determine a country's future.

You're not wrong there.

Except a democratic vote is not the same as tossing coins.

Both involve a lot of tossers?

kle4

SandyRentool said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

May outlasts another one. Her cockroach powers should not be underestimated.

she has only been there 2.5 years. That she's been so weak for 1.5 of those years and survived in place is impressive but doesn't make the overall time impressive.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Rentool,

It's 2037. The last nuke went off in 2036, and civilisation is an irradiated memory. Out of the frozen fog that lingers over the nuclear winter, a figure emerges.

"Nothing has changed," she says, arms spread as if to encompass the enormity of her deceit. "Nothing has changed!"

HYUFD

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

On topic: We need public polling on what an Independent Trump Candidacy would do to the Electoral College in 2020. Who's vote does he take and where ? The Republicans will already have that data privately. Which leaves us with three questions. 1. Is Trump a bigger electoral disaster for the Republicans as an Independent than as a Republican ? 2. How credible is Trump's threat to stand as an Independent ? 3. What would Trump want to not stand voluntarily ?

There are of course other variables. If a close family member is indicted his behaviour might prompt the 25A, he could just die given his weight and stress levels and the chances of a major Global financial disaster before Nov '20 are not zero.

Overall I've come to find Trump quite reassuring in one huge aspect of the system. If there really was a Deep State/Illuminati/Lizard thing going on Trump would be dead by now. There hasn't been a president more deserving of a massive Heart Attack *and* in whom one happening would appear so credible. Yet despite the daily threat of global conflageration 2 years on he's still there. The election result has been allowed to run it's course.

More likely Bloomberg runs as an independent, especially if the choice is say Trump v Sanders it Trump v Warren

Didn't people predict he might do that last time?

Hillary was the Democratic nominee last time and a centrist and Bloomberg decided by running he was more likely to hurt her than win.

If the choice is Trump v Sanders or Warren there will be no centrist candidate available so Bloomberg has nothing to lose by running

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

On topic: We need public polling on what an Independent Trump Candidacy would do to the Electoral College in 2020. Who's vote does he take and where ? The Republicans will already have that data privately. Which leaves us with three questions. 1. Is Trump a bigger electoral disaster for the Republicans as an Independent than as a Republican ? 2. How credible is Trump's threat to stand as an Independent ? 3. What would Trump want to not stand voluntarily ?

There are of course other variables. If a close family member is indicted his behaviour might prompt the 25A, he could just die given his weight and stress levels and the chances of a major Global financial disaster before Nov '20 are not zero.

Overall I've come to find Trump quite reassuring in one huge aspect of the system. If there really was a Deep State/Illuminati/Lizard thing going on Trump would be dead by now. There hasn't been a president more deserving of a massive Heart Attack *and* in whom one happening would appear so credible. Yet despite the daily threat of global conflageration 2 years on he's still there. The election result has been allowed to run it's course.

More likely Bloomberg runs as an independent, especially if the choice is say Trump v Sanders it Trump v Warren

Didn't people predict he might do that last time?

I remember laying Bloomberg for the 2008 Presidential race.

He’s their King Over The Water.

HYUFD

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

Roger said:

There seems to be a massive campaign in the media by Remainers at the moment. It almost seems orchestrated. You can't switch on a radio without hearing from a business person how 'leaving' is taking UK PLC to the brink of destruction. Those few voices still bleating about 'sovereignty' are soundind very shrill.

However we arrive there favourite must now be strongly in favour of staying in.

It's still not easy but remainers should be quietly confident. It requires thatcthey play a reckless game of chicken as well as May, but revocation is in their back pocket, opinion is turning strongly to them compared to the deal which is still hated even if some see a path for it to pass. It's theirs to lose at this point considering almost all labour mps outside the leadership, a growing number of Tories and the snp have been waiting to overturn things this whole time.

Parliament will return to a debate on the WA, which Mrs M will want to spin out as long as possible. Tons of MPs will want to speak and there'll be no mood to cut the debate short. She'll hope there'll be more heat than light, and a whole host of contradictory amendments or alternatives none of which MPs will be able to unite behind. At the end her deal could be rejected by much less than expected (indeed the expectations couldn't have better been managed down if someone had been trying....) and there'll be the tiniest window of a day or two, during which either the opposition plus Tory remainers come up both with a proposal and a plan for forcing it through, despite Mrs M controlling the agenda, or she waits until the last day and then puts her deal to a vote for a second time.

