@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
If true, that's bloody stupid. Cue easy opposition win in the HoC, plus a difficult by-election.
Surely the by election would only happen if the government wins not if it loses a free vote on this?
Who knows. But Zac's pledge is on the government decision rather than any ratifying vote in parliament. You could call it either way. There is a case for staying for the vote: 1 MP might not make much difference but it all counts, and in any case, if the vote is against he could argue that the government's policy must change. On the other hand, an immediate resignation on the day of the decision would place the issue centre-stage and might fire up opponents of HR3 in neighbouring constituencies to oppose in the lobbies, if not the ballot box.
Thanks for that. I agree that many EU members will wish to avoid a Hard Exit. But that will be only one of several competing emotions for them. For instance, if it comes down to wanting to discourage other countries from leaving, and their wish to avoid a Hard Exit; which will it be?
That's a tricky balance for them. If they look like they are going to the mattresses to stop us doing well out of leaving, and then we still do well, they look ineffectual and irrelevant, which is much worse than looking like they gave us a soft deal.
That's easy. The " and then we still do well," will not just be arguable either way, but will only be known many years or decades in the future. They can disregard it for the moment.
In contrast, the threat of other member states leaving is much more immediate.
Conversely member states with one eye on the exit (Italy) are not likely to be voting in favour of a tough response which might well form the response for themselves in a couple or so years, or potentially sooner if Renzi loses his referendum bid.
Remember that Renzi losing the referendum doesn't mean a new election in Italy, it means a new PM from his party.
The risks to May (and the Tories) from Brexit being "too hard" are immense:
Worst case their economic credibility could be destroyed for a generation. They could lose the support of business and many of their donors. They could open the door to a Corbyn government. They could resurrect the LibDems. They could lose Scotland.
The risks from Brexit being "too soft" are what exactly? Whatever is left of UKIP does a bit better in some Labour seats? A few of her backbenchers revert to type?
Provided she can manage Parliament so that the Remainers never end up voting with her own party's headbangers, all the political pressures point to a Brexit that is as soft as possible. And that still leaves the Tories (including the headbangers) the option of campaigning on 'more Brexit tomorrow'.
Even SeanT, of the "Remainers are Traitors" brigade, was advocating yesterday for "soft Brexit"
Given the choice of pissing off millions of voters, or Peter Bone, what is may going to do?
The complication is that Peter Bone and his friends making up 15% of Conservative MPs could cost Theresa May her job, whereas millions of voters won't unless they vote for Jeremy Corbyn, which is unlikely to put it mildly.
Sadly there is every indication that she is going to put Tory Party interests ahead of the country's and give the hardliners what they want. If you look at the composition of the newly-formed Brexit committee the hardliners are calling all the shots.
Sunils article this morning rightly drew attention to the Welsh referendum in 1997. The No vote of 49.7% was achieved after a campaign in which Labour , Liberal and Plaid all argued for Yes. There were no Conservative MPs left in Wales after the GE of 1997 to argue the case for No. Yet the tiny mandate for change was used to drive through devolution. Whenever I hear Remainers arguing that a winning margin of 1.4 million is not enough to justify Brexit I ask them what representations did they make to Tony Blair about changing the governance of Wales on a majority of 6721 !
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
This says to me that May is a sensible pragmatist, and she's also willing to court unpopularity - in her own constituency.
This in turn says Soft Brexit, I reckon, especially when you listen to the mood music from the Tory party, where May (if the Times is right - ££) is siding with Hammond and cracking down on Fox and BoJo.
As TSE says, hard Brexit means a donors strike. Makes fighting an election against a massively union funded Labour party difficult.
That's an argument for party funding reform.
Super wealthy individuals and institutions shouldn't be able to dictate party policy.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Articles 112 and 113 are in Chapter 4, Safeguard Measures.
But in Part 3, Free Movement of Persons it states: a) "Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured among EC Member States and EFTA States." Note it is workers not persons.
b) Article 33, within that Chapter states "The provisions of this Chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health." Plenty of scope there.
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
This says to me that May is a sensible pragmatist, and she's also willing to court unpopularity - in her own constituency.
This in turn says Soft Brexit, I reckon, especially when you listen to the mood music from the Tory party, where May (if the Times is right - ££) is siding with Hammond and cracking down on Fox and BoJo.
