In opposition, September 2007: "A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said. He pledged two years of 2% increases. The final year total would be reviewed....... Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11. He said, like Labour, the final year total would be reviewed in 2009."
However, in government, what Osborne actually did was to deliver a lost decade of minimal growth in contrast to that achieved in economies outside of Europe which promoted growth by following more expansionary fiscal policies out of recession. And because Osborne's policy was so ineffective he was by the time he was sacked still planning to wear that hair shirt until 2020 rather than for the original 5 year period.
At the start of the thread we looked at the evidence for this so-called lost decade, the UK over the decade has grown faster than the Eurozone or France or Germany so it seems scant. That despite inheriting a disaster from Brown.
So I note that you don't want to compare with European economies and want to compare with economies "outside of Europe", in which case I wonder which specific countries outside of Europe you wish us to be more like? Do you wish our economy was more like the United States? Or another nation?
And did you campaign to leave the EU to be less European if you view having a European economic model as a mistake?
It strikes me as ironic that some of the things that people feared about Corbyn are now being done by Boris’s Tories:-
1. Attacks on the judiciary. 2. Limiting scrutiny by Parliament. 3. Limiting challenges to government actions by the public 4. Wanting to control how the press reports them. 5. Turning a blind eye to some of the associations of their MPs (see the silence on Daniel Kawcyznski’s extra-curricular venture). 6. Doing the bare minimum to root out their own bigotry - whatever happened to the Tory party’s inquiry into anti-Muslim prejudice?
What next one wonders. We’ve already had the rescue of a failing private company and the cosying up to a foreign Communist government.
Have I missed anything?
Do the tories want to hand regulation of the media to Max Mosley's Impress?
Looking at the areas that are up for election in 3 months, i think its very possible that a lot of seats and some councils could go from red to blue.
yes the new Lab Leader may get some bounce, but equally a big define in his first 6 weeks as leader could start to define his leadership from the start.
Given, a) the length of the Lab leadership contest, and b) that it already seems lickly we know who will win, he may not get much coverage of his victory.
Plus he is utterly uninspiring. No matter how he likes to paint his backstory, he has the demeanour and attitudes of a technocrat with zero personality.
There is nothing about him that shouts optimism, hope, positivity.
Plus if he persists with ideas like extending the franchise to EU citizens, he will continue to alienate significant sectors of the voting population.
I find him uninspiring, but i suppose also not that scary. how others see him, and in particulate haw people who don't spend as much time following politics as me and are potential swing voters is still to be determined.
Its Nandy who i think is most lickly to be a game changer, i have a small amount on her to win, mostly it might console me if she does win.
Anyway, if the Democrats want a competent candidate, I’d have thought that Pete Buttigieg just showed his credentials on that front to very best advantage.
The reason the Iowa caucuses matter, is because they test the ability of a candidate to organise. Buttigieg has proved he has that skill. And Biden has proved he does not.
I 100% agree with both you and AlastairMeeks.
Biden lacks not just the ability to organise but also appears to lack the ability to consistently get to the end of a sentence. Why Biden is even considered a contender is beyond me.
He, or someone else, will be up against Trump. Does he ever get to the end of a sentence before interrupting himself?
Not something I will be buying any time soon. But it seems to be coming out very shorty after he left office, when you add in the time to edit and print, and Christmas. was he writing this while he was also speaker?
Not something I will be buying any time soon. But it seems to be coming out very shorty after he left office, when you add in the time to edit and print, and Christmas. was he writing this while he was also speaker?
I expect it will be self-centred and very boring, except perhaps for the chapter entitled 'How I made Boris Johnson PM'.
I am deeply ashamed to report an entirely unexpected and potentially significant development that has occurred in Germany an hour ago. The Conservatives of Thuringia have aligned forces with the Thuringian AfD to vote a Free Democrat candidate into the office of Minister President of Thuringia. The intention to start a longterm cooperation, or even a formal coalition, are so far being denied, but nevertheless, this constitutes a major taboo break, unprecedented in German post-war and post-cold-war history. The ramifications of this are completely unclear, but it is obvious that this will send seismic tremors through the German political landscape for the foreseeable future.
