If Tony Blair had had the guts he could have held a referendum in about 1998, at the height of his popularity, on both staying in the EU and adopting the Euro. The latter might have been defeated, but the former would have won easily at that point in time. And a mandate from 1998 would probably have been regarded by most people as still being in force in 2016 as opposed to one from 1975.
Blair was far too canny a politician to call an unnecessary vote he couldn't be certain of winning.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
A new political declaration could be negotiated, not a new Withdrawal Agreement.
That might get err Lucy Powell, Stephen Kinnock and Robert Halfon on board I think if it is Norway+ed.
I cannot see many Labour MPs signing up to something that essentially means having to take Theresa May's word for it. That's why the WA is so important. If MPs trusted May then we might not be where we are now.
If Tony Blair had had the guts he could have held a referendum in about 1998, at the height of his popularity, on both staying in the EU and adopting the Euro. The latter might have been defeated, but the former would have won easily at that point in time. And a mandate from 1998 would probably have been regarded by most people as still being in force in 2016 as opposed to one from 1975.
Blair was far too canny a politician to call an unnecessary vote he couldn't be certain of winning
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
The WA is Citizens' rights, Money, No border in Ireland, Transition period.
How would any of that change if she adjusted her red lines?
Continued and permanent UK membership of the customs union removes the need for a backstop.
No it doesn't. What about regulations?
Please expand? I'm with Southam on this one - would be good know know where we are wrong.
The backstop ties Northern Ireland into both being in the same customs area AND the same Single Market regulations. Dealing with only one of those issues still leaves the other one.
Ok thanks. I'm struggling to see the significance of this though - if we are in the (or even a) Customs Union, wouldn't we want to maintian regulatory alignment to ensure continued access to the single market?
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to be repeated so often beggars belief. Fair enough to have to drill it into the thick skulls of MPs. But this is PB where we should know better.
She will not revoke A50, which would take No Deal off the table. If MPs do wish to revoke A50, then they can vote her out of office.
Well I still think (ha haha hahahahaha) that the deal will get through. I mean it seems impossible. The DUP won't all of a sudden change their minds, and nor it seems and despite the appeals today, will a significant number of Lab MPs. Cons headbangers on both sides won't either.
And yet.
The deal is the only possible iteration of Brexit. There simple INA.
So the next few days and weeks will be nothing if not exciting. But we know the ending. The deal.
You vastly overestimate the willingness of hundreds of career politicians to put the good of the country first.
It's bonkers, but, simply, we cannot leave with a question mark over the Irish border. Leaving without a backstop is doing exactly that. No PM could ever ( @Philip_Thompson pls note) lead us onto a path, one consequence of which is a return to the Troubles. Even May, useless and falling short as she is and does, realises that (or perhaps a favoured adviser has had to tell her). So for all her undoubted many ills, she is rightly holding on to that. And once that is an immovable object, the rest has to fall into place around it.
Er, so Poland has no say in the "European position".....
This isn't going to end well.
No, but not for that reason. Poland would know once they agreed it it would not be reopened. The EU only does do on it's terms, and having agreed it once Poland has voided its chance to be involved again.
Listening to TM and this statement she seems to have regained her party ex the remainers but the other parties are obviously wanting either a diluted deal or especially remain
However, the questions have become so repetitive it is becoming a complete bore
It does increasingly seem that May wants the HoC to dictate the way forward to her if this Guardian report of her exchange with Cooper is anything to go by:
Labour’s Yvette Cooper challenges May to hold votes on her red lines, such as staying out of the customs union.
May says there will be a debate next week, and MPs will be able to table amendments.
It's the perfect cover I suppose. She gets progress without owning in.
Have you suffered a ban Anazina/_Anazina_? I must have missed that.
I think there should be a public announcement of each ban, including the misdemeanour!
Mr. Notme, quite. The political class gave away powers that were lent to them by the electorate, constantly moving further away from the people, and are now in a pickle they've largely created themselves.
The Lisbon referendum that was promised and reneged upon could've enabled a far better settlement for both sides than the current entrenched, polarised division.
You are looking at it through the prism of the last two years in which May's red lines have defined the parameters of the way in which the EU have negotiated. As Barnier has made clear, changing the red lines changes the deal that can be done. The backstop is there because the UK government has made clear that it wants to leave the customs union.
I am looking at it through the prism of what the EU has said again and again and again, most recently today:
Yep - there can be no concession on the current backstop because that is there specifically to deal with the fact that the UK government's stated intention is to leave the customs union.
That said, we are arguing over nuance. I agree that there is no WA the EU will sign up to that does not ensure the status quo on the Irish border. It's just that there is not only one way to get to that point. Is it worth risking a No Deal over, though? Absolutely not.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to be repeated so often beggars belief. Fair enough to have to drill it into the thick skulls of MPs. But this is PB where we should know better.
She will not revoke A50, which would take No Deal off the table. If MPs do wish to revoke A50, then they can vote her out of office.
Well I still think (ha haha hahahahaha) that the deal will get through. I mean it seems impossible. The DUP won't all of a sudden change their minds, and nor it seems and despite the appeals today, will a significant number of Lab MPs. Cons headbangers on both sides won't either.
And yet.
The deal is the only possible iteration of Brexit. There simple INA.
So the next few days and weeks will be nothing if not exciting. But we know the ending. The deal.
You vastly overestimate the willingness of hundreds of career politicians to put the good of the country first.
It's bonkers, but, simply, we cannot leave with a question mark over the Irish border. Leaving without a backstop is doing exactly that. No PM could ever ( @Philip_Thompson pls note) lead us onto a path, one consequence of which is a return to the Troubles. Even May, useless and falling short as she is and does, realises that (or perhaps a favoured adviser has had to tell her). So for all her undoubted many ills, she is rightly holding on to that. And once that is an immovable object, the rest has to fall into place around it.