Ideally May wants votes on both EUref2 and Norway plus held and voted down before the MV, then the Deal becomes the only alternative to No Deal by default

MarqueeMark

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

Roger said:

There seems to be a massive campaign in the media by Remainers at the moment. It almost seems orchestrated. You can't switch on a radio without hearing from a business person how 'leaving' is taking UK PLC to the brink of destruction. Those few voices still bleating about 'sovereignty' are soundind very shrill.

However we arrive there favourite must now be strongly in favour of staying in.

It's still not easy but remainers should be quietly confident. It requires thatcthey play a reckless game of chicken as well as May, but revocation is in their back pocket, opinion is turning strongly to them compared to the deal which is still hated even if some see a path for it to pass. It's theirs to lose at this point considering almost all labour mps outside the leadership, a growing number of Tories and the snp have been waiting to overturn things this whole time.

Parliament will return to a debate on the WA, which Mrs M will want to spin out as long as possible. Tons of MPs will want to speak and there'll be no mood to cut the debate short. She'll hope there'll be more heat than light, and a whole host of contradictory amendments or alternatives none of which MPs will be able to unite behind. At the end her deal could be rejected by much less than expected (indeed the expectations couldn't have better been managed down if someone had been trying....) and there'll be the tiniest window of a day or two, during which either the opposition plus Tory remainers come up both with a proposal and a plan for forcing it through, despite Mrs M controlling the agenda, or she waits until the last day and then puts her deal to a vote for a second time.

Start the debate again from scratch, allow everyone to speak again, give it five days before the vote. That's another 5 days munched up.

Be interesting to see how many of the deal-haters ponder over Christmas, and decide it is still better than No Deal or No Brexit. If she gets a few staanding up on Monday saying "after a period of careful reflection, I have come to the view that - reluactantly - I must accept the deal on the table..." that could change the narrative to "Can May find the last few votes to end this chaos?"

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

On topic: We need public polling on what an Independent Trump Candidacy would do to the Electoral College in 2020. Who's vote does he take and where ? The Republicans will already have that data privately. Which leaves us with three questions. 1. Is Trump a bigger electoral disaster for the Republicans as an Independent than as a Republican ? 2. How credible is Trump's threat to stand as an Independent ? 3. What would Trump want to not stand voluntarily ?

There are of course other variables. If a close family member is indicted his behaviour might prompt the 25A, he could just die given his weight and stress levels and the chances of a major Global financial disaster before Nov '20 are not zero.

Overall I've come to find Trump quite reassuring in one huge aspect of the system. If there really was a Deep State/Illuminati/Lizard thing going on Trump would be dead by now. There hasn't been a president more deserving of a massive Heart Attack *and* in whom one happening would appear so credible. Yet despite the daily threat of global conflageration 2 years on he's still there. The election result has been allowed to run it's course.

More likely Bloomberg runs as an independent, especially if the choice is say Trump v Sanders it Trump v Warren

Didn't people predict he might do that last time?

I remember laying Bloomberg for the 2008 Presidential race.

He’s their King Over The Water.

Trump v Sanders would also be a vastly different prospect to McCain v Obama in terms of scope for a centrist third party candidate.

If Biden or maybe O'Rourke is Democratic nominee Bloomberg likely stays out, any other Democrat e.g. Harris, Sanders, Warren etc and he could well run

matt

MarqueeMark said:

matt said:

MarqueeMark said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

....and the UK leaving with No Deal is going to push all of them into recession.

Merry Christmas, Europe.

Welcome to leaver world, where covering oneself in shit is fine provided that third parties get hit by the odd splatter.

I'm so sorry that reality has splattered your pristine garments.....

The EU will pick up your dry-cleaning bill. After all, they are the ones flingng the backstop shit.

I genuflect before the world’s greatest negotiator. Self declared.

IanB2

ydoethur said:

williamglenn said:

“Prime Minister has political skills” isn’t really a conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately at the moment it is.

And if Corbyn gets in we'll be nostalgic for May, just as she is starting to make us almost nostalgic for Brown.

Have a good morning.

But, had the ComHomers had their dream of a 'true Brexit' PM, the probability that they (consider the potential personalities...) would have provoked such a remainer reaction from MPs that we'd already be on the way to a second vote by now is, I suggest, very high. Similarly had another Tory PM themselves tried to backtrack from Brexit, they would have been deposed.