Just to be clear, you are saying that the CDU has voted for a FDU person to be Minister President, at the same time as the AfD has also voted for the same FDU person to be Minister President. not that the CDU has voted for an AfD person?
Correct.
Like the Conservatives and BNP voting for a LibDem to become PM?
Just about, the difference is: the FDP has been lurching to the right for the last couple of decades, the current version of the LibDems is clearly more centrist.
But doesn't the final agreement require ratification by all the EU27 and their sub-divisions where required?
The UK is in great danger of falling of a cliff edge into a no-deal (sorry "Australia deal') on December 31st.
The expectation by the EU is that the final agreement won't need ratification by the 27 countries. That is because it will be limited in scope to be just a trade agreement, which is a competence of the EU itself.
It's clearly impossible for a full treaty ratification to be done by the timetable Boris has unwisely hitched himself to, so there really isn't any choice in this. As a result lots of significant issues won't be in any agreement. Note that even the limited Canada deal required full ratification because it was deemed to be a 'mixed' deal (trade and other matters).
Its not clearly impossible any more than it was clearly impossible for the backstop to be renegotiated. The 27 can ratify the treaty simultaneously they don't have to be done consecutively - plus the EU has the power to agree and start the treaty as if the 27 have ratified it before the 2 have finished ratification. As they have done with the Canadian one.
I am surprised nobody has suggested that it was Russia behind the failure in Iowa.
Given that the Republicans have done basically little to nothing to hold Russia to account for 2016, particularly since Barr took over, and aren't interested in legislating for or funding election security, or ensuring that the FEC is able to operate, I would assume that Russia will be at least as actively involved in 2020 as it was in 2016. Directly interfering in the Democrats caucuses, primaries, and conventions is the sort of thing they might do, but I'm all but certain that Russia is already amplifying the conspiracy theories regarding Iowa.
Anyway, if the Democrats want a competent candidate, I’d have thought that Pete Buttigieg just showed his credentials on that front to very best advantage.
The reason the Iowa caucuses matter, is because they test the ability of a candidate to organise. Buttigieg has proved he has that skill. And Biden has proved he does not.
I 100% agree with both you and AlastairMeeks.
Biden lacks not just the ability to organise but also appears to lack the ability to consistently get to the end of a sentence. Why Biden is even considered a contender is beyond me.
He, or someone else, will be up against Trump. Does he ever get to the end of a sentence before interrupting himself?
Difference is Trump starts one sentence then finishes it with another sentence. He basically bluffs his way though it.
Biden just seems to trail off like even he is wondering "how did I get here?"
That’s not the government’s complaint. It just wants to give news exclusively to pliant journalists.
Pliant journalists such as those from the Guardian and the BBC, in the case of the current row.
Doesn't compute, does it? The complaints are incoherent: people are complaining about what they would like to think justifies their complaint, not about what actually happened.
They’re establishing the principle of picking and choosing. The fact they’ve picked and chosen not too egregiously this time would set a very handy precedent for when they want to play harder ball.
Not really. If they really want a precedent then Alastair Campbell provided a rich store. Or even Harold Wilson for that matter.
In any case we should be scrupulous about the facts, rather than throw stones on an entirely false basis, as many are doing. That's kinda the whole point, isn't it?
When has a government (or opposition party) not briefed selected and favoured journalists as they please? If it is a formal setting that is more open than a hidden conversation.
Anyway, if the Democrats want a competent candidate, I’d have thought that Pete Buttigieg just showed his credentials on that front to very best advantage.
The reason the Iowa caucuses matter, is because they test the ability of a candidate to organise. Buttigieg has proved he has that skill. And Biden has proved he does not.
I 100% agree with both you and AlastairMeeks.
Biden lacks not just the ability to organise but also appears to lack the ability to consistently get to the end of a sentence. Why Biden is even considered a contender is beyond me.
He, or someone else, will be up against Trump. Does he ever get to the end of a sentence before interrupting himself?
