politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Boundaries of Northern Ireland: 1921 – 2020
Comments
-
It's not hard to join the dots which are being helpfully laid out before us.AlastairMeeks said:Interesting Vaz teaser at the bottom of the Times front page:
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/773267745890824192
One suspects that this story may unfold further.0 -
There's a Vaz in me kitchen what am I gonna do?Jonathan said:To be clear, Black Lace, creators of the Agadoo, are now trolling the Labour leadership election.
How low can Labour go?
On current trends, I am quite prepared to accept that there will be a moment for Labour where the Corbyn years are seen as a golden era, even if I can't quite imagine what that might actually look like.
There's a Vaz in me kitchen what am I gonna do?
I'm gonna fix that Vaz dat's what am I gonna do
I'm gonna fix that Vaz0 -
Or they have skewed it to reflect participation in the primaries.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Whatever, those numbers (28/32/40) look wrong. The 40 not so much, the other two definitely.0 -
Black lace would not risk their credibility on such fluff.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's a spoof. Looking at both twitter accounts, nothing like that exchange took placeJonathan said:To be clear, Black Lace, creators of the Agadoo, are now trolling the Labour leadership election.
How low can Labour go?
On current trends, I am quite prepared to accept that there will be a moment for Labour where the Corbyn years are seen as a golden era, even if I can't quite imagine what that might actually look like.
Spoof or not, the fact it's believable speaks volumes.0 -
And we all thought the fake Elvis was as bad as it could get....Jonathan said:To be clear, Black Lace, creators of the Agadoo, are now trolling the Labour leadership election.
How low can Labour go?
On current trends, I am quite prepared to accept that there will be a moment for Labour where the Corbyn years are seen as a golden era, even if I can't quite imagine what that might actually look like.0 -
The Scots at that time (7th C) were Irish settlers moving into territory shared unpeacefully with Britons, Picts, Northumbrians and, later, Norwegians. They were the Gaelic speakers.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But Dalriada was a kingdom that included parts of western Scotland, seems a strange name to choose.AlastairMeeks said:
A reshaped North Antrim with eastern parts of county Londonderry.Sunil_Prasannan said:Which seat is Dalriada?
0 -
I know that UB40 were a bit lame in their later years but the first album was sensational, every song a good 'un.AlastairMeeks said:I assumed that Jeremy Corbyn's actions today were a coded message to his opponents. He's going to fix that rat, that's what he's going to do.
I expect that Jezza likes Burden of Shame, or possibly One in Ten, but my favourite is Madam Medusa, a raw look at Thatchers Britain.0 -
I think you are probably right. One thing that I am certain of: when people say things cannot possibly get worse, they usually do!Jonathan said:To be clear, Black Lace, creators of the Agadoo, are now trolling the Labour leadership election.
How low can Labour go?
On current trends, I am quite prepared to accept that there will be a moment for Labour where the Corbyn years are seen as a golden era, even if I can't quite imagine what that might actually look like.0 -
Very interesting article that increased my knowledge of the northern Irish political landscape a hundredfold (from a lamentably low base)0
-
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.0 -
Given his job, surely cocaine and hookers is research.Pulpstar said:
Is offering to pay for a class A drug not an issue with his fellow MPs. Personally I'm in favour of relaxing drug laws somewhat... but the last Labour goverment was ostensibly very anti-drugs even to the point of seconding scientific opinion to be so.NickPalmer said:
The rules have changed since I was there but thisMikeL said:Has Vaz just resigned as Chairman or has he also resigned from being on the Committee?
Been out all day and media reports don't seem to be explicit on this.
Or does one follow the other - ie if he was elected by MPs as Chairman then by resigning does he also leave the Committee?
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/Brief-Guides/Select-Committees.pdf
appears to indicate that chairmen are elected separately and are not normal members, so resigning means you're no longer on the committee at all.
If there's a market on it, I'd make Chuka the favourite, even though Yvette is standing, because Chuka is currently a member already.
My impression is that there's a certain sympathy in the Commons for Vaz, since after a career with recurrent controversy he seemed to have found an effective niche: he was seen as one of the stronger committee chairs. In addition, if no law was broken, many MPs are generally aware of one or another embarrassing personal matter that they'd rather not see the light of day, so there's a "There but for the grace..." factor. It's clear that he couldn't chair the committee given its focus on the prostitution issue, but unless more comes to light I think MPs will now mostly be gentle with him.
Sorry but I can smell the hypocrisy from here.0 -
0
-
A US Realpolitik-driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.0 -
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.williamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.0 -
Naught but REMOANER propagandawilliamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik-driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
0 -
TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.rcs1000 said:
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.williamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.0 -
rcs1000 said:
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.williamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
I spent some considerable time arguing pre-referendum with a left wing Leave friend who was voting that way because they didn't like the capitalist TTIP and believed that outside the EU we wouldn't be signing up to any free trade arrangements like that.