So Mrs M really was the perfect candidate for the job. Her success rests upon her ability to walk the tightrope between the two camps, which rests upon the single somewhat ambivalent speech she made during the 2016 referendum, otherwise keeping her head well down. She had this all mapped out before we even knew what the result would be....

kle4

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

Roger said:

There seems to be a massive campaign in the media by Remainers at the moment. It almost seems orchestrated. You can't switch on a radio without hearing from a business person how 'leaving' is taking UK PLC to the brink of destruction. Those few voices still bleating about 'sovereignty' are soundind very shrill.

However we arrive there favourite must now be strongly in favour of staying in.

It's still not easy but remainers should be quietly confident. It requires thatcthey play a reckless game of chicken as well as May, but revocation is in their back pocket, opinion is turning strongly to them compared to the deal which is still hated even if some see a path for it to pass. It's theirs to lose at this point considering almost all labour mps outside the leadership, a growing number of Tories and the snp have been waiting to overturn things this whole time.

Parliament will return to a debate on the WA, which Mrs M will want to spin out as long as possible. Tons of MPs will want to speak and there'll be no mood to cut the debate short. She'll hope there'll be more heat than light, and a whole host of contradictory amendments or alternatives none of which MPs will be able to unite behind. At the end her deal could be rejected by much less than expected (indeed the expectations couldn't have better been managed down if someone had been trying....) and there'll be the tiniest window of a day or two, during which either the opposition plus Tory remainers come up both with a proposal and a plan for forcing it through, despite Mrs M controlling the agenda, or she waits until the last day and then puts her deal to a vote for a second time.

Start the debate again from scratch, allow everyone to speak again, give it five days before the vote. That's another 5 days munched up.

Be interesting to see how many of the deal-haters ponder over Christmas, and decide it is still better than No Deal or No Brexit. If she gets a few staanding up on Monday saying "after a period of careful reflection, I have come to the view that - reluactantly - I must accept the deal on the table..." that could change the narrative to "Can May find the last few votes to end this chaos?"

Maybe. But most voting against state they carefully reflected already (though some are likely reflecting on if they can get remain out of this).

The largest group possible are those who wanted a new deal. If they don't believe remain or No deal is better and they accept new deal won't happen they could change time.

But they need more than that.

DecrepitJohnL

kle4 said:

SandyRentool said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

May outlasts another one. Her cockroach powers should not be underestimated.

she has only been there 2.5 years. That she's been so weak for 1.5 of those years and survived in place is impressive but doesn't make the overall time impressive.

The irony is that in the leadership election, Theresa May's main and perhaps only qualification was that she had been Home Secretary for six years.

IanB2

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

Roger said:

There seems to be a massive campaign in the media by Remainers at the moment. It almost seems orchestrated. You can't switch on a radio without hearing from a business person how 'leaving' is taking UK PLC to the brink of destruction. Those few voices still bleating about 'sovereignty' are soundind very shrill.

However we arrive there favourite must now be strongly in favour of staying in.

It's still not easy but remainers should be quietly confident. It requires thatcthey play a reckless game of chicken as well as May, but revocation is in their back pocket, opinion is turning strongly to them compared to the deal which is still hated even if some see a path for it to pass. It's theirs to lose at this point considering almost all labour mps outside the leadership, a growing number of Tories and the snp have been waiting to overturn things this whole time.

Parliament will return to a debate on the WA, which Mrs M will want to spin out as long as possible. Tons of MPs will want to speak and there'll be no mood to cut the debate short. She'll hope there'll be more heat than light, and a whole host of contradictory amendments or alternatives none of which MPs will be able to unite behind. At the end her deal could be rejected by much less than expected (indeed the expectations couldn't have better been managed down if someone had been trying....) and there'll be the tiniest window of a day or two, during which either the opposition plus Tory remainers come up both with a proposal and a plan for forcing it through, despite Mrs M controlling the agenda, or she waits until the last day and then puts her deal to a vote for a second time.

Start the debate again from scratch, allow everyone to speak again, give it five days before the vote. That's another 5 days munched up.