Difference is Trump starts one sentence then finishes it with another sentence. He basically bluffs his way though it.
Biden just seems to trail off like even he is wondering "how did I get here?"
They’ve both aged a lot, both physically and mentally, in the past few years.
Which isn’t particularly uncommon in the seventies.
I am deeply ashamed to report an entirely unexpected and potentially significant development that has occurred in Germany an hour ago. The Conservatives of Thuringia have aligned forces with the Thuringian AfD to vote a Free Democrat candidate into the office of Minister President of Thuringia. The intention to start a longterm cooperation, or even a formal coalition, are so far being denied, but nevertheless, this constitutes a major taboo break, unprecedented in German post-war and post-cold-war history. The ramifications of this are completely unclear, but it is obvious that this will send seismic tremors through the German political landscape for the foreseeable future.
Unless I've missed something I fail to see how that's a matter of shame?
If the FDP and CDU/CSU had lined up behind the AfD then that would be, but the FDP are a decent party aren't they? If the AfD have voted for them that's the fault of the voters voting in AfD representatives its not to the shame of the FDP.
Unless the FDP have agreed to implement AfD policies but if they had I'd assume you'd have posted that.
But doesn't the final agreement require ratification by all the EU27 and their sub-divisions where required?
The UK is in great danger of falling of a cliff edge into a no-deal (sorry "Australia deal') on December 31st.
The expectation by the EU is that the final agreement won't need ratification by the 27 countries. That is because it will be limited in scope to be just a trade agreement, which is a competence of the EU itself.
It's clearly impossible for a full treaty ratification to be done by the timetable Boris has unwisely hitched himself to, so there really isn't any choice in this. As a result lots of significant issues won't be in any agreement. Note that even the limited Canada deal required full ratification because it was deemed to be a 'mixed' deal (trade and other matters).
Its not clearly impossible any more than it was clearly impossible for the backstop to be renegotiated. The 27 can ratify the treaty simultaneously they don't have to be done consecutively - plus the EU has the power to agree and start the treaty as if the 27 have ratified it before the 2 have finished ratification. As they have done with the Canadian one.
In the real world:
The negotiations were concluded in August 2014. All 28 European Union member states approved the final text of CETA for signature, with Belgium being the final country to give its approval. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, travelled to Brussels on 30 October 2016 to sign on behalf of Canada.[8] The European Parliament approved the deal on 15 February 2017.[9] The agreement is subject to ratification by the EU and national legislatures.[5][10] It could only enter into force if no adverse opinion on the dispute resolution mechanism was given by the European Court of Justice following a request for an opinion by Belgium.[11] The European Court of Justice has stated in its opinion that the dispute resolution mechanism complies with EU law. Until its formal entry into force, substantial parts are provisionally applied from 21 September 2017.
But doesn't the final agreement require ratification by all the EU27 and their sub-divisions where required?
The UK is in great danger of falling of a cliff edge into a no-deal (sorry "Australia deal') on December 31st.
The expectation by the EU is that the final agreement won't need ratification by the 27 countries. That is because it will be limited in scope to be just a trade agreement, which is a competence of the EU itself.
It's clearly impossible for a full treaty ratification to be done by the timetable Boris has unwisely hitched himself to, so there really isn't any choice in this. As a result lots of significant issues won't be in any agreement. Note that even the limited Canada deal required full ratification because it was deemed to be a 'mixed' deal (trade and other matters).
Its not clearly impossible any more than it was clearly impossible for the backstop to be renegotiated. The 27 can ratify the treaty simultaneously they don't have to be done consecutively - plus the EU has the power to agree and start the treaty as if the 27 have ratified it before the 2 have finished ratification. As they have done with the Canadian one.
Once you exceed the fairly narrow parameters of EU-only competence, then you need national (and sub-national in some cases) confirmation.
If you look at "time required to get approval" for things previously negotiated at the EU level - like the Canadian deal - then it's typically been 12 to 14 months. I don't doubt that you could do it quicker with the UK, given how important the UK is as a trade partner, but I think it would struggle to get done between July and December, not least because you have the Czechs and the Croatians potentially changing government in the middle of the ratification process.