He was an SNP supporter, so some of his obtuseness regarding any UK only-US deal being worse than TTIP may have been deliberate however.0 -
projection of vote share?foxinsoxuk said:or possibly One in Ten,
0 -
The era of slow growth, collapsing commodity prices, and countries reneging on their debts is always a spur to populists of right and left. Trade wars next...williamglenn said:
TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.rcs1000 said:
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.williamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.0 -
Is there any point in TPP without the TTIP? Part of why the Americans were so desperate for them was to stamp American goods standards on Europe and Asia, without one is the other feasible, since Asia won't want to give up competitiveness in the European markets by taking up US standards. As I see it both mega deals are dead and that's no bad thing. Product standards harmonisation is better set at WTO level on a sector by sector basis rather than by the US on a regional basis.rcs1000 said:
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.williamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.0 -
The perfect opportunity for that titan, Liam Fox to show his true mettle.foxinsoxuk said:
Trade wars next...williamglenn said:
TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.rcs1000 said:
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.williamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.0 -
Clinton's national lead down to 3.3%. If it goes below 2% you'd have to say Trump has a great chance of winning on election day.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/0 -
Doesn't mean we have to take it. If the country's not happy to be part of a trading bloc where it has a say in the setting of the rules, why would it sign up to a deal where the country's laws are outsourced to another country entirely - and one whose congressional politicians tend to take a particularly parochial view of their legislation?rcs1000 said:
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.williamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.0 -
There is still a reasonable chance that Obama and the lame duck congress push it through before year end.williamglenn said:TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.0 -
We could join EFTA (without the EEA part) and become a co-signatory to the EFTA-Canada deal in a few months.MaxPB said:
Is there any point in TPP without the TTIP? Part of why the Americans were so desperate for them was to stamp American goods standards on Europe and Asia, without one is the other feasible, since Asia won't want to give up competitiveness in the European markets by taking up US standards. As I see it both mega deals are dead and that's no bad thing. Product standards harmonisation is better set at WTO level on a sector by sector basis rather than by the US on a regional basis.rcs1000 said:
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.williamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.
On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.0 -
not a great chance. clinton would still be leading! just a better oneAndyJS said:Clinton's national lead down to 3.3%. If it goes below 2% you'd have to say Trump has a great chance of winning on election day.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/0 -
Could be worse. Given that they recorded 'Gang Bang' and 'Have a Screw' (used in Rita, Sue and Bob Too), they could be trolling Keith Vaz.Jonathan said:
Black lace would not risk their credibility on such fluff.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's a spoof. Looking at both twitter accounts, nothing like that exchange took placeJonathan said:To be clear, Black Lace, creators of the Agadoo, are now trolling the Labour leadership election.
How low can Labour go?
On current trends, I am quite prepared to accept that there will be a moment for Labour where the Corbyn years are seen as a golden era, even if I can't quite imagine what that might actually look like.
Spoof or not, the fact it's believable speaks volumes.0 -
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.rcs1000 said:That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.0 -
Is 'pained anguish'
1) an acceptable term to be used in a PB thread header
or
2) A horrible tautology0 -
Tautological tautologyTheScreamingEagles said:Is 'pained anguish'
1) an acceptable term to be used in a PB thread header
or
2) A horrible tautology0 -
@MaxPB: is CETA dead?
When I was in Ottowa (admittedly about four or five months ago), people I met with seemed pretty confident that it would (eventually) end up being concluded. (Ironically, of course, the issue holding it up about dispute resolution, and ISDS versus other options, and the preferred EU method is rather less sovereignty denuding than TTIP, etc.)0 -
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'. Even if it was a mistake to vote Leave, that vote was made and the consequences have to follow. The current government has been formed on that basis and it would probably become rapidly untenable given its small majority were it to go back on that commitment.williamglenn said:
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.rcs1000 said:That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
In any case, it's not as if the UK will necessarily be cutting all ties with the continent. I would expect May, Boris, Fox and Davis to aim for a Three-Plus Freedoms deal, maintaining many aspects of membership of the Single Market. That may not be on offer but if that's the case, I'd still expect the UK to be looking for as close a deal as is consistent with restrictions on migration and being outside the competence of the EU institutions.0 -
Is the sentence "You'll be reading this header in pained anguish"?TheScreamingEagles said:Is 'pained anguish'
1) an acceptable term to be used in a PB thread header
or
2) A horrible tautology 0 -
Because the interests of middle ranking countries like Britain in a globalised world are better served by being part of a rules based system than taking on the big boys directly. It raises the question of why we are leaving the EU. It's fair to say fed up UKIP sympathising voters didn't spend a lot of thought on the dynamics of trade diplomacy before crossing the Leave box on the voting slip.david_herdson said:
Doesn't mean we have to take it. If the country's not happy to be part of a trading bloc where it has a say in the setting of the rules, why would it sign up to a deal where the country's laws are outsourced to another country entirely - and one whose congressional politicians tend to take a particularly parochial view of their legislation?rcs1000 said:
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.williamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.0 -
Not necessarily. Remember Boris Johnson's much-mocked position when he first came out for Leave which was characterised as wanting to renew your wedding vows by filing for divorce? With some subtle diplomacy we could end up conducting a rerun of Cameron's renegotiation which leads to a second referendum, or manifesto commitment, on something quite different.david_herdson said:
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'.williamglenn said:
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.rcs1000 said:That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.0 -
You find out around 5.30 am BST.RobD said:
Is the sentence "You'll be reading this header in pained anguish"?TheScreamingEagles said:Is 'pained anguish'
1) an acceptable term to be used in a PB thread header
or
2) A horrible tautology
The final paragraph of the morning thread will have you reaching for the mind bleach.0 -
Hi all, new to this but been reading for a long time.
