Categories
Biden backers unruffled by the overnight VP debate – politicalbetting.com
Biden backers unruffled by the overnight VP debate – politicalbetting.com
The overnight Pence-Harris VP debate has done nothing to change the WH2020 betting. @betdatapolitics pic.twitter.com/KbdfEd5EPM
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Edit: And 1st?
He might be a 77 year old showing his age, but his essential character is congenial to leading a broad coalition of the Democrats (though it will be interesting to see how that holds up in government), and one which makes him difficult to attack from the other side of the partisan divide.
"One EU source said that Mr Barnier had told diplomats: “Maintaining the status quo in UK waters will not be feasible. So the most concerned member states will need to explore room to move towards the UK in terms of quota allocation; provided the UK meets the EU on governance and state aid.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/johnson-ready-to-make-concessions-to-eu-says-official-zqmlf5r9v
No one who didn't watch it will hear of, or recall anything except the fly (probably true of many who watched it, too).
We are leaving the EU but going to maintain regulatory alignment - so long as we get to decide for ourselves if we're in breach of the regulations. Does beg the question of why we are leaving. We want some control of our own fishing policy but probably not complete control. Is that about it?
The main difference is many students live at home.
If its closer to what we agreed with the Japanese that is eminently agreeable.
The EU and the CJEU can not be the arbiters of it. Any arbitration must be neutral.
Boris may have said "I'm leaving home". He may have packed a suitcase, Maggie the teddy bear may be perched awkwardly on top. He may have blamed Dad for not treating him like an adult.
But he hasn't booked a taxi, because he doesn't really have anywhere to go, or the means to pay for it. And finding a place to stay, or a way to earn a living, wasn't really the plan.
So Boris stands awkwardly in the hallway. The silence is broken by the ticking of the grandfather clock.
The geographic spread of outbreaks in university settings is interesting, in that the worst and earliest university outbreaks broadly correspond with the worst prior levels of community infection, which means either:
(1) students have substantially gone to universities fairly local to their homes and brought COVID from home hotspots (tbh, I always thought the idea, in the UK at least, was to get as far away from home as possible! - Italian students going home to mamma every weekend was a culture shock)
(2) students have initially caught it in the community in their university towns, presumably through social rather than didactic settings and brought it into the halls that way.
The reality is a bit of both, so broadly the rapid Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle flare ups suggest city centre mixing in hot spots, the lag in Nottingham, Sheffield represents students coming from hot spots, then mixing; the lag in Birmingham represents students a little further out of town.
Exeter aside, southern universities only seem to have small.outbreaks, which might yet develop, for e.g, in Bath, Canterbury, Royal Holloway. In fact Exeter, which had very little infection before term and whose surrounding countryside has very little infection still is by a long way the best bellwether and test ground for whether university infection can be kept out of the community.
"This future relationship will be one that allows us to:
- Take back control of our laws.
- Take back control of our money.
- Control our own trade policy.
- Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system.
- Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment.
- Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters."
State aid is control of our laws and control of our money. Literally the first two things promised.As I correctly said there was no manifesto promise specifically to reclaim control of state aid
https://www.dovepress.com/three-quarters-of-people-with-sars-cov-2-infection-are-asymptomatic-an-peer-reviewed-article-CLEP
Let it go guys - we've left, you've won!
Take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you honestly believe that none of the 52% who voted Leave were hoping for EEA or similar membership?
If it's any consolation, I remain gutted that we've left, regardless.
https://twitter.com/TrackerPayton/status/1314145417219760131
If we agree to dynamic alignment to EU rules which they unilaterally decide and with the CJEU as unilateral arbiters - then I would oppose that.
If we agree to common principles that we agree ourselves and to neutral arbitration - then I would support that.
I think we're probably just going to agree what qualifies as state aid and what our subsidy regime will be. I honestly can't see a problem with that, nor the dispute governance.
Borid does get a deal: BREXIT IN NAME ONLY!!! CAPITULATION!!
Like this...
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1314144519932252161
The devil will be in the detail. If it is mutual and neutral then that is good. If it is dynamic and unilateral that is not.
https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/1314013436095889414
The EU has been willing to call tax cuts 'state aid'. If we cut corporation tax below EU levels to attract investment into the UK then is that uncompetitive 'state aid'?
Control over our tax rates is control of our money, not 'state aid'.
Researchers said lockdown solves an immediate crisis without providing a long-term solution."
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-short-term-lockdowns-could-result-in-more-covid-19-deaths-study-claims-12098766
https://twitter.com/DomWalsh13/status/1314147202239991808?s=20
I would have rather have seen a Remain vote, but we are where we are.
The thing we do need to do is address and minimise as best we can the interface between student and wider society where there is a university outbreak, and that goes beyond normal quarantine of the sick and is location dependent - different for a student on the edge of central Manchester to one in Keele. See my earlier discussions of directing an at premise hospitality ban for matriculated students and possibly staff of particular universities, for instance.
Plus in July in a test case for your proposition the European General Court ruled that the Commission had not shown that Apple had received tax advantages from Ireland via low corporation tax anyway.
It’s very unlikely that the percentage of infected who continue to remain asymptomatic is anywhere near that high.
We also know that the viral load is on average highest before symptoms develop, so it’s very likely that people are most infectious at this point.
The research underscores the absolute necessity of large scale testing of populations before they become symptomatic, if we are to have any chance of controlling the spread.
Which is what we ought to have planned for over the summer, and need to get sorted without delay.
If the LPF (which goes way beyond state aid) means we do not have control of our laws and money then that commitment is broken.
If the LPF means we still have full control of our laws and money then I have no problems.
That the EU lost one case against Ireland does not mean they can't try something similar with us and if the arbitration is not neutral then that is a problem. Hence the need for neutral and not politicised arbitration.
There's a serious debate about whether the other harms that would be caused by stricter lock down are or are not a price worth paying. Those harms are significant, but many of them will also come if infection and death rates rise greatly - e.g. closing down hospitality services is devastating to the industry, but customers will stop going anyway if infection rates get bad enough.
At some point politicians who actually face the electorate are going to have to get rid of him.
All I've said is that we should control our own laws and money, have a common mutual agreement and neutral arbitration. Which part of that would nichomar be objecting to? Does he find the idea of neutral arbitration repugnant?
Nearly 6,000 experts, including dozens from the UK, say the approach is having a devastating impact on physical and mental health as well as society.
They are calling for protection to be focused on the vulnerable, while healthy people get on with their lives."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54442386#
Control of laws and control of money were in the manifesto, were they not?
If the LPF agreement says we can not control our laws or control our money then we have a problem, do we not?
I don’t think there is any controversy about this.
All lockdowns were ever supposed to do was bring a temporary respite from the spread of infection, and buy time to come up with solutions.
In some ways this has been a success - we have developed much better treatments, and are closer to having vaccines available - but in others (developing testing and track/trace/isolate strategies and capabilities), it has been at best a partial failure.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/07/brexit-deal-beckons-no-10-stops-stubborn-state-aid/
Though as you voted Labour in 2001 but now seem to think you can dictate all current Tory policy why would you take notice of William Hague?
Just let it rip!