I'm afraid that I just don't think many MPs put the Irish border above their own careers. If they did, we would not be where we are now: May's deal would already have been voted through.
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
Definitely. If there are 10 candidates, she'd certainly be better than most, and I think there is no overwhelming front runner. I've backed her now. I'm red on Beto, Bernie, Hilary, Michelle and Oprah. Really hoping Beto doesn't run.
You are looking at it through the prism of the last two years in which May's red lines have defined the parameters of the way in which the EU have negotiated. As Barnier has made clear, changing the red lines changes the deal that can be done. The backstop is there because the UK government has made clear that it wants to leave the customs union.
I am looking at it through the prism of what the EU has said again and again and again, most recently today:
Yep - there can be no concession on the current backstop because that is there specifically to deal with the fact that the UK government's stated intention is to leave the customs union.
No, because as I pointed out there could never be a guarantee that a deal to stay in the Single Market/CU would be ratified.
If you really don't believe me, perhaps you can point to any statement by Barnier or another significant EU figure ever suggesting the backstop could be ditched?
It does increasingly seem that May wants the HoC to dictate the way forward to her if this Guardian report of her exchange with Cooper is anything to go by:
Labour’s Yvette Cooper challenges May to hold votes on her red lines, such as staying out of the customs union.
May says there will be a debate next week, and MPs will be able to table amendments.
It's the perfect cover I suppose. She gets progress without owning in.
Have you suffered a ban Anazina/_Anazina_? I must have missed that.
I think there should be a public announcement of each ban, including the misdemeanour!
Can I just go all trumpet blowy and say that I think I was the first to flag up Sherrod Brown, following an article in the Newstatesman back in October?
You are looking at it through the prism of the last two years in which May's red lines have defined the parameters of the way in which the EU have negotiated. As Barnier has made clear, changing the red lines changes the deal that can be done. The backstop is there because the UK government has made clear that it wants to leave the customs union.
I am looking at it through the prism of what the EU has said again and again and again, most recently today:
Yep - there can be no concession on the current backstop because that is there specifically to deal with the fact that the UK government's stated intention is to leave the customs union.
No, because as I pointed out there could never be a guarantee that a deal to stay in the Single Market/CU would be ratified.
If you really don't believe me, perhaps you can point to any statement by Barnier or another significant EU figure ever suggesting the backstop could be ditched?
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
That this simple, self-evident truth needs to b should know better.
She will not revoke A50, which would take No Deal off the table. If MPs do wish to revoke A50, then they can vote her out of office.
Well I still think (ha haha hahahahaha) that the deal will get through. I mean it seems impossible. The DUP won't all of a sudden change their minds, and nor it seems and despite the appeals today, will a significant number of Lab MPs. Cons headbangers on both sides won't either.
And yet.
The deal is the only possible iteration of Brexit. There simple INA.
So the next few days and weeks will be nothing if not exciting. But we know the ending. The deal.
You vastly overestimate the willingness of hundreds of career politicians to put the good of the country first.
It's bonkers, but, simply, we cannot leave with a question mark over the Irish border. Leaving without a backstop is doing exactly that. No PM could ever ( @Philip_Thompson pls note) lead us onto a path, one consequence of which is a return to the Troubles. Even May, useless and falling short as she is and does, realises that (or perhaps a favoured adviser has had to tell her). So for all her undoubted many ills, she is rightly holding on to that. And once that is an immovable object, the rest has to fall into place around it.
I'm afraid that I just don't think many MPs put the Irish border above their own careers. If they did, we would not be where we are now: May's deal would already have been voted through.
Hence there are no doubt several options up May's sleeve any one of which she may deploy not limited to extending A50 (ie short of revoking it), perhaps a higher probability than it was.
If you think about it, she has so far delayed the various votes unilaterally, and so extending A50 would not be hugely out of character or different to her previous MO. Explaining it as giving time for the UK to come to a decision. I know all that stuff about the EU agreeing only if it is "meaningful" or whatnot, but sooner or later those MPs will realise that if they don't vote for the deal, that extension will become indistinguishable from staying in. Or will take us to the next GE. Or a second referendum.
Edit: oooh - Graun in bold: "May doesn't rule out A50 extension".
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
The WA is Citizens' rights, Money, No border in Ireland, Transition period.
How would any of that change if she adjusted her red lines?
Continued and permanent UK membership of the customs union removes the need for a backstop.
Only once it has been formally agreed and ratified by the EU27, and maybe not even then. And the EU won't formally negotiate until we've left. So, no, it doesn't remove the need for the backstop.
This really shouldn't need repeating!
You are looking at it through the prism of the last two years in which May's red lines have defined the parameters of the way in which the EU have negotiated. As Barnier has made clear, changing the red lines changes the deal that can be done. The backstop is there because the UK government has made clear that it wants to leave the customs union.
...Because May has decided that Leaving the EU also has to mean not being in a CU. But that's just her interpretation (admittedly shared by the ERG but not all the 52% wanted out of the CU.)
I know it is ancient history now - but I do recollect something about taking back control of our money, our borders, our laws and our trade policy. Inside the customs union we have no independent trade policy - which is perhaps why Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Norway choose not to be in the EU customs union even though they are in the single market (albeit via bilateral treaties for the Swiss).
Its the Turkey option - in 'the' or 'a' but it amounts to a sub optimal position as your trade policy is driven by the EUs over which you have no voting rights.
Now I am not clear how many of the 52% were that fussed about the customs union - but that is another matter.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
A new political declaration could be negotiated, not a new Withdrawal Agreement.
That might get err Lucy Powell, Stephen Kinnock and Robert Halfon on board I think if it is Norway+ed.
I cannot see many Labour MPs signing up to something that essentially means having to take Theresa May's word for it. That's why the WA is so important. If MPs trusted May then we might not be where we are now.