Has anyone noticed this little alleged government bill that's popped into the HoL? Maybe an election might happen before 2020 after all despite TM's insistence (e.g "Circumstances have changed" "The government needs a mandate for this deal" instead of a referendum etc).
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2016-2017/0059/lbill_2016-20170059_en_1.htm
From https://twitter.com/StuartLong01/status/7732795573737881640 -
The "Three Plus" deal - assuming something could be agreed on immigration - would almost certainly fail the "no fees" and the "no ECJ rulings" conditions. (Of course, basically all international agreements involve agreeing to binding arbitration that has the ability to over-rule national parliaments, ISDS etc., so the second conditional is always likely to be missed to some degree.)david_herdson said:
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'. Even if it was a mistake to vote Leave, that vote was made and the consequences have to follow. The current government has been formed on that basis and it would probably become rapidly untenable given its small majority were it to go back on that commitment.williamglenn said:
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.rcs1000 said:That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
In any case, it's not as if the UK will necessarily be cutting all ties with the continent. I would expect May, Boris, Fox and Davis to aim for a Three-Plus Freedoms deal, maintaining many aspects of membership of the Single Market. That may not be on offer but if that's the case, I'd still expect the UK to be looking for as close a deal as is consistent with restrictions on migration and being outside the competence of the EU institutions.0 -
Who cares about the narrative? If it's a bad, expensive idea, the government thinks it's a bad, expensive idea, and the voters also think it's a bad, expensive idea, don't do it! Democracy means you do what the majority wants, not that the majority has to slap itself in the face for no reason.david_herdson said:
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'. Even if it was a mistake to vote Leave, that vote was made and the consequences have to follow. The current government has been formed on that basis and it would probably become rapidly untenable given its small majority were it to go back on that commitment.williamglenn said:
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.rcs1000 said:That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
In any case, it's not as if the UK will necessarily be cutting all ties with the continent. I would expect May, Boris, Fox and Davis to aim for a Three-Plus Freedoms deal, maintaining many aspects of membership of the Single Market. That may not be on offer but if that's the case, I'd still expect the UK to be looking for as close a deal as is consistent with restrictions on migration and being outside the competence of the EU institutions.
PS The flaw in the second referendum idea is that the voters have not in fact decided that Brexit is a bad idea.0 -
Nice article, Harry. Who's the blue party that keeps holding that seat right in the middle?0
-
Very interesting, and good spot.RH1992 said:Hi all, new to this but been reading for a long time.
Has anyone noticed this little alleged government bill that's popped into the HoL? Maybe an election might happen before 2020 after all despite TM's insistence (e.g "Circumstances have changed" "The government needs a mandate for this deal" instead of a referendum etc).
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2016-2017/0059/lbill_2016-20170059_en_1.htm
From https://twitter.com/StuartLong01/status/773279557373788164
Of course, you could have just entered into a position on a UK election before 2020 and are now just ramping your position...0 -
The Lough Neagh Party with clear blue water between them and the others.Tissue_Price said:Nice article, Harry. Who's the blue party that keeps holding that seat right in the middle?
0 -
The bill has Lord Desai's name on it.0
-
The era of populist politics of left and right is not one conducive to free trade.rcs1000 said:
There is still a reasonable chance that Obama and the lame duck congress push it through before year end.williamglenn said:TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
In theory free trade brings benefits to consumers even unilaterally. A mooted deal with Australasia would make for cheap wheat, meat and dairy for the British table. It may do no favours to our farmers and countryside though. We might be back to the agricultural depression of late Victorian times, but at least it would be a decent barbie.0 -
Bunch of wets and bottom feeders if you ask me.FF43 said:
The Lough Neagh Party with clear blue water between them and the others.Tissue_Price said:Nice article, Harry. Who's the blue party that keeps holding that seat right in the middle?