As TSE says, hard Brexit means a donors strike. Makes fighting an election against a massively union funded Labour party difficult.
All the political forces, from the City to Scotland to business, to Ulster to Tory donors to the BoE, Treasury and foreign investors (see the statement from US companies today) point urgently and aggressively to Soft Brexit.
All the same forces that said vote Remain before the referendum.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Am I a bad person because I find Adrian Chiles on R5 extremely good?
I sure am glad I don't have any true liabilities on this election at the moment.
You were forever ramping Trump up until a fortnight or so ago!
I note the Trump rampers generally have quietened :-)
Well a Trump win works best for me, but I'm not as bold as some others about his chances
Mentioning Trump, his net approval rating on the HuffPost average has dropped to -30 for the first time since April. I don't see a way out for him here: he is where he is because of who he is and how he is, and you really can't change that. Attacking Hillary harder will just reinforce his own negatives unless he has something new to bring to the table there.
Sunils article this morning rightly drew attention to the Welsh referendum in 1997. The No vote of 49.7% was achieved after a campaign in which Labour , Liberal and Plaid all argued for Yes. There were no Conservative MPs left in Wales after the GE of 1997 to argue the case for No. Yet the tiny mandate for change was used to drive through devolution. Whenever I hear Remainers arguing that a winning margin of 1.4 million is not enough to justify Brexit I ask them what representations did they make to Tony Blair about changing the governance of Wales on a majority of 6721 !
Sunil makes the point well.
If an MP has a majority of 1, then that MP and that party are the ones who go to Westminster. No one says, "it's close so let's share the role between both MPs".
Brexit is Brexit. The exact shade between hard and soft is yet to be revealed.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Am I a bad person because I find Adrian Chiles on R5 extremely good?
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Of course. And it will be the same across many white collar industries - low level lawyering will be automated, basic GP work - diagnosing flu - will be digitised, much of admin will go to robots, same for banking, architecture, design, advertising, etc etc - the humdrum tasks and jobs are doomed.
The middle classes are about to feel the squeeze that the labouring classes have been feeling for decades, only worse. I wonder if the newly-unemployed journalists will start supporting Trump.
Bit like the people who used to spend hours copying out legal documents.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Am I a bad person because I find Adrian Chiles on R5 extremely good?
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Am I a bad person because I find Adrian Chiles on R5 extremely good?
Yes.
When he's next in my local, I'll pass on the kind words.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Of course. And it will be the same across many white collar industries - low level lawyering will be automated, basic GP work - diagnosing flu - will be digitised, much of admin will go to robots, same for banking, architecture, design, advertising, etc etc - the humdrum tasks and jobs are doomed.
The middle classes are about to feel the squeeze that the labouring classes have been feeling for decades, only worse. I wonder if the newly-unemployed journalists will start supporting Trump.
I wouldn't fancy being a recent graduate in a white collar industry, with no post-graduate research qualifications. Life is going to get very very tough in the next 20 years.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Am I a bad person because I find Adrian Chiles on R5 extremely good?
Yes.
When he's next in my local, I'll pass on the kind words.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Am I a bad person because I find Adrian Chiles on R5 extremely good?
Yes.
When he's next in my local, I'll pass on the kind words.
Ask him about his disgusting attitude towards a Jewish guy who filmed himself walking around Paris for a day, and who suffered serious anti-Semitic abuse / threats. He basically said well you were asking for it weren't you.
If he had said that about a Muslim or a woman who had been raped, he would never have worked again.
I thought "golly-gate" was iffy, but after that interview I have zero time for him.
I sure am glad I don't have any true liabilities on this election at the moment.
You were forever ramping Trump up until a fortnight or so ago!
I note the Trump rampers generally have quietened :-)
Well a Trump win works best for me, but I'm not as bold as some others about his chances
"Well a Trump win works best for me"
...apart from the fact it will be an offing disaster for the world. Try to see beyond your book. I will win handsomely if Trump wins and lose if Clinton does. I'd rather lose my money than have that moron in charge of the free world.
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
This says to me that May is a sensible pragmatist, and she's also willing to court unpopularity - in her own constituency.