But doesn't the final agreement require ratification by all the EU27 and their sub-divisions where required?
The UK is in great danger of falling of a cliff edge into a no-deal (sorry "Australia deal') on December 31st.
The expectation by the EU is that the final agreement won't need ratification by the 27 countries. That is because it will be limited in scope to be just a trade agreement, which is a competence of the EU itself.
It's clearly impossible for a full treaty ratification to be done by the timetable Boris has unwisely hitched himself to, so there really isn't any choice in this. As a result lots of significant issues won't be in any agreement. Note that even the limited Canada deal required full ratification because it was deemed to be a 'mixed' deal (trade and other matters).
Its not clearly impossible any more than it was clearly impossible for the backstop to be renegotiated. The 27 can ratify the treaty simultaneously they don't have to be done consecutively - plus the EU has the power to agree and start the treaty as if the 27 have ratified it before the 2 have finished ratification. As they have done with the Canadian one.
In the real world:
The negotiations were concluded in August 2014. All 28 European Union member states approved the final text of CETA for signature, with Belgium being the final country to give its approval. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, travelled to Brussels on 30 October 2016 to sign on behalf of Canada.[8] The European Parliament approved the deal on 15 February 2017.[9] The agreement is subject to ratification by the EU and national legislatures.[5][10] It could only enter into force if no adverse opinion on the dispute resolution mechanism was given by the European Court of Justice following a request for an opinion by Belgium.[11] The European Court of Justice has stated in its opinion that the dispute resolution mechanism complies with EU law. Until its formal entry into force, substantial parts are provisionally applied from 21 September 2017.
And you think it's not impossible for all this to be done in a few weeks?
Yes.
CETA is new, the alignment is new, the more that is agreed the more that is getting changed, so it takes longer to get through it.
Brexit is different. The alignment is pre-established. The more that gets agreed the less that is being changed. So it can be signed off quicker if parties want to do so.
CETA is new, the alignment is new, the more that is agreed the more that is getting changed, so it takes longer to get through it.
Brexit is different. The alignment is pre-established. The more that gets agreed the less that is being changed. So it can be signed off quicker if parties want to do so.
Anyway, if the Democrats want a competent candidate, I’d have thought that Pete Buttigieg just showed his credentials on that front to very best advantage.
The reason the Iowa caucuses matter, is because they test the ability of a candidate to organise. Buttigieg has proved he has that skill. And Biden has proved he does not.
I 100% agree with both you and AlastairMeeks.
Biden lacks not just the ability to organise but also appears to lack the ability to consistently get to the end of a sentence. Why Biden is even considered a contender is beyond me.
He, or someone else, will be up against Trump. Does he ever get to the end of a sentence before interrupting himself?
Difference is Trump starts one sentence then finishes it with another sentence. He basically bluffs his way though it.
Biden just seems to trail off like even he is wondering "how did I get here?"
They’ve both aged a lot, both physically and mentally, in the past few years.
Which isn’t particularly uncommon in the seventies.
Biden was considered too old and unelectable 4 years ago to follow on from Obama when he was Veep. The idea he is more electable now is absurd. He shouldn't be a runner at all, to watch him now is just sad its not something that inspires Hope.
CETA is new, the alignment is new, the more that is agreed the more that is getting changed, so it takes longer to get through it.
Brexit is different. The alignment is pre-established. The more that gets agreed the less that is being changed. So it can be signed off quicker if parties want to do so.
I'll stick with clearly impossible.
Didn't you say it was clearly impossible for the UK to renegotiate the backstop? Didn't you say it was clearly impossible for the UK to benefit from Brexit? Didn't you say it was clearly impossible for the UK to outgrow the Eurozone post Brexit?
#1 happened, #3 the IMF now forecasts, #2 even the FT and Guardian published positive articles about earlier this week. Forgive me if I take your "clearly impossible" with a pinch of salt.
PS if I've gotten you mixed up with someone else then I'm sorry.