0 -
As an eighties child, it scares me somewhat that there are people using 1990s usernames - but welcome RH1992.
I tipped a 2016 election a few months back. Don't think it likely now, but just after triggering Article 50 with a manifesto with the plans for the future seems like a sensible way of securing a 100 Tory majority.0 -
I think that has a high risk of happening in the WTO negotiations regardless of what else .happens. farmers corrupt see their gate prices fall by a halffoxinsoxuk said:
The era of populist politics of left and right is not one conducive to free trade.rcs1000 said:
There is still a reasonable chance that Obama and the lame duck congress push it through before year end.williamglenn said:TTIP is dead and TPP is dying. Even Clinton was forced into taking a position against it.
That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
In theory free trade brings benefits to consumers even unilaterally. A mooted deal with Australasia would make for cheap wheat, meat and dairy for the British table. It may do no favours to our farmers and countryside though. We might be back to the agricultural depression of late Victorian times, but at least it would be a decent barbie.0 -
Post of the day!FF43 said:
The Lough Neagh Party with clear blue water between them and the others.Tissue_Price said:Nice article, Harry. Who's the blue party that keeps holding that seat right in the middle?
0 -
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.williamglenn said:The bill has Lord Desai's name on it.
0 -
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?RH1992 said:
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.williamglenn said:The bill has Lord Desai's name on it.
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.0 -
Yeah, there are questions as to whether the prerogative can be restored. It may only be restorable on a statutory basis.Mortimer said:
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?RH1992 said:
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.williamglenn said:The bill has Lord Desai's name on it.
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.0 -
-
Yes, well, I've always said that there are two types of nations: superpowers and the rest. It was one of my main reasons for supporting Remain. However, I'd prefer a more restricted deal based on equality than a freer lop-sided one against our interests.FF43 said:
Because the interests of middle ranking countries like Britain in a globalised world are better served by being part of a rules based system than taking on the big boys directly. It raises the question of why we are leaving the EU. It's fair to say fed up UKIP sympathising voters didn't spend a lot of thought on the dynamics of trade diplomacy before crossing the Leave box on the voting slip.david_herdson said:
Doesn't mean we have to take it. If the country's not happy to be part of a trading bloc where it has a say in the setting of the rules, why would it sign up to a deal where the country's laws are outsourced to another country entirely - and one whose congressional politicians tend to take a particularly parochial view of their legislation?rcs1000 said:
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.williamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.0 -
There won't be a second referendum because there won't be any negotiation without A50 and once A50 is signed then the clock is ticking on exit. At that point, there is no Remain option. A referendum would be a choice between accepting the deal and accepting a chaotic exit. I don't think that's a fair question to put to the British people. In any case, if the question of EU membership or not was one marked by far too much scaremongering and dodgy projection, goodness knows what a referendum based on the minutiae of trade negotiations would be like. Dealing with that sort of thing is what parliament is for.williamglenn said:
Not necessarily. Remember Boris Johnson's much-mocked position when he first came out for Leave which was characterised as wanting to renew your wedding vows by filing for divorce? With some subtle diplomacy we could end up conducting a rerun of Cameron's renegotiation which leads to a second referendum, or manifesto commitment, on something quite different.david_herdson said:
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'.williamglenn said:
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.rcs1000 said:That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.0 -
'No fees' I think the UK could live with. It's a straightforward quid-pro-quo for access and is saleable as such as long as the price isn't too high. The ECJ is a different matter. If it's only about regulating goods and services sold within the EU then I suspect that again, the British people could accept that. Their countries: their rules. If, on the other hand, it were to continue to regulate things *within* the UK then that would probably cross a line.rcs1000 said:
The "Three Plus" deal - assuming something could be agreed on immigration - would almost certainly fail the "no fees" and the "no ECJ rulings" conditions. (Of course, basically all international agreements involve agreeing to binding arbitration that has the ability to over-rule national parliaments, ISDS etc., so the second conditional is always likely to be missed to some degree.)david_herdson said:
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'. Even if it was a mistake to vote Leave, that vote was made and the consequences have to follow. The current government has been formed on that basis and it would probably become rapidly untenable given its small majority were it to go back on that commitment.williamglenn said:
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.rcs1000 said:That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
In any case, it's not as if the UK will necessarily be cutting all ties with the continent. I would expect May, Boris, Fox and Davis to aim for a Three-Plus Freedoms deal, maintaining many aspects of membership of the Single Market. That may not be on offer but if that's the case, I'd still expect the UK to be looking for as close a deal as is consistent with restrictions on migration and being outside the competence of the EU institutions.0 -
But that's the point. A second referendum now - when the public's position hasn't changed since the referendum - would be to appear to disregard a democratic decision for no good reason. And if the public does come to that conclusion, it'll almost certainly be after A50 has been invoked so at that point, there'd be no way back.edmundintokyo said:
Who cares about the narrative? If it's a bad, expensive idea, the government thinks it's a bad, expensive idea, and the voters also think it's a bad, expensive idea, don't do it! Democracy means you do what the majority wants, not that the majority has to slap itself in the face for no reason.david_herdson said:
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'. Even if it was a mistake to vote Leave, that vote was made and the consequences have to follow. The current government has been formed on that basis and it would probably become rapidly untenable given its small majority were it to go back on that commitment.williamglenn said:
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.rcs1000 said:That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
.