The EU's mistake was refusing to negotiate a trade deal in parallel with the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU thought they were being clever but in practice they were being stupid.
You are looking at it through the prism of the last two years in which May's red lines have defined the parameters of the way in which the EU have negotiated. As Barnier has made clear, changing the red lines changes the deal that can be done. The backstop is there because the UK government has made clear that it wants to leave the customs union.
I am looking at it through the prism of what the EU has said again and again and again, most recently today:
Yep - there can be no concession on the current backstop because that is there specifically to deal with the fact that the UK government's stated intention is to leave the customs union.
No, because as I pointed out there could never be a guarantee that a deal to stay in the Single Market/CU would be ratified.
If you really don't believe me, perhaps you can point to any statement by Barnier or another significant EU figure ever suggesting the backstop could be ditched?
The need to maintain the status quo in Ireland cannot be ditched. My only point is that does not necessarily require the backstop. We know that because May did not originally sign up to one. She only changed position once the DUP when beserk.
It does increasingly seem that May wants the HoC to dictate the way forward to her if this Guardian report of her exchange with Cooper is anything to go by:
Labour’s Yvette Cooper challenges May to hold votes on her red lines, such as staying out of the customs union.
May says there will be a debate next week, and MPs will be able to table amendments.
It's the perfect cover I suppose. She gets progress without owning in.
Have you suffered a ban Anazina/_Anazina_? I must have missed that.
I think there should be a public announcement of each ban, including the misdemeanour!
The first rule of ban club, is no one talks of ban club.
Continued and permanent UK membership of the customs union removes the need for a backstop.
That, plus Single Market alignment, if implemented before the end of the transition period would mean that the Backstop would not be triggered, but it would still be needed.
CU/SM is part of the Future Relationship - which cannot be negotiated until we have left and is described in the non binding Political Declaration.
Because the FR in the PD is non binding and will take time to nail down, and in any event describes only one possible future, an insurance policy is required by the EU that ensures no border in Ireland under any circumstances, ever.
This is the Backstop. Unless the EU back down, it will be in any Withdrawal Agreement, regardless of what our preferred Future Relationship is.
It's a loaded gun to our heads. Corbyn, May, soft, hard, does not matter. We have to sign it if we wish to leave the European Union with a transition rather than a crash out.
You are looking at it through the prism of the last two years in which May's red lines have defined the parameters of the way in which the EU have negotiated. As Barnier has made clear, changing the red lines changes the deal that can be done. The backstop is there because the UK government has made clear that it wants to leave the customs union.
I am looking at it through the prism of what the EU has said again and again and again, most recently today:
Yep - there can be no concession on the current backstop because that is there specifically to deal with the fact that the UK government's stated intention is to leave the customs union.
No, because as I pointed out there could never be a guarantee that a deal to stay in the Single Market/CU would be ratified.
If you really don't believe me, perhaps you can point to any statement by Barnier or another significant EU figure ever suggesting the backstop could be ditched?
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
Definitely. If there are 10 candidates, she'd certainly be better than most, and I think there is no overwhelming front runner. I've backed her now. I'm red on Beto, Bernie, Hilary, Michelle and Oprah. Really hoping Beto doesn't run.
I'm red on Bernie. He better not run. Also red on Michelle and Oprah.
It does increasingly seem that May wants the HoC to dictate the way forward to her if this Guardian report of her exchange with Cooper is anything to go by:
Labour’s Yvette Cooper challenges May to hold votes on her red lines, such as staying out of the customs union.
May says there will be a debate next week, and MPs will be able to table amendments.
It's the perfect cover I suppose. She gets progress without owning in.
Have you suffered a ban Anazina/_Anazina_? I must have missed that.
I think there should be a public announcement of each ban, including the misdemeanour!
No, I've not been banned, but can't actually post under the Anazina (no underscores) – because I got caught in the spam trap for reasons I won't go into again now!
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
Definitely. If there are 10 candidates, she'd certainly be better than most, and I think there is no overwhelming front runner. I've backed her now. I'm red on Beto, Bernie, Hilary, Michelle and Oprah. Really hoping Beto doesn't run.
Why wouldn't he run? He doesn't currently have a job. He could go for the other Texas Senate seat, but Cornyn is probably more popular than Cruz (certainly less Marmite) and it would be even harder to win in a Presidential year than at a midterm.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
A new political declaration could be negotiated, not a new Withdrawal Agreement.
That might get err Lucy Powell, Stephen Kinnock and Robert Halfon on board I think if it is Norway+ed.
But the political declaration is just warm words and has no legal basis. It can be reneged on by either side surely once we leave. If the withdrawal agreement doesn't change - nothing has actually changed.
And what exactly is the point of Norway+ - its identical to being in the EU (literally) but we lose our voting rights and MEPs. Why bother?
It does increasingly seem that May wants the HoC to dictate the way forward to her if this Guardian report of her exchange with Cooper is anything to go by:
Labour’s Yvette Cooper challenges May to hold votes on her red lines, such as staying out of the customs union.
May says there will be a debate next week, and MPs will be able to table amendments.
It's the perfect cover I suppose. She gets progress without owning in.
Have you suffered a ban Anazina/_Anazina_? I must have missed that.
I think there should be a public announcement of each ban, including the misdemeanour!
The first rule of ban club, is no one talks of ban club.
For clarity, I haven't been banned. I got caught in the PB spam trap which was my own fault and for reasons I explained and immediately apologised for at the weekend.
If an election is inevitable, mightn't the two front benches agree to get Brexit done first, and then have the election in the summer as a means of deciding what sort of future arrangement we should be looking for (supplementing or supplanting the Political Declaration).
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
Definitely. If there are 10 candidates, she'd certainly be better than most, and I think there is no overwhelming front runner. I've backed her now. I'm red on Beto, Bernie, Hilary, Michelle and Oprah. Really hoping Beto doesn't run.