Be interesting to see how many of the deal-haters ponder over Christmas, and decide it is still better than No Deal or No Brexit. If she gets a few staanding up on Monday saying "after a period of careful reflection, I have come to the view that - reluactantly - I must accept the deal on the table..." that could change the narrative to "Can May find the last few votes to end this chaos?"

Really she needs one out of Boris or JRM. What can she promise them....

So as a deal hater yourself, you are reconsidering?

Donny43

IanB2 said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date.(snip).

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

Yes, I said, when the deal was announced, that Mrs May plays chess in an extra dimension and we will just have to sit back and marvel as she slowly pulls off the impossible. And we are seeing a masterclass, which is starting to come good. Somehow she got the Tory leadership vote taken at the perfect time and has been relentless in screwing down on the ultras. Mogg's two interviews about May, just a day or two apart, are polar opposites.

No male PM (nor Mrs T) would have allowed the media to be briefed that the PM's own team in no. 10 were gaming indicative votes and meeting Labour to talk about referendums; their ego wouldn't have stood it and they would have feared for their position when they were forced into a denial. Yet May is so focused on the end game that she doesn't mind looking weak or out of control (because she is controlling it all) meanwhile. And, despite all the "worst PM" and "hopeless" criticism, the pressure on the ERG has been significant, and whilst we haven't seen mass conversions yet, they have certainly gone very quiet.

ConHome opponents console themselves with the number of MPs who have pledged to oppose the deal who "won't change their mind", forgetting that we are talking not about a hundred vicars but about Tory MPs.

Yesterday the plan changed tack and is now screwing down on remainers with all the "planning" for no deal. She has no intention of no deal, but everyone now seems to think she has. She's willing to take all the panic and accusations, if it concentrates minds,

Mrs M doesn't need to assemble a majority, just a bigger minority than for any of the potential amendments. She may not do it, but she may get close - anyone with money on a big MV defeat, take profits!

And, yes, you may have spotted her next move: everyone assumes Jan 14 is the vote date, but she said 'week commencing'. When the business motion is put tomorrow afternoon, on Parliament's last day, we may well find that the MV isn't scheduled firmly for the Monday after all.

She became PM when all the other options destroyed themselves, one by one, and she was left as the only one standing. It's her playbook.

I think it's unlikely the vote will be on the Monday as IIRC there are two days of the debate left?

IanB2

DecrepitJohnL said:

kle4 said:

SandyRentool said:

CarlottaVance said:

OldKingCole said:

The two major Anglophone countries are deep in the brown stuff due to incompetent Governments. Yet both came to power as a result of an acknowleged democratic process.

Makes one furiously to think! Why have the processes in each country worked so badly?

Cheer up! The Belgian PM has just resigned, the French Police are about to strike and German economic confidence is at its lowest in over a decade. Everything’s going so well.....

May outlasts another one. Her cockroach powers should not be underestimated.

she has only been there 2.5 years. That she's been so weak for 1.5 of those years and survived in place is impressive but doesn't make the overall time impressive.

The irony is that in the leadership election, Theresa May's main and perhaps only qualification was that she had been Home Secretary for six years.

And that she wasn't Boris, or Gove, or Leadsom.... (edit/ besides, being Home Sec for a whole six years and still being seen as candidate for the top job is HUGE)

IanB2

Donny43 said:

IanB2 said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

I have a very rare moment of agreement with some of PB's May rampers. I genuinely didn't think MPs would let May burn over a month of additional time. When week beginning 14/1 turns into a vote on 16th or 17th of January for the MV she'll gave burned about 35 or 36 days since the original scheduked date.(snip).

I still think the Commons will vote down the MV on the first attempt for psychological reasons but surely the chances of it passing on a subsequent attempt have now risen considerably.

Yes, I said, when the deal was announced, that Mrs May plays chess in an extra dimension and we will just have to sit back and marvel as she slowly pulls off the impossible. And we are seeing a masterclass, which is starting to come good. Somehow she got the Tory leadership vote taken at the perfect time and has been relentless in screwing down on the ultras. Mogg's two interviews about May, just a day or two apart, are polar opposites.

No male PM (nor Mrs T) would have allowed the media to be briefed that the PM's own team in no. 10 were gaming indicative votes and meeting Labour to talk about referendums; their ego wouldn't have stood it and they would have feared for their position when they were forced into a denial. Yet May is so focused on the end game that she doesn't mind looking weak or out of control (because she is controlling it all) meanwhile. And, despite all the "worst PM" and "hopeless" criticism, the pressure on the ERG has been significant, and whilst we haven't seen mass conversions yet, they have certainly gone very quiet.