In any case, it's not as if the UK will necessarily be cutting all ties with the continent. I would expect May, Boris, Fox and Davis to aim for a Three-Plus Freedoms deal, maintaining many aspects of membership of the Single Market. That may not be on offer but if that's the case, I'd still expect the UK to be looking for as close a deal as is consistent with restrictions on migration and being outside the competence of the EU institutions.
PS The flaw in the second referendum idea is that the voters have not in fact decided that Brexit is a bad idea.
(Actually, there would be a way back in theory. While A50 sets an end-date for the country's membership, there is a provision for the Council, acting unanimously, to extend that exit period. It would be possible for an exiting state that changed its mind to extend that date to, say, 2116, and use a future treaty change to nullify the process. I wouldn't bank on it being practical though, never mind likely)0 -
Brexit is a mistake but somehow voting for Trump isn't. *head in hands*Sunil_Prasannan said:
Naught but REMOANER propagandawilliamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik-driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.0 -
I'm someone who can accept a rerun as legitimate, particular in light of a circumstance change, if likely pointless. But the main reason your scenario seems improbable is it woukd be madness for the eu to offer us a new deal to stay in. It would show everyone if you want to get a good deal from the eu vote to leave and they'll bend over to keep you. It'd be open season on securing concessions.williamglenn said:
Not necessarily. Remember Boris Johnson's much-mocked position when he first came out for Leave which was characterised as wanting to renew your wedding vows by filing for divorce? With some subtle diplomacy we could end up conducting a rerun of Cameron's renegotiation which leads to a second referendum, or manifesto commitment, on something quite different.david_herdson said:
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'.williamglenn said:
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.rcs1000 said:That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.
They wanted us to remain, but having voted out they want us gone and quickly too, and I suspect if we made hints of changing our minds they'd take actions designed to encourage us not to, particularly since having had one referendum it seems unlikely anyone would dare stop Brexit without running another to counter the first.
There are technically possible paths to second referendums or remaining. But for our politicians, Tory and labour, and the eu, other factors make it near impossible. Unless the most apocalyptic scenario occurs, and or the eu changes its offer, the public won't change its mind, and neither of those will happen prior to declaring article 50, and if may tried to hold off until they did, she'd face a challenge.0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/06/labour-backbenchers-turn-on-keith-vaz-as-scandal-hit-mps-seat-on/
"
However, despite the support of some MPs, senior figures in the Labour Party on Tuesday began casting doubt on Mr Vaz’s future.
Mr Corbyn said he would not suspend Mr Vaz but added that the NEC would be discussing Mr Vaz’s situation next week.
He said: “The NEC will be discussing that next week when they meet. Keith will be there, as I understand it, as an elected member of the NEC, and whatever decision is made about his future will partly be made by him.”
"
does this mean that the NEC will lose a blairite and gain a menshevik?
0 -
presuming Sunil doesn't have a vote to cast for Trump..? except in the next series of I'm a celeb. get me out of here?nunu said:
Brexit is a mistake but somehow voting for Trump isn't. *head in hands*Sunil_Prasannan said:
Naught but REMOANER propagandawilliamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik-driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.0 -
The question of the prerogative is one that's not entirely settled as there's no meaningful precedent. However, if it's not resurrected then, rather ironically, the effect of the repealing Act would be to strengthen the FTPA! That's because the previous Act/s which set the length of the parliament at 5 years would apply but without *any* provision for an early election. If anyone was serious about repealing the FTPA, I'd expect a clause within the Bill to explicitly restore / reaffirm the previous royal prerogative regarding dissolution.Mortimer said:
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?RH1992 said:
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.williamglenn said:The bill has Lord Desai's name on it.
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.0 -
What Act now defines the length of a Parliament? The Septennial Act 1715 has now been repealed entirely, and the Parliament Act 1911 only amended the Septennial Act to change seven to five.david_herdson said:
The question of the prerogative is one that's not entirely settled as there's no meaningful precedent. However, if it's not resurrected then, rather ironically, the effect of the repealing Act would be to strengthen the FTPA! That's because the previous Act/s which set the length of the parliament at 5 years would apply but without *any* provision for an early election. If anyone was serious about repealing the FTPA, I'd expect a clause within the Bill to explicitly restore / reaffirm the previous royal prerogative regarding dissolution.Mortimer said:
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?RH1992 said:
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.williamglenn said:The bill has Lord Desai's name on it.