Why wouldn't he run? He doesn't currently have a job. He could go for the other Texas Senate seat, but Cornyn is probably more popular than Cruz (certainly less Marmite) and it would be even harder to win in a Presidential year than at a midterm.
Some current implied probabilities from Betfair: No Deal: 19% Leaving on schedule: 23% Deal approved by Brexit date: 27%
Does that mean there's only a 4% probability of leaving on schedule with a deal? And does that in turn mean that there's a 23% probability of a deal being approved by Brexit date but requiring an extension to implement it?
(Yes, I realise it's possible to leave with No Deal after 29 March, or that an extension would be refused despite a deal having been approved. The question is whether those possibilities can be neglected.)
Continued and permanent UK membership of the customs union removes the need for a backstop.
That, plus Single Market alignment, if implemented before the end of the transition period would mean that the Backstop would not be triggered, but it would still be needed.
CU/SM is part of the Future Relationship - which cannot be negotiated until we have left and is described in the non binding Political Declaration.
Because the FR in the PD is non binding and will take time to nail down, and in any event describes only one possible future, an insurance policy is required by the EU that ensures no border in Ireland under any circumstances, ever.
This is the Backstop. Unless the EU back down, it will be in any Withdrawal Agreement, regardless of what our preferred Future Relationship is.
It's a loaded gun to our heads. Corbyn, May, soft, hard, does not matter. We have to sign it if we wish to leave the European Union with a transition rather than a crash out.
The EU's red line is not the backstop, it is the status quo on the island of Ireland. We have the backstop because the DUP forced Mrs May to withdraw what she had originally agreed with Barnier. But I do agree that we are where we are. :-D
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
Definitely. If there are 10 candidates, she'd certainly be better than most, and I think there is no overwhelming front runner. I've backed her now. I'm red on Beto, Bernie, Hilary, Michelle and Oprah. Really hoping Beto doesn't run.
Why wouldn't he run? He doesn't currently have a job. He could go for the other Texas Senate seat, but Cornyn is probably more popular than Cruz (certainly less Marmite) and it would be even harder to win in a Presidential year than at a midterm.
Media commentators talking about a China growth rate of 6% as if it were a recession and a problem.
Shows how the media have a bias to preent everything as bad news because bad news sells.
China is operating like an empire in its conquest phase. The inflow of resources from Africa plus the rapid growth of services and industrial modernisation was generating wealth faster than it was being consumed by development and corruption - everyone was winning. However that phase may be coming to an end which brings the classic challenge that hits all empires at that point.
The problem with lower single digit growth is that something will have to give - either less corruption or less spending or lower wages/wage growth. The communist party is bearing down on blatant corruption (but not in the inner circle I guess) and are spending more on the military (for internal repression or territorial ambitions). People are moving back to the country from many cities. Dissatisfaction will surely grow.
So will the Chinese repress their people, look for a popular war of conquest or national pride, or both? Or will the Communist Party liberalise to keep the people happy, eventually adopting a wider social services supported state? Interesting times.
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
Definitely. If there are 10 candidates, she'd certainly be better than most, and I think there is no overwhelming front runner. I've backed her now. I'm red on Beto, Bernie, Hilary, Michelle and Oprah. Really hoping Beto doesn't run.
Why wouldn't he run? He doesn't currently have a job. He could go for the other Texas Senate seat, but Cornyn is probably more popular than Cruz (certainly less Marmite) and it would be even harder to win in a Presidential year than at a midterm.
I would cover Beto asap in your shoes.
I agree.
On paper, it shoudl be a youth+experience ticket
Sanders+Booker Biden+Beto Warren+Harris
None of those combos inspires much in me.
I think experience (in politics) is overrated, to be honest.
Media commentators talking about a China growth rate of 6% as if it were a recession and a problem.
Shows how the media have a bias to preent everything as bad news because bad news sells.
China is operating like an empire in its conquest phase. The inflow of resources from Africa plus the rapid growth of services and industrial modernisation was generating wealth faster than it was being consumed by development and corruption - everyone was winning. However that phase may be coming to an end which brings the classic challenge that hits all empires at that point.
The problem with lower single digit growth is that something will have to give - either less corruption or less spending or lower wages/wage growth. The communist party is bearing down on blatant corruption (but not in the inner circle I guess) and are spending more on the military (for internal repression or territorial ambitions). People are moving back to the country from many cities. Dissatisfaction will surely grow.
So will the Chinese repress their people, look for a popular war of conquest or national pride, or both? Or will the Communist Party liberalise to keep the people happy, eventually adopting a wider social services supported state? Interesting times.
Also, nobody really believes the hard number they put out, it won't even be 6%.
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
Definitely. If there are 10 candidates, she'd certainly be better than most, and I think there is no overwhelming front runner. I've backed her now. I'm red on Beto, Bernie, Hilary, Michelle and Oprah. Really hoping Beto doesn't run.
Why wouldn't he run? He doesn't currently have a job. He could go for the other Texas Senate seat, but Cornyn is probably more popular than Cruz (certainly less Marmite) and it would be even harder to win in a Presidential year than at a midterm.
I would cover Beto asap in your shoes.
I think easier for a Dem to win in 2020 Texas senate. For one thing, I think turnout will be up on 2018 (remember 2016 turnout for presidential was still higher than 2018, plus Texas will be very competitive in 2020). Hoping he will feel he has a better shot at Senate. Can he run for both?
But er.. You're normally spot on with your tips, so that does worry me.
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
This aint gonna end well.
Project Fear.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
This aint gonna end well.
Project Fear.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
I don't know...there are bloody millions of them willing to pull pints in London pubs and be Deliveroo riders...
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
This aint gonna end well.
Project Fear.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
It is of course amazing we didn't starve before 2004!
How about a discount on your student loan interest rate for UK students who volunteer to pick berries?