CETA is new, the alignment is new, the more that is agreed the more that is getting changed, so it takes longer to get through it.
Brexit is different. The alignment is pre-established. The more that gets agreed the less that is being changed. So it can be signed off quicker if parties want to do so.
I'll stick with clearly impossible.
Didn't you say it was clearly impossible for the UK to renegotiate the backstop? Didn't you say it was clearly impossible for the UK to benefit from Brexit? Didn't you say it was clearly impossible for the UK to outgrow the Eurozone post Brexit?
#1 happened, #3 the IMF now forecasts, #2 even the FT and Guardian published positive articles about earlier this week. Forgive me if I take your "clearly impossible" with a pinch of salt.
PS if I've gotten you mixed up with someone else then I'm sorry.
I don't think I said 2 or 3, although 2 is probably right. 3 is not.
On the backstop, yes of course it was impossible to renegotiate it on the basis Boris was saying he'd renegotiate it. I accept that I hadn't anticipated the possibility that he'd go back to the original EU-proposed version of a border in the Irish Sea, which he'd previously said was totally unacceptable. Once he'd done that, dusting off the old texts was not impossible, of course.
Plus he is utterly uninspiring. No matter how he likes to paint his backstory, he has the demeanour and attitudes of a technocrat with zero personality.
There is nothing about him that shouts optimism, hope, positivity.
Nor is there anything that shouts "lover of people that hate the UK".
I am deeply ashamed to report an entirely unexpected and potentially significant development that has occurred in Germany an hour ago. The Conservatives of Thuringia have aligned forces with the Thuringian AfD to vote a Free Democrat candidate into the office of Minister President of Thuringia. The intention to start a longterm cooperation, or even a formal coalition, are so far being denied, but nevertheless, this constitutes a major taboo break, unprecedented in German post-war and post-cold-war history. The ramifications of this are completely unclear, but it is obvious that this will send seismic tremors through the German political landscape for the foreseeable future.
Unless I've missed something I fail to see how that's a matter of shame?
If the FDP and CDU/CSU had lined up behind the AfD then that would be, but the FDP are a decent party aren't they? If the AfD have voted for them that's the fault of the voters voting in AfD representatives its not to the shame of the FDP.
Unless the FDP have agreed to implement AfD policies but if they had I'd assume you'd have posted that.
The FDP have won 5 out of 90 seats. Making one of them Minister President is considered widely, besides in AfD circles, to be a travesty of democracy.
The shambolic ruse won't last long. It took them two hours to communicate internally, but then the deputy chairman of the national CDU and the chairman of the CSU (Bavarian sister party) and Minister President of Bavaria publically condemned it and suggested new elections. Even the national FDP chairman has by now tried to cautiously distance himself, and has signalled that new elections are the probable path forward. The Thuringian constitution is a little tricky in that respect, but it seems likely that a way will be found soon.
I am surprised nobody has suggested that it was Russia behind the failure in Iowa.
Given that the Republicans have done basically little to nothing to hold Russia to account for 2016, particularly since Barr took over, and aren't interested in legislating for or funding election security, or ensuring that the FEC is able to operate, I would assume that Russia will be at least as actively involved in 2020 as it was in 2016. Directly interfering in the Democrats caucuses, primaries, and conventions is the sort of thing they might do, but I'm all but certain that Russia is already amplifying the conspiracy theories regarding Iowa.
Takes some balls to complain about conspiracy theories by using a conspiracy theory.
I am surprised nobody has suggested that it was Russia behind the failure in Iowa.
Given that the Republicans have done basically little to nothing to hold Russia to account for 2016, particularly since Barr took over, and aren't interested in legislating for or funding election security, or ensuring that the FEC is able to operate, I would assume that Russia will be at least as actively involved in 2020 as it was in 2016. Directly interfering in the Democrats caucuses, primaries, and conventions is the sort of thing they might do, but I'm all but certain that Russia is already amplifying the conspiracy theories regarding Iowa.
Takes some balls to complain about conspiracy theories using a conspiracy theory.