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.
Duh, it's in the FTPA! If it's repealed entirely there would be no upper limit on the length of a Parliament!0 -
The FTPA does:RobD said:
What Act now defines the length of a Parliament? The Septennial Act 1715 has now been repealed entirely, and the Parliament Act 1911 only amended the Septennial Act to change seven to five.david_herdson said:
The question of the prerogative is one that's not entirely settled as there's no meaningful precedent. However, if it's not resurrected then, rather ironically, the effect of the repealing Act would be to strengthen the FTPA! That's because the previous Act/s which set the length of the parliament at 5 years would apply but without *any* provision for an early election. If anyone was serious about repealing the FTPA, I'd expect a clause within the Bill to explicitly restore / reaffirm the previous royal prerogative regarding dissolution.Mortimer said:
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?RH1992 said:
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.williamglenn said:The bill has Lord Desai's name on it.
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.
"The polling day for each subsequent parliamentary general election is to be the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell." (Note that there are some circumstances that change that provision).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/section/1/enacted
I'm not a constitutional lawyer but does repealing an Act in entirety also repeal the repeals within that Act i.e. the previous legislation then becomes active again? If not, then that'd be another aspect that would need amending.0 -
Repealing an act that repeals another doesn't restore the repealed part, at least according to the Interpretation Act 1978. Has Lord Desai tabled a bill enabling TSE's benign dictatorship?david_herdson said:
The FTPA does:RobD said:
What Act now defines the length of a Parliament? The Septennial Act 1715 has now been repealed entirely, and the Parliament Act 1911 only amended the Septennial Act to change seven to five.david_herdson said:
The question of the prerogative is one that's not entirely settled as there's no meaningful precedent. However, if it's not resurrected then, rather ironically, the effect of the repealing Act would be to strengthen the FTPA! That's because the previous Act/s which set the length of the parliament at 5 years would apply but without *any* provision for an early election. If anyone was serious about repealing the FTPA, I'd expect a clause within the Bill to explicitly restore / reaffirm the previous royal prerogative regarding dissolution.Mortimer said:
Not a constitutional expert, but isn't the royal prerogative now lost?RH1992 said:
Ah so it does, I couldn't see that on the PDF but was seeing a load of Twitter speculation about it and that has been spotted too now. Never know, anyway, could be a stalking horse bill. I still don't think the FTPA will survive the decade.williamglenn said:The bill has Lord Desai's name on it.
I hate the FTPA, but I expect there will be conventions established to get around it rather than outright repeal.
"The polling day for each subsequent parliamentary general election is to be the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell." (Note that there are some circumstances that change that provision).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/section/1/enacted
I'm not a constitutional lawyer but does repealing an Act in entirety also repeal the repeals within that Act i.e. the previous legislation then becomes active again? If not, then that'd be another aspect that would need amending.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/150 -
Assuming that's aimed at me, Trump isn't running to be Prime Minister of the UK.nunu said:
Brexit is a mistake but somehow voting for Trump isn't. *head in hands*Sunil_Prasannan said:
Naught but REMOANER propagandawilliamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik-driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.0 -
Hey man, I made two maps to visualise your predictions
http://prntscr.com/cf1dtj
http://prntscr.com/cf1dke
Also, I calculated seat totals
WITH UNIONIST PACT
Democratic Unionist Party 8-10
Sinn Féin 3
Social Democratic and Labour Party 2
Ulster Unionist Party 1-3
Independents 1
TOTAL
UNIONISTS 11
NATIONALISTS 6
The ranges for DUP are based on which unionists get Glenshane and Upper Bann and Blackwater
WITHOUT UNIONIST PACT (assuming all marginals go against unionists)
Sinn Féin 7
Democratic Unionist Party 6
Social Democratic and Labour Party 2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland 1
Independents 1
TOTAL
NATIONALISTS 9
UNIONISTS 7
OTHERS 1
That leaves these ranges
DUP 6-10 med. 8
SF 3-7 med. 5
SDLP 2
UUP 0-3 med. 1.5
IND 1
APNI 0-1med. 0.5
UNIONISTS 7-11
NATIONALISTS 6-9
OTHERS 0-1
which shows you what the pact does0 -
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.MaxPB said:On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
0 -
Indeed, the EU is getting ready for an exemption to implement it before the ratification process is complete, and in readiness for its signature in the summit with Canada at the end of October. That does not sound dead to me.rcs1000 said:@MaxPB: is CETA dead?