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
Definitely. If there are 10 candidates, she'd certainly be better than most, and I think there is no overwhelming front runner. I've backed her now. I'm red on Beto, Bernie, Hilary, Michelle and Oprah. Really hoping Beto doesn't run.
Why wouldn't he run? He doesn't currently have a job. He could go for the other Texas Senate seat, but Cornyn is probably more popular than Cruz (certainly less Marmite) and it would be even harder to win in a Presidential year than at a midterm.
I would cover Beto asap in your shoes.
I think easier for a Dem to win in 2020 Texas senate. For one thing, I think turnout will be up on 2018 (remember 2016 turnout for presidential was still higher than 2018, plus Texas will be very competitive in 2020). Hoping he will feel he has a better shot at Senate. Can he run for both?
But er.. You're normally spot on with your tips, so that does worry me.
He could theoretically run for both but it would detract from his chances in both, so I would doubt that very much. The Dems won big in the midterms (on a national equivalent vote basis; obviously they actually lost Senate seats).
Under the planned scheme for EU nationals to apply to stay in the UK, which is currently being piloted, those aged over 16 have to pay £65, with a cost of £32.50 for anyone younger.
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
This aint gonna end well.
Project Fear.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
I don't know...there are bloody millions of them willing to pull pints in London pubs and be Deliveroo riders...
There you are then. Pulling pints ... picking berries ... essentially the same hand action. They won't even need retraining.
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
This aint gonna end well.
Project Fear.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
I don't know...there are bloody millions of them willing to pull pints in London pubs and be Deliveroo riders...
There you are then. Pulling pints ... picking berries ... essentially the same hand action. They won't even need retraining.
I honestly don't really see the issue. They had a temporary work visa scheme just like this until quite recently, that appeared to work fine.
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
This aint gonna end well.
Project Fear.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
It is of course amazing we didn't starve before 2004!
How about a discount on your student loan interest rate for UK students who volunteer to pick berries?
This is the sort of inventive thinking we need.
Alternatively, why not get the elderly to make themselves useful? They voted for it, after all.
I think Harris has a shot at the nomination especially with her home state voting earlier with its large number of delegates but in the general election she will find it tougher, it is Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc the Democrats need to make inroads in the Electoral College not California which is already safely in their column.
O/T My father's bowel surgery seems to have gone OK and he is now out of theatre, thanks again to those who sent messages last Friday evening
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
This aint gonna end well.
Project Fear.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
I don't know...there are bloody millions of them willing to pull pints in London pubs and be Deliveroo riders...
There you are then. Pulling pints ... picking berries ... essentially the same hand action. They won't even need retraining.
I honestly don't really see the issue. They had a temporary work visa scheme just like this until quite recently, that appeared to work fine.
Of course. The only problem would be if people took it into their heads that we didn't want a lot of foreigners coming over here, or something like that. But that would never happen.
The main criticisms of Theresa May's position come down to people complaining that she continues to refuse to say that the impossible is possible. So, yes, nothing has changed, because the reality hasn't changed.
The WA is predicated on May's red lines. The EU has made clear that were those to change a new deal could be negotiated. It is possible for her to change her red lines. But she won't.
A new political declaration could be negotiated, not a new Withdrawal Agreement.
That might get err Lucy Powell, Stephen Kinnock and Robert Halfon on board I think if it is Norway+ed.
But the political declaration is just warm words and has no legal basis. It can be reneged on by either side surely once we leave. If the withdrawal agreement doesn't change - nothing has actually changed.
And what exactly is the point of Norway+ - its identical to being in the EU (literally) but we lose our voting rights and MEPs. Why bother?
You could ask the same question of Norway. The answer is, I suppose, that you are insured against the ever closer union, animosity towards which was supposedly the reason for Brexit in the first place.
I think Harris has a shot at the nomination especially with her home state voting earlier with its large number of delegates but in the general election she will find it tougher, it is Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc the Democrats need to make inroads in the Electoral College not California which is already safely in their column.
O/T My father's bowel surgery seems to have gone OK and he is now out of theatre, thanks again to those who sent messages last Friday evening
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
Definitely. If there are 10 candidates, she'd certainly be better than most, and I think there is no overwhelming front runner. I've backed her now. I'm red on Beto, Bernie, Hilary, Michelle and Oprah. Really hoping Beto doesn't run.
Why wouldn't he run? He doesn't currently have a job. He could go for the other Texas Senate seat, but Cornyn is probably more popular than Cruz (certainly less Marmite) and it would be even harder to win in a Presidential year than at a midterm.
I would cover Beto asap in your shoes.
I agree.
On paper, it shoudl be a youth+experience ticket
Sanders+Booker Biden+Beto Warren+Harris
None of those combos inspires much in me.
I think experience (in politics) is overrated, to be honest.
Candidates who challenge incumbent presidents, Kerry, Dole, Romney etc do tend to be experienced Senators or Governors though
I think Harris has a shot at the nomination especially with her home state voting earlier with its large number of delegates but in the general election she will find it tougher, it is Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc the Democrats need to make inroads in the Electoral College not California which is already safely in their column.
O/T My father's bowel surgery seems to have gone OK and he is now out of theatre, thanks again to those who sent messages last Friday evening
I think Harris has a shot at the nomination especially with her home state voting earlier with its large number of delegates but in the general election she will find it tougher, it is Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc the Democrats need to make inroads in the Electoral College not California which is already safely in their column.
O/T My father's bowel surgery seems to have gone OK and he is now out of theatre, thanks again to those who sent messages last Friday evening
So pleased for you, your Father, and family. Best wishes
"How much are the EU charging for the same arrangement?"
Perhaps we should compare what you have to do when you move there and stay more than 3 months. Here a job offer - and not even that - is all you need and then its full access to the UK welfare and NHS without the need to register with the local police or local authority. Here is what the Spanish require - and they are not unusual. I expect all that paperwork and registration and travel to the authorities (as it cant be done online) costs more than £65!