The US government has done very little to effectively sanction the Russian government despite the interference being a matter of record according to the Special Counsel, and the DNI et al.
As to my opinion about the Iowa caucus conpiracy theories being amplified I would be amazed if the Russian government isn't doing that right now, as it was one of their main tactics in 2016, and there's no reason for them to have stopped when the US government has done so little to hold them to account. It's all over social media right now, the same nonsense being pushed to divide people, and it looks very much like the sort of stuff that was used to divide Clinton and Sanders supporters last time. You don't need that many people to say "screw it I'm not voting then" when their preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination to make a difference.
Pelosi should know better, though. After all, it was she who was so very wary of going down the impeachment route given the dangers for the Dems at the ballot box in doing so.
Many people, regardless of what they think of the despicable Orange One, do not like electoral elites overturning election (and referendum) results. While I personally think Trump is treasonous and should have been removed from office, I can also see that many think that with an election this year, that task should be left to the electorate, not some partisan process in Congress.
Alas, the Dems futile manouevring have led to Trump's highest approval rating in a long while - 49%. I think it is now better than evens that Trump wins re-election, so the Dems (and the US') only hope now is to take both Houses and re-impeach him after the election. But if they go that route, they better be sure before they start that they can go all the way to removal from office.
[Purely fun idle speculation - Makes me wonder if Trump will remove Pence as his VEEP choice and put Ivanka on the ticket, so that if he is removed, the family keep the presidency ...]
Has the Trump approval rating really moved much? The 538 tracker has it stuck in pretty much exactly the same range as it's pretty much always been.
Now, it's definitely at the top of the range. But... it's not really moved from there.
Personally, I think the Don has to be given another term. His policies have aped Lionel Barber and Ted Heath, with massive government deficits pump priming the economy. (People haven't noticed this, but 2020 will have the third largest fiscal deficit in post WW2 history, with only the Great Recession years exceeding it.) That's extraordinary fiscal largess for a period when the economy is growing nicely.
It can't be left to a Democrat to pick up the pieces. It has to be the Donald who faces a recession with no fiscal room for maneuver. So, I'm praying that Trump is reelected.
Not sure about the concept that the whole country must continue to suffer just so that Trump has to reap what he sowed. I'd rather the healing start sooner, rather than later.
Pelosi should know better, though. After all, it was she who was so very wary of going down the impeachment route given the dangers for the Dems at the ballot box in doing so.
Many people, regardless of what they think of the despicable Orange One, do not like electoral elites overturning election (and referendum) results. While I personally think Trump is treasonous and should have been removed from office, I can also see that many think that with an election this year, that task should be left to the electorate, not some partisan process in Congress.
Alas, the Dems futile manouevring have led to Trump's highest approval rating in a long while - 49%. I think it is now better than evens that Trump wins re-election, so the Dems (and the US') only hope now is to take both Houses and re-impeach him after the election. But if they go that route, they better be sure before they start that they can go all the way to removal from office.
[Purely fun idle speculation - Makes me wonder if Trump will remove Pence as his VEEP choice and put Ivanka on the ticket, so that if he is removed, the family keep the presidency ...]
Has the Trump approval rating really moved much? The 538 tracker has it stuck in pretty much exactly the same range as it's pretty much always been.
Now, it's definitely at the top of the range. But... it's not really moved from there.
Personally, I think the Don has to be given another term. His policies have aped Lionel Barber and Ted Heath, with massive government deficits pump priming the economy. (People haven't noticed this, but 2020 will have the third largest fiscal deficit in post WW2 history, with only the Great Recession years exceeding it.) That's extraordinary fiscal largess for a period when the economy is growing nicely.
It can't be left to a Democrat to pick up the pieces. It has to be the Donald who faces a recession with no fiscal room for maneuver. So, I'm praying that Trump is reelected.
Not sure about the concept that the whole country must continue to suffer just so that Trump has to reap what he sowed. I'd rather the healing start sooner, rather than later.