When I was in Ottowa (admittedly about four or five months ago), people I met with seemed pretty confident that it would (eventually) end up being concluded. (Ironically, of course, the issue holding it up about dispute resolution, and ISDS versus other options, and the preferred EU method is rather less sovereignty denuding than TTIP, etc.)0 -
Well, well, well… Nicola Sturgeon’s devolved government in Scotland will not – after all – introduce a bill for a second referendum on Scottish independence. .....
To satisfy her supporters who want another immediate shot at it, the First Minister had to try to make it look as though she is not doing what she is doing, which is shelving the referendum because of the likelihood that she would lose. After a summer of giving the same speech, threatening independence imminently in the wake of the Brexit vote, she now says:
“We will consult on a draft referendum bill so that it is ready for immediate introduction if we conclude that independence is the best or only way to protect Scotland’s interests.”
That is quite funny. Consulting on a draft is the government equivalent of a cash-strapped would-be tourist ordering a bunch of glossy holiday brochures and saying “we might go for St Tropez this year.”
http://reaction.life/nicola-sturgeon-sensibly-runs-away-second-scottish-independence-referendum/?ts0 -
On topic - fascinating history, Mr Hayfield - thank you! Are any of the parties likely to contest the changes, or this being Northern Ireland, is that 'all of them?'0
-
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.Fishing said:
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.MaxPB said:On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
0 -
IANAL but there also doesn't seem to be a clear no-takesies-backsies provision in Article 50. If the British changed their mind in the meantime it's not obvious that anyone would win a court case to force Britain to leave. And it's even less likely that anyone would bring one: The EU exists to create lot of win-win relationships, and everyone's voters get screwed if they're ended.david_herdson said:
But that's the point. A second referendum now - when the public's position hasn't changed since the referendum - would be to appear to disregard a democratic decision for no good reason. And if the public does come to that conclusion, it'll almost certainly be after A50 has been invoked so at that point, there'd be no way back.
(Actually, there would be a way back in theory. While A50 sets an end-date for the country's membership, there is a provision for the Council, acting unanimously, to extend that exit period. It would be possible for an exiting state that changed its mind to extend that date to, say, 2116, and use a future treaty change to nullify the process. I wouldn't bank on it being practical though, never mind likely)
So if the British looked at what was involved and said, "on second thoughts we're good" they probably could, and it would be a weird take on democracy to say they weren't allowed to. They're the voters, after all.
I don't think they will, though, and I also don't think the government will ask them.0 -
"As the Commonwealth grew, Britain and the pre-1945 dominions became informally known as the Old Commonwealth", to whit Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africadugarbandier said:
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.Fishing said:
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.MaxPB said:On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Dominions0 -
must have been looking at the wrong page.MTimT said:
"As the Commonwealth grew, Britain and the pre-1945 dominions became informally known as the Old Commonwealth", to whit Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africadugarbandier said:
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.Fishing said:
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.MaxPB said:On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Dominions
Interesting. I had always assumed Newfoundland was always part of canada... (after Leif Ericsson of course)0 -
Nuovo thread0
-
I'm guessing, but some of the Empire Loyalists may not be so keen on free movement of labour from South Africa......MTimT said:
"As the Commonwealth grew, Britain and the pre-1945 dominions became informally known as the Old Commonwealth", to whit Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africadugarbandier said:
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.Fishing said:
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.MaxPB said:On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Dominions0 -
Correction: Should be UNIONISTS 12 NATIONALISTS 5Mkbw50 said:Hey man, I made two maps to visualise your
TOTAL
UNIONISTS 11
NATIONALISTS 6
[...]