"A guide for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens – and their family members – coming to live, work or study in Spain.
EU, EEA and Swiss citizens have the right to live and work in Spain without a visa or permit.
If you’re staying longer than three months, however, you will have to register with the authorities and obtain a residence certificate, which requires you to prove you can support yourself financially and have healthcare insurance.
EU/EEA/Swiss nationals moving to Spain Within three months of your arrival in Spain, you have to go in person to a Foreigners’ Office (Oficina de Extranjero) or local police station to register and be added to the Central Register of Foreign Nationals. You will need to have a valid passport or ID document and be able to show documentation to prove that you can support yourself (and any dependants), and you may also be asked to show evidence that you have private or public healthcare insurance.
This documentation you’ll need will vary according to your own circumstances, but can include:
a declaration or certificate of employment, or evidence of self-employment (such as registration on the Mercantile Registry – Registro Mercantil); evidence of healthcare insurance (or European Health Insurance Card if valid for the duration of the stay); proof of sufficient financial resources (through income, assets, etc); proof of enrolment at an educational institution. If everything is in order, you will be given a residence certificate (Certificado de registro como residente comunitario), which will include your name, address, nationality and your Foreigner’s Identity Number (NIE). This number is essential for all financial and administrative matters in Spain.
You should carry your certificate, along with your passport or national ID document, at all times."
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
This aint gonna end well.
Project Fear.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
I don't know...there are bloody millions of them willing to pull pints in London pubs and be Deliveroo riders...
There you are then. Pulling pints ... picking berries ... essentially the same hand action. They won't even need retraining.
I honestly don't really see the issue. They had a temporary work visa scheme just like this until quite recently, that appeared to work fine.
Of course. The only problem would be if people took it into their heads that we didn't want a lot of foreigners coming over here, or something like that. But that would never happen.
This is the great irony previously noted. Theresa May is dying in a ditch to end FoM yet no-one in government or business wants actually to curb immigration.
I think Harris has a shot at the nomination especially with her home state voting earlier with its large number of delegates but in the general election she will find it tougher, it is Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc the Democrats need to make inroads in the Electoral College not California which is already safely in their column.
O/T My father's bowel surgery seems to have gone OK and he is now out of theatre, thanks again to those who sent messages last Friday evening
So pleased for you, your Father, and family. Best wishes
The EU's red line is not the backstop, it is the status quo on the island of Ireland. We have the backstop because the DUP forced Mrs May to withdraw what she had originally agreed with Barnier. But I do agree that we are where we are. :-D
I was describing the current situation. Perhaps there were indeed ways that we could have got a withdrawal agreement without the backstop, but not now.
Unless the other side do back down. Seems unlikely, but you never know. Maybe playing hard ball will work. Mrs May goes to Brussels and gives them hell. "What's a matter EU. Gotta no respect?"
Re the DUP, so they fought off something they hated and were rewarded with the backstop? Oh.
I’ve always thought it would be good for the monarch to symbolically veto a bill (a meaningless one like the Outlawries) once a year at the State opening of Parliament, just to keep the power in use
"How much are the EU charging for the same arrangement?"
Perhaps we should compare what you have to do when you move there initially. Here a job offer - and not even that - is all you need and then its full access to the UK welfare and NHS without the need to register with the local police or local authority. Here is what the Spanish require - and they are not unusual. I expect all that paperwork and registration and travel to the authorities (as it cant be done online) costs more than £65!
"A guide for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens – and their family members – coming to live, work or study in Spain.
EU, EEA and Swiss citizens have the right to live and work in Spain without a visa or permit.
If you’re staying longer than three months, however, you will have to register with the authorities and obtain a residence certificate, which requires you to prove you can support yourself financially and have healthcare insurance.
EU/EEA/Swiss nationals moving to Spain Within three months of your arrival in Spain, you have to go in person to a Foreigners’ Office (Oficina de Extranjero) or local police station to register and be added to the Central Register of Foreign Nationals. You will need to have a valid passport or ID document and be able to show documentation to prove that you can support yourself (and any dependants), and you may also be asked to show evidence that you have private or public healthcare insurance.
This documentation you’ll need will vary according to your own circumstances, but can include:
a declaration or certificate of employment, or evidence of self-employment (such as registration on the Mercantile Registry – Registro Mercantil); evidence of healthcare insurance (or European Health Insurance Card if valid for the duration of the stay); proof of sufficient financial resources (through income, assets, etc); proof of enrolment at an educational institution. If everything is in order, you will be given a residence certificate (Certificado de registro como residente comunitario), which will include your name, address, nationality and your Foreigner’s Identity Number (NIE). This number is essential for all financial and administrative matters in Spain.
You should carry your certificate, along with your passport or national ID document, at all times."
What happens if you can't support yourself? Freedom of movement means you can't be deported. Curious.
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
Definitely. If there are 10 candidates, she'd certainly be better than most, and I think there is no overwhelming front runner. I've backed her now. I'm red on Beto, Bernie, Hilary, Michelle and Oprah. Really hoping Beto doesn't run.
Why wouldn't he run? He doesn't currently have a job. He could go for the other Texas Senate seat, but Cornyn is probably more popular than Cruz (certainly less Marmite) and it would be even harder to win in a Presidential year than at a midterm.
I would cover Beto asap in your shoes.
I think easier for a Dem to win in 2020 Texas senate. For one thing, I think turnout will be up on 2018 (remember 2016 turnout for presidential was still higher than 2018, plus Texas will be very competitive in 2020). Hoping he will feel he has a better shot at Senate. Can he run for both?
But er.. You're normally spot on with your tips, so that does worry me.
I think O'Rourke ought to run for the Senate again in 2020, and I think he'd win. In any event, his running again in Texas, and Abrams for the Senate seat in Georgia, would significantly aid the Democrats' presidential prospects.