ConHome opponents console themselves with the number of MPs who have pledged to oppose the deal who "won't change their mind", forgetting that we are talking not about a hundred vicars but about Tory MPs.

Yesterday the plan changed tack and is now screwing down on remainers with all the "planning" for no deal. She has no intention of no deal, but everyone now seems to think she has. She's willing to take all the panic and accusations, if it concentrates minds,

Mrs M doesn't need to assemble a majority, just a bigger minority than for any of the potential amendments. She may not do it, but she may get close - anyone with money on a big MV defeat, take profits!

And, yes, you may have spotted her next move: everyone assumes Jan 14 is the vote date, but she said 'week commencing'. When the business motion is put tomorrow afternoon, on Parliament's last day, we may well find that the MV isn't scheduled firmly for the Monday after all.

She became PM when all the other options destroyed themselves, one by one, and she was left as the only one standing. It's her playbook.

I think it's unlikely the vote will be on the Monday as IIRC there are two days of the debate left?

The debate is w/c 7th, the vote w/c 14th

CarlottaVance

Obviously businesses are complaining (what? Pay Higher wages? Train British workers? The Horror!) but in the Mail the salary threshold is presented as stopping EU migrants (like others currently) claiming benefits.

I doubt that will be unpopular among voters....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6510471/EU-workers-arriving-UK-Brexit-lose-right-claim-billions-pounds-benefits.html

TheKitchenCabinet

HYUFD said:

Yellow_Submarine said:

On topic: We need public polling on what an Independent Trump Candidacy would do to the Electoral College in 2020. Who's vote does he take and where ? The Republicans will already have that data privately. Which leaves us with three questions. 1. Is Trump a bigger electoral disaster for the Republicans as an Independent than as a Republican ? 2. How credible is Trump's threat to stand as an Independent ? 3. What would Trump want to not stand voluntarily ?

There are of course other variables. If a close family member is indicted his behaviour might prompt the 25A, he could just die given his weight and stress levels and the chances of a major Global financial disaster before Nov '20 are not zero.

Overall I've come to find Trump quite reassuring in one huge aspect of the system. If there really was a Deep State/Illuminati/Lizard thing going on Trump would be dead by now. There hasn't been a president more deserving of a massive Heart Attack *and* in whom one happening would appear so credible. Yet despite the daily threat of global conflageration 2 years on he's still there. The election result has been allowed to run it's course.

More likely Bloomberg runs as an independent, especially if the choice is say Trump v Sanders it Trump v Warren

On topic, couple of reasons I think the Republicans will stick with him in 2020

(1) The Republican Establishment knows that Trump bring voters to the party that others wouldn't. Now, he also repels (apparently) some suburban well off Republicans. But if you look at where Republican House losses came from, a high percentage came from states which Trump lost in 2016 anyway (NJ, NY, CA, IL). On the other hand, the establishment knows any new Republican candidate is unlikely to repeat Trump's wins in places like Michigan and Wisconsin. And they won the Senate seat in FL and did reasonably well in Ohio.

(2) Post-Kavanaugh, Trump built up a lot of credit with traditional Republicans. More to the point, Establishment Republicans fear that Democrats would target them as aggressively as Trump if 2020 was lost. There is a sense Trump is the only one who can hold them back.

(3) There is a good chance that at least one Supreme Court seat (Ginsberg) comes up, possibly in the next 2 years, almost certainly before 2024. That will be a humdinger of a battle. I would imagine Republicans will want someone with Trump's willingness to attack to be around for that.

(4) Stepping back and looking at the whole Mueller thing, there are enough sub-plots where the whole thing is getting slightly complicated. Was Flynn a victim of a sting or not? What happened to the Page-Strozk texts? etc etc. There is enough in here where he can drag it out. And Barr is not likely to make the same mistake Sessions did in recusement.

DecrepitJohnL

Trump should fear not Mueller but the Kremlin. At some point, Vladimir Putin may well decide it is better to sew more chaos in America by providing the missing evidence, whether genuine or not, and letting Washington become gridlocked in impeachment hearings and the aftermath of another disgraced president. The irony is that Mueller has made Trump more dependant on Russia.