That leaves the ranges
UNIONISTS 7-11
NATIONALISTS 6-9
OTHERS 0-1
And ranges UNIONISTS 7-12 (med. 9.5) NATIONALISTS 5-9 (med.7) OTHERS 0-1 (med 0.5)
0 -
dugarbandier said:
must have been looking at the wrong page.MTimT said:
"As the Commonwealth grew, Britain and the pre-1945 dominions became informally known as the Old Commonwealth", to whit Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africadugarbandier said:
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.Fishing said:
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.MaxPB said:On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Dominions
Interesting. I had always assumed Newfoundland was always part of canada... (after Leif Ericsson of course)
Only since 1949dugarbandier said:
must have been looking at the wrong page.MTimT said:
"As the Commonwealth grew, Britain and the pre-1945 dominions became informally known as the Old Commonwealth", to whit Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africadugarbandier said:
? wiki (I know) says the Old Commonwealth is England Scotland and Ireland.Fishing said:
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.MaxPB said:On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations#Dominions
Interesting. I had always assumed Newfoundland was always part of canada... (after Leif Ericsson of course)0 -
V well put.david_herdson said:
There won't be a second referendum because there won't be any negotiation without A50 and once A50 is signed then the clock is ticking on exit. At that point, there is no Remain option. A referendum would be a choice between accepting the deal and accepting a chaotic exit. I don't think that's a fair question to put to the British people. In any case, if the question of EU membership or not was one marked by far too much scaremongering and dodgy projection, goodness knows what a referendum based on the minutiae of trade negotiations would be like. Dealing with that sort of thing is what parliament is for.williamglenn said:
Not necessarily. Remember Boris Johnson's much-mocked position when he first came out for Leave which was characterised as wanting to renew your wedding vows by filing for divorce? With some subtle diplomacy we could end up conducting a rerun of Cameron's renegotiation which leads to a second referendum, or manifesto commitment, on something quite different.david_herdson said:
It's already too late. To hold a second referendum now would simply play into the narrative that the EU always gets what it wants irrespective of national opinion and that their interpretation of 'No' is 'Yes, tomorrow'.williamglenn said:
It looks to me like your side made the wrong choice for the wrong reasons. The sooner this is acknowledged the better our chances of preventing an irreversible mistake.rcs1000 said:That being said, this highlights an issue that my own (the Leave side) has. We have constantly argued that the rest of the world was in favour of eliminating trade barriers, and it was only the protectionist EU that was preventing us from having free trade with the rest of the world.
And that's not really true. If you look at the top 10 economies in the world, the only in force free trade agreements between any of the members are the EU (the UK, France, Germany and Italy), and NAFTA (the US and Canada). That's it. The truth is that the US, Japan, China, India, Brazil, etc. are at least as protectionist as the EU. As a trading nation, it's something we need to bear in mind before we cut all ties with the continent.0 -
About 30% of the electorate at the last two presidential elections used Early voting.AndyJS said:Clinton's national lead down to 3.3%. If it goes below 2% you'd have to say Trump has a great chance of winning on election day.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Early voting starts soon in many states.0 -
But is that Taking Back Control?rcs1000 said:
With TTIP dead, the US will offer the same terms to the UK as it offered to its other partners. That means TPP - so ISDS, a requirement to keep IP law in lock-step with the US, etc.williamglenn said:
A US Realpolitik driven position would be geared towards minimising any risk of political contagion within the EU. Whatever terms that might be offered to the UK would be governed by those concerns.rcs1000 said:
I think Trump is more likely to rip up old free trade agreements than to sign new ones.Casino_Royale said:
Not that it matters, but if there's one thing likely to turn me to the Trump camp it's a "back of the queue" attitude to post-Brexit Britain by the US.Alistair said:FTPT
In 2012 the Roper Centre Had Independents voting for Romney 50/45 in his favour.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?
Roper also had their Democrat/Republican/Independent split at 38/32/29, in recent times there has always been more people who are registered as Democracts than Republicans and as a result 'Independents' skew Republican.
The CNN/ORC poll has their sample split as 28/32/40. The sample is not great or there has been a mass deregistration of Democrats that has otherwise gone unnoticed.
Somehow, I doubt Hillary will be different to Obama.
Hillary, mistress of realpolitic, will offer the UK the same terms as Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the other members of the TPP. Which would mean giving up control of intellectual property law, but which we should probably take.
Brexit was a mistake. Plain and simple.
We will not get a better deal, because to do so would upset the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Australians, etc. But we will get offered TPP.0 -
New thread.....0
-
India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe?Fishing said:
Hopefully we can add labour too - it is ridiculous that we don't have free movement of people with the Old Commonwealth.MaxPB said:On Trump, he'd be likely to take the US out of NAFTA as well, or dissolve it at least. With CETA dead in the water and the possibility of NAFTA moving towards the hangman's noose I expect Canada will be very interested in a trade deal for goods and services.
0 -
LOL, your usual twisted and bent view on the topic. She has never at any time said she was calling a referendum, she said she was considering options in Scotland's interests due to it being dragged out of EU against its will. Not quite how you portray it. It is there if required.CarlottaVance said:Well, well, well… Nicola Sturgeon’s devolved government in Scotland will not – after all – introduce a bill for a second referendum on Scottish independence. .....
To satisfy her supporters who want another immediate shot at it, the First Minister had to try to make it look as though she is not doing what she is doing, which is shelving the referendum because of the likelihood that she would lose. After a summer of giving the same speech, threatening independence imminently in the wake of the Brexit vote, she now says:
“We will consult on a draft referendum bill so that it is ready for immediate introduction if we conclude that independence is the best or only way to protect Scotland’s interests.”
That is quite funny. Consulting on a draft is the government equivalent of a cash-strapped would-be tourist ordering a bunch of glossy holiday brochures and saying “we might go for St Tropez this year.”
http://reaction.life/nicola-sturgeon-sensibly-runs-away-second-scottish-independence-referendum/?ts0