I suspect he'll be seduced by a shot at the presidency, though.
I’ve always thought it would be good for the monarch to symbolically veto a bill (a meaningless one like the Outlawries) once a year at the State opening of Parliament, just to keep the power in use
The monarch is powerless and that is as it should be. Anything that so much as suggests that she has any command over our democracy should be ruthlessly prevented.
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
This aint gonna end well.
Project Fear.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
I don't know...there are bloody millions of them willing to pull pints in London pubs and be Deliveroo riders...
There you are then. Pulling pints ... picking berries ... essentially the same hand action. They won't even need retraining.
I honestly don't really see the issue. They had a temporary work visa scheme just like this until quite recently, that appeared to work fine.
Of course. The only problem would be if people took it into their heads that we didn't want a lot of foreigners coming over here, or something like that. But that would never happen.
No it certainly wouldn't. Not with well over a million foreigners having come here since the referendum.
I think Harris has a shot at the nomination especially with her home state voting earlier with its large number of delegates but in the general election she will find it tougher, it is Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc the Democrats need to make inroads in the Electoral College not California which is already safely in their column.
O/T My father's bowel surgery seems to have gone OK and he is now out of theatre, thanks again to those who sent messages last Friday evening
Great news and very best wishes to him and you sir.
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
This aint gonna end well.
Project Fear.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
I don't know...there are bloody millions of them willing to pull pints in London pubs and be Deliveroo riders...
There you are then. Pulling pints ... picking berries ... essentially the same hand action. They won't even need retraining.
I honestly don't really see the issue. They had a temporary work visa scheme just like this until quite recently, that appeared to work fine.
Of course. The only problem would be if people took it into their heads that we didn't want a lot of foreigners coming over here, or something like that. But that would never happen.
This is the great irony previously noted. Theresa May is dying in a ditch to end FoM yet no-one in government or business wants actually to curb immigration.
Really? Good grief! If only Cameron had known that he could just have told people, instead of going through all that business of renegotiations, referendums, resignations and so on.
That's a very smart ad. My 66/1 bet is looking better
You've done very well, that looks a superb bet. But the question for those of us foolish enough to have ignored you is whether she is value at 4/1. I think she might be even now.
My assessment is that winning the nomination is her great challenge, as the field is likely to be pretty crowded, with several half-decent runners.
If she wins the nomination, I think she would defeat Trumpton. But, because of the breadth of field in the nomination, I'd want 10-1 I think.
I'd be piling on again at 10/1...
Definitely. If there are 10 candidates, she'd certainly be better than most, and I think there is no overwhelming front runner. I've backed her now. I'm red on Beto, Bernie, Hilary, Michelle and Oprah. Really hoping Beto doesn't run.
Why wouldn't he run? He doesn't currently have a job. He could go for the other Texas Senate seat, but Cornyn is probably more popular than Cruz (certainly less Marmite) and it would be even harder to win in a Presidential year than at a midterm.
I would cover Beto asap in your shoes.
I think easier for a Dem to win in 2020 Texas senate. For one thing, I think turnout will be up on 2018 (remember 2016 turnout for presidential was still higher than 2018, plus Texas will be very competitive in 2020). Hoping he will feel he has a better shot at Senate. Can he run for both?
But er.. You're normally spot on with your tips, so that does worry me.
He could theoretically run for both but it would detract from his chances in both, so I would doubt that very much. The Dems won big in the midterms (on a national equivalent vote basis; obviously they actually lost Senate seats).
FFS. I was pretty sure this would happen. The public get told that no more Romanians and Latvians will be coming and then we open the gates to migrants from South Asia etc etc.
This aint gonna end well.
Project Fear.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
I don't know...there are bloody millions of them willing to pull pints in London pubs and be Deliveroo riders...
There you are then. Pulling pints ... picking berries ... essentially the same hand action. They won't even need retraining.
I honestly don't really see the issue. They had a temporary work visa scheme just like this until quite recently, that appeared to work fine.
Of course. The only problem would be if people took it into their heads that we didn't want a lot of foreigners coming over here, or something like that. But that would never happen.
No it certainly wouldn't. Not with well over a million foreigners having come here since the referendum.
Gosh, really?
Maybe we shouldn't have had a referendum then, if it's caused a lot of (spits) foreigners to come here.
Comments
Ok thanks. I'm struggling to see the significance of this though - if we are in the (or even a) Customs Union, wouldn't we want to maintian regulatory alignment to ensure continued access to the single market?
However, the questions have become so repetitive it is becoming a complete bore
I think there should be a public announcement of each ban, including the misdemeanour!
The Lisbon referendum that was promised and reneged upon could've enabled a far better settlement for both sides than the current entrenched, polarised division.
That said, we are arguing over nuance. I agree that there is no WA the EU will sign up to that does not ensure the status quo on the Irish border. It's just that there is not only one way to get to that point. Is it worth risking a No Deal over, though? Absolutely not.
If you really don't believe me, perhaps you can point to any statement by Barnier or another significant EU figure ever suggesting the backstop could be ditched?
And we all know the first rule of PB moderation....
*banned*
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/ee75a230-dde7-11e8-9f04-38d397e6661c
Shows how the media have a bias to preent everything as bad news because bad news sells.
If you think about it, she has so far delayed the various votes unilaterally, and so extending A50 would not be hugely out of character or different to her previous MO. Explaining it as giving time for the UK to come to a decision. I know all that stuff about the EU agreeing only if it is "meaningful" or whatnot, but sooner or later those MPs will realise that if they don't vote for the deal, that extension will become indistinguishable from staying in. Or will take us to the next GE. Or a second referendum.
Edit: oooh - Graun in bold: "May doesn't rule out A50 extension".
Its the Turkey option - in 'the' or 'a' but it amounts to a sub optimal position as your trade policy is driven by the EUs over which you have no voting rights.