Why do you think there will be “healing”? It seems increasingly clear that many, although not most, people view their political opponents as the enemy not the opposition. Hate is the dominant emotion.
Comments
So I note that you don't want to compare with European economies and want to compare with economies "outside of Europe", in which case I wonder which specific countries outside of Europe you wish us to be more like? Do you wish our economy was more like the United States? Or another nation?
And did you campaign to leave the EU to be less European if you view having a European economic model as a mistake?
https://www.bookabookshop.co.uk/shop/unspeakable-the-autobiography-signed-copy/
Its Nandy who i think is most lickly to be a game changer, i have a small amount on her to win, mostly it might console me if she does win.
Biden just seems to trail off like even he is wondering "how did I get here?"
I'm not looking at Robert Peston, for example.
Which isn’t particularly uncommon in the seventies.
If the FDP and CDU/CSU had lined up behind the AfD then that would be, but the FDP are a decent party aren't they? If the AfD have voted for them that's the fault of the voters voting in AfD representatives its not to the shame of the FDP.
Unless the FDP have agreed to implement AfD policies but if they had I'd assume you'd have posted that.
The negotiations were concluded in August 2014. All 28 European Union member states approved the final text of CETA for signature, with Belgium being the final country to give its approval. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, travelled to Brussels on 30 October 2016 to sign on behalf of Canada.[8] The European Parliament approved the deal on 15 February 2017.[9] The agreement is subject to ratification by the EU and national legislatures.[5][10] It could only enter into force if no adverse opinion on the dispute resolution mechanism was given by the European Court of Justice following a request for an opinion by Belgium.[11] The European Court of Justice has stated in its opinion that the dispute resolution mechanism complies with EU law. Until its formal entry into force, substantial parts are provisionally applied from 21 September 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement
And you think it's not impossible for all this to be done in a few weeks?
If you look at "time required to get approval" for things previously negotiated at the EU level - like the Canadian deal - then it's typically been 12 to 14 months. I don't doubt that you could do it quicker with the UK, given how important the UK is as a trade partner, but I think it would struggle to get done between July and December, not least because you have the Czechs and the Croatians potentially changing government in the middle of the ratification process.
CETA is new, the alignment is new, the more that is agreed the more that is getting changed, so it takes longer to get through it.
Brexit is different. The alignment is pre-established. The more that gets agreed the less that is being changed. So it can be signed off quicker if parties want to do so.
Didn't you say it was clearly impossible for the UK to benefit from Brexit?
Didn't you say it was clearly impossible for the UK to outgrow the Eurozone post Brexit?
#1 happened, #3 the IMF now forecasts, #2 even the FT and Guardian published positive articles about earlier this week. Forgive me if I take your "clearly impossible" with a pinch of salt.
PS if I've gotten you mixed up with someone else then I'm sorry.
On the backstop, yes of course it was impossible to renegotiate it on the basis Boris was saying he'd renegotiate it. I accept that I hadn't anticipated the possibility that he'd go back to the original EU-proposed version of a border in the Irish Sea, which he'd previously said was totally unacceptable. Once he'd done that, dusting off the old texts was not impossible, of course.
Making one of them Minister President is considered widely, besides in AfD circles, to be a travesty of democracy.
The shambolic ruse won't last long. It took them two hours to communicate internally, but then the deputy chairman of the national CDU and the chairman of the CSU (Bavarian sister party) and Minister President of Bavaria publically condemned it and suggested new elections.
Even the national FDP chairman has by now tried to cautiously distance himself, and has signalled that new elections are the probable path forward.
The Thuringian constitution is a little tricky in that respect, but it seems likely that a way will be found soon.
As to my opinion about the Iowa caucus conpiracy theories being amplified I would be amazed if the Russian government isn't doing that right now, as it was one of their main tactics in 2016, and there's no reason for them to have stopped when the US government has done so little to hold them to account. It's all over social media right now, the same nonsense being pushed to divide people, and it looks very much like the sort of stuff that was used to divide Clinton and Sanders supporters last time. You don't need that many people to say "screw it I'm not voting then" when their preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination to make a difference.