Exquisite though Thornton Manor is, why exactly are Johnson and Varadkar meeting there?
My guess is Liverpool was seen as the closest thing to neutral ground in the British Isles as both leaders want to avoid the optics of going to the other's capital. But the City of Liverpool proper is too problematic in terms of street protest and Johnson's record at the Spectator. So the Wirral as a Merseyside borough is Liverpool but isn't. A compromise within a compromise.
Giuliani might want to focus on protecting his client from himself.
The deeper the impeachment process gets the more shit will be thrown at the Democrats. The reason they haven't held a vote to formalize impeachment proceedings is that it would give legal weight to Republican subpoenas of Biden etc and pass the thing to the Republican Senate to administer. So the current 'investigation' has no actual effect other than on opinion. An utter shit storm approaches. Clinton better hope those 33,000 emails were properly deleted.
The White House is stonewalling the whole process. It's the White House that wants the process to be over with quickly, take the hit, win the vote in the Senate and get on with their misrule. The fact that they are obstructing the process by saying they will refuse to comply with subpoenas is, I believe, a serious criminal offence. Or at least if they actually follow through on that "promise". They have calculated that this will be less damaging than actually having a process rumble on for a few months where the public gets to watch testimony where the witnesses are forced to either admit wrongdoing or commit perjury live on television. The White House is probably correct in that this will be less damaging, but the American public will balk at it and the GOP are still set for a heavy defeat next year.
It's only a criminal offence AIUI if they refuse to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry that complies with the constitution (I.e, that has been voted for), they are not obliged to answer subpoenas that have no legal weight. The Democrats cant stop the Republicans having equal subpoena rights but also expect to have the process treated like it was constitutionally compliant
There is nothing in the constitution that says the House has to have a vote on starting an impeachment inquiry for an impeachment inquiry to start. Whereas there is a hell of a lot of precedent for the House being able to subpoena documents for the executive, see the HoR during the Benghazi years. You are drinking a lot of right wing koolaid if you think this is all going to plan for Trump and the GOP.
In one way, it already is: Trump's approval ratings are holding up - but Biden is losing support significantly,
So of the Big 3 Democratic candidates, one looks to be on the wane (Biden), Bernie has a heart attack and we now have another question mark of Warren's telling of her life story. I think Warren will get the nomination but she will be trounced at the election, as much for her twists and turns on the Indian ancestry / being fired from school thing as her policies.
The FTPA effectively changed the 5 year Parliament rule in that a Dissolution must take place at end of March for an election in first week of May - ie it has become 4 years 10 months and three weeks. When an election is called early - as in 2017 - the length of the Parliament is further reduced. Were we to have an election on 28th November, the Parliament elected would be dissolved at end of March 2024 for an election at beginning of May that year - ie the Parliament would be just 4 years and 4 months in length.This assumes no Repeal of the FTPA!
How many casualties has the US suffered in Syria - and how many the Kurds, fighting ISIS as a US proxy ? To interpret this as anything but the abandonment of an ally to the slaughter, and virtually without warning, is morally perverse.
And this is the president you really on for a great trade deal ...
Well if so we are member
That is utter bollocks, and you know it. It is far too late to send UK forces to intervene now the Turkish invasion has started; in those terms, it is also too late for the US to do so, were Trump to change his mind on a whim.
As you appear unwilling or unable to answer my question, I have done so for you:
The result — from an American perspective — has been one of the most successful military operations in a generation. The ISIS caliphate, which once dominated a nation-state sized region covering much of northern Syria and northern Iraq, is now in ruins. ISIS isn’t entirely defeated, but it’s a shadow of its former strength. And the cost in American lives has been a small fraction of the cost incurred in even a single battle of the Iraq War. For example, America suffered almost 700 casualties (82 killed) during the Second Battle of Fallujah. The nation has suffered far fewer casualties during the entire fight against ISIS, stretching from June 2014 until the present day....
No it is you saying utter Bollocks.
UK troops were withdrawn from Syria and Iraq years ago, if we were so determined to keep the peace there and protect Kurds even after IS was defeated we should never have withdrawn them and I repeat it is hypocrisy of the highest order to lecture Trump on this while we do not have British boots on the ground in Syria.
If the Kurds did the brunt of the fighting against IS in Syria and proved successful I also see no reason they cannot hold off the Turks from most of their territory either
Jesus H Christ.
"The fact that the Kurds held off a rag-tag band of maniacs with the help of Western air power, materiel and training means they should be able to stop a large nation state with a huge standing army and a common border."
I've had enough: I thought you were one-eyed and disingenuous, but it appears you are just thick as frozen mince.
Well we should have kept British air power, material and training to support the Kurds then in Iraq and Syria.
Otherwise I find it contemptible you are willing to let American servicemen die to protect the Kurds but not British servicemen
And Leavers will not forget the Liberal Democrats refusing to respect their vote
The shiny new Lib Dem’s stood on a platform of respecting the vote last time, only to vote it down every time.