Now I am not clear how many of the 52% were that fussed about the customs union - but that is another matter.
CU/SM is part of the Future Relationship - which cannot be negotiated until we have left and is described in the non binding Political Declaration.
Because the FR in the PD is non binding and will take time to nail down, and in any event describes only one possible future, an insurance policy is required by the EU that ensures no border in Ireland under any circumstances, ever.
This is the Backstop. Unless the EU back down, it will be in any Withdrawal Agreement, regardless of what our preferred Future Relationship is.
It's a loaded gun to our heads. Corbyn, May, soft, hard, does not matter. We have to sign it if we wish to leave the European Union with a transition rather than a crash out.
I would cover Beto asap in your shoes.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/01/28/the-secrets-of-lyndon-johnsons-archives
And what exactly is the point of Norway+ - its identical to being in the EU (literally) but we lose our voting rights and MEPs. Why bother?
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1087363097281601536
No Deal: 19%
Leaving on schedule: 23%
Deal approved by Brexit date: 27%
Does that mean there's only a 4% probability of leaving on schedule with a deal? And does that in turn mean that there's a 23% probability of a deal being approved by Brexit date but requiring an extension to implement it?
(Yes, I realise it's possible to leave with No Deal after 29 March, or that an extension would be refused despite a deal having been approved. The question is whether those possibilities can be neglected.)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-pilot-scheme-to-bring-2500-seasonal-workers-to-uk-farms
This aint gonna end well.
Sanders+Booker
Biden+Beto
Warren+Harris
The problem with lower single digit growth is that something will have to give - either less corruption or less spending or lower wages/wage growth. The communist party is bearing down on blatant corruption (but not in the inner circle I guess) and are spending more on the military (for internal repression or territorial ambitions). People are moving back to the country from many cities. Dissatisfaction will surely grow.
So will the Chinese repress their people, look for a popular war of conquest or national pride, or both? Or will the Communist Party liberalise to keep the people happy, eventually adopting a wider social services supported state? Interesting times.
I think experience (in politics) is overrated, to be honest.
Even if imports from the EU were cut off completely we'd lose only about one stone per fortnight. No need at all to panic about this.
(It may be worth putting on a bit of weight before March, just to be on the safe side.)
But er.. You're normally spot on with your tips, so that does worry me.
I'm sure there are plenty of people eager to fly over from Australia, New Zealand and Canada to pick berries for us.
Anyone for popcorn?
How about a discount on your student loan interest rate for UK students who volunteer to pick berries?
For the record my next Pres book is approx:
Gillum +11 [not looking good!]
Klobuchar +3.5
Hickenlooper, Pence + 2.5
Booker, Beto, Brown +2
Castro, Gillibrand +1.5
everyone else inc. Harris, Biden +1
Warren, Sanders +0.5
Trump, Bloomberg, Gabbard, assorted total outsiders 0
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1087397542416076801
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/21/may-drops-65-fee-for-eu-nationals-seeking-post-brexit-settled-status
How much are the EU charging for the same arrangement?
Alternatively, why not get the elderly to make themselves useful? They voted for it, after all.
O/T My father's bowel surgery seems to have gone OK and he is now out of theatre, thanks again to those who sent messages last Friday evening
It's been a long long time since anyone was in post who might be able to do that.
And there is, perhaps, a nascent Asian debt problem:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Public-debt-in-emerging-Asia-creeps-past-50-of-GDP
The answer is, I suppose, that you are insured against the ever closer union, animosity towards which was supposedly the reason for Brexit in the first place.
Perhaps we should compare what you have to do when you move there and stay more than 3 months. Here a job offer - and not even that - is all you need and then its full access to the UK welfare and NHS without the need to register with the local police or local authority. Here is what the Spanish require - and they are not unusual. I expect all that paperwork and registration and travel to the authorities (as it cant be done online) costs more than £65!
https://www.expatica.com/es/moving/visas/eea-swiss-citizens-immigration-422591/
"A guide for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens – and their family members – coming to live, work or study in Spain.
EU, EEA and Swiss citizens have the right to live and work in Spain without a visa or permit.
If you’re staying longer than three months, however, you will have to register with the authorities and obtain a residence certificate, which requires you to prove you can support yourself financially and have healthcare insurance.
EU/EEA/Swiss nationals moving to Spain
Within three months of your arrival in Spain, you have to go in person to a Foreigners’ Office (Oficina de Extranjero) or local police station to register and be added to the Central Register of Foreign Nationals.
You will need to have a valid passport or ID document and be able to show documentation to prove that you can support yourself (and any dependants), and you may also be asked to show evidence that you have private or public healthcare insurance.
This documentation you’ll need will vary according to your own circumstances, but can include:
a declaration or certificate of employment, or evidence of self-employment (such as registration on the Mercantile Registry – Registro Mercantil);
evidence of healthcare insurance (or European Health Insurance Card if valid for the duration of the stay);
proof of sufficient financial resources (through income, assets, etc);
proof of enrolment at an educational institution.
If everything is in order, you will be given a residence certificate (Certificado de registro como residente comunitario), which will include your name, address, nationality and your Foreigner’s Identity Number (NIE). This number is essential for all financial and administrative matters in Spain.
You should carry your certificate, along with your passport or national ID document, at all times."
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1087369586264150016
Unless the other side do back down. Seems unlikely, but you never know. Maybe playing hard ball will work. Mrs May goes to Brussels and gives them hell. "What's a matter EU. Gotta no respect?"
Re the DUP, so they fought off something they hated and were rewarded with the backstop? Oh.
I suspect he'll be seduced by a shot at the presidency, though.
A free vote on all the options seems a perfectly reasonable and wise move to me.
Hell, it is supported by both me and Sean F – that means there must be something going for it as we are on two opposing wings of the debate.
Maybe we shouldn't have had a referendum then, if it's caused a lot of (spits) foreigners to come here.