You're still talking bollocks, aren't you? Have you ever bothered to read what platform people stood on? It's not just "Whatever isam wants to say it is"
Alright touchy, no need for bad language. Apologise at your leisure, I wont hold it against you
Doesn't all this just suggest that these individuals did accept the result (publicly, even!) and raise the question of what happened to make them change their minds?
Could it be the trajectory towards 'Brexit' increasingly meaning hard Brexit and, ultimately, no deal at all, something that they don't feel is supported by the original referendum?
After the referendum, I accepted my side had lost. I didn't want another vote. I'd still take a soft Brexit and see it as a reasonable interpretation of that vote, even now. But I absolutely back another vote over no deal. I'd back soft Brexit (i.e. Norway plus). I'd back a referendum between types of sane Brexit (Norway plus and May's deal). But if people want to pursue no deal, for which there is no mandate, then have the guts to offer that against remain (two extreme options, neither with a mandate from the first referendum).
Other than the fact the majority now want to remain?
Haha that’s not a fact anymore than it was a fact that Clinton would win 2016 and Theresa May would get a three figure majority in 2017.
Polls aren’t real life
Well it's either true or it's false. The best evidence we have is that it's true, but I know a way to prove it either way.
Yes, the way to prove it is to have a majority at an election pledging a new referendum. Short of that there's no mandate for a new referendum.
Someone has already argued that winning a majority in parliament is still not a mandate to overturn the referendum because GEs are fought on many topics. So no new referendum ever.
But, as has been noted previously, the original referendum was held on the promise that it would be easy, that we would hold all the cards, and that it would be a land of milk and honey and everyone naysaying was just part of Project Fear. Well, now that has been proven wrong, people may have changed their minds.
Personally, I think a GE (post Oct 31st) would be preferable, and should the Conservatives not win a majority / be able to form a government then a 2nd referendum should be called. If the Conservatives do win a majority / can govern, and if the House approves a deal, or indeed, no deal, I will not be happy, but what can you do. If the nation votes for self immolation at a GE we can't but try and survive it as individuals.
Winning a majority IMHO is insufficient to overturn the referendum, but would be sufficient to get a mandate to hold a new referendum. The Tories had to win a majority prior to having the original referendum.
Though in principle any referendum should preferably be not until after the old one has been implemented, ie a rejoin referendum post-Brexit - but if a majority at an election is won by parties wanting a new referendum then I would respect that.
No government needs a mandate to reject the result of the Brexit referendum.
”Nigel Farage and the Brexit party have voted against a European parliament resolution calling for stronger EU action to counter election meddling and Russian disinformation. ”
”Nigel Farage and the Brexit party have voted against a European parliament resolution calling for stronger EU action to counter election meddling and Russian disinformation. ”
Exquisite though Thornton Manor is, why exactly are Johnson and Varadkar meeting there?
My guess is Liverpool was seen as the closest thing to neutral ground in the British Isles as both leaders want to avoid the optics of going to the other's capital. But the City of Liverpool proper is too problematic in terms of street protest and Johnson's record at the Spectator. So the Wirral as a Merseyside borough is Liverpool but isn't. A compromise within a compromise.
Isle of Mann
Isle of Man, one "n".
The Isle of Man ... sometimes referred to simply as Mann Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realised it was spelled differently in different contexts.
Corbyn has just been making a speech in which he has been uncharacteristically clear on the questions of a GE and referendum:
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
(Quotes from the Guardian live blog).
They've clearly changed his speechwriter. That is very good.
"And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide."
Given you lied your fucking head off as Leader of the Opposition, why should we believe you as PM?
Comments
more project FEAR
https://www.investors.com/politics/americans-back-trump-impeachment-ukraine-scandal-biden-probe/
So of the Big 3 Democratic candidates, one looks to be on the wane (Biden), Bernie has a heart attack and we now have another question mark of Warren's telling of her life story. I think Warren will get the nomination but she will be trounced at the election, as much for her twists and turns on the Indian ancestry / being fired from school thing as her policies.
When an election is called early - as in 2017 - the length of the Parliament is further reduced. Were we to have an election on 28th November, the Parliament elected would be dissolved at end of March 2024 for an election at beginning of May that year - ie the Parliament would be just 4 years and 4 months in length.This assumes no Repeal of the FTPA!
Could it be the trajectory towards 'Brexit' increasingly meaning hard Brexit and, ultimately, no deal at all, something that they don't feel is supported by the original referendum?
After the referendum, I accepted my side had lost. I didn't want another vote. I'd still take a soft Brexit and see it as a reasonable interpretation of that vote, even now. But I absolutely back another vote over no deal. I'd back soft Brexit (i.e. Norway plus). I'd back a referendum between types of sane Brexit (Norway plus and May's deal). But if people want to pursue no deal, for which there is no mandate, then have the guts to offer that against remain (two extreme options, neither with a mandate from the first referendum).
Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realised it was spelled differently in different contexts.
Given you lied your fucking head off as Leader of the Opposition, why should we believe you as PM?
*Spoiler: we shouldn't......