This in turn says Soft Brexit, I reckon, especially when you listen to the mood music from the Tory party, where May (if the Times is right - ££) is siding with Hammond and cracking down on Fox and BoJo.
As TSE says, hard Brexit means a donors strike. Makes fighting an election against a massively union funded Labour party difficult.
All the political forces, from the City to Scotland to business, to Ulster to Tory donors to the BoE, Treasury and foreign investors (see the statement from US companies today) point urgently and aggressively to Soft Brexit.
All the same forces that said vote Remain before the referendum.
But these enormous forces were defeated in the only way possible, by a referendum. May doesn't have that problem. She has a general election to win in 2020 - against Corbyn.
First and foremost May has a country to govern. I fear there is a divergence in what's best for the country and what's best for the party. Wonder which way she will go.
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
Sunils article this morning rightly drew attention to the Welsh referendum in 1997. The No vote of 49.7% was achieved after a campaign in which Labour , Liberal and Plaid all argued for Yes. There were no Conservative MPs left in Wales after the GE of 1997 to argue the case for No. Yet the tiny mandate for change was used to drive through devolution. Whenever I hear Remainers arguing that a winning margin of 1.4 million is not enough to justify Brexit I ask them what representations did they make to Tony Blair about changing the governance of Wales on a majority of 6721 !
Sunil makes the point well.
If an MP has a majority of 1, then that MP and that party are the ones who go to Westminster. No one says, "it's close so let's share the role between both MPs".
Brexit is Brexit. The exact shade between hard and soft is yet to be revealed.
Well, actually I say that if an MP is elected with less than 50% support (which is the case in close elections with more than 2 candidates) that MP should be exempt from the party whip. Such MPs won their seats but do not have the same mandate as those who won with 50%+. I am absolutely not in favour of the winner-takes-all mentality which is a cancer in British democracy.
As far as your second point is concerned, the courts have yet to decide if the referendum (by itself) means Brexit.
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
I did ask the other day what Boris Johnson would do. It seems we have found out his price.
This is the second time this year that collective responsibility has been suspended. It shows just how weak government in this Parliament is.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Of course. And it will be the same across many white collar industries - low level lawyering will be automated, basic GP work - diagnosing flu - will be digitised, much of admin will go to robots, same for banking, architecture, design, advertising, etc etc - the humdrum tasks and jobs are doomed.
The middle classes are about to feel the squeeze that the labouring classes have been feeling for decades, only worse. I wonder if the newly-unemployed journalists will start supporting Trump.
Bit like the people who used to spend hours copying out legal documents.
Labour economies don't work as zero-sum games as Sean implies. The replacing of the legal-copy-out-ers by machines has freed up intelligent staff to add value to their companies in other areas, and develop themselves to boot. In the same way my guys could do more client-ambassadorial and prospecting work if we had a few robots around the place to send out the post and settle invoices and save them time.
You might as well argue the advent of computers killed professional job markets. It didn't – it made professional jobs much less mundane.
If the judges are sensible, and I think they will be, they will decide the case on points of law alone.
They will. And it looks like the points of law are not necessarily in the Government's favour.
I disagree. Precedent, prerogative and the history of this case are almost entirely in the government's favour.
To cut to the nub of it, parliament in effect assented to A50 being triggered off a Leave vote when it passed the enabling Act last year. Had it wanted to specify a procedure for triggering A50, it could have inserted a clause in that Act to require further votes in parliament after the referendum. It didn't, therefore the pre-existing powers remain.
If the judges are sensible, and I think they will be, they will decide the case on points of law alone.
They will. And it looks like the points of law are not necessarily in the Government's favour.
So you agree it's an "if" then - good.
From personal experience you never know how the judge will end up until the verdict.
I assume the Court will find the Government's favour. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Firstly, I think it is wrong for the Government to shortcut the sovereignty of parliament on a technicality. But if she doesn't do the right thing, Theresa May could do the self-interested thing. A substantive vote would bind Parliament to her course of action.
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
I did ask the other day what Boris Johnson would do. It seems we have found out his price.
This is the second time this year that collective responsibility has been suspended. It shows just how weak government in this Parliament is.
Well, a nominal majority of 12 is a small majority. That's why reports of the imminent death of democracy because the Tories are all-conquering and the government can do what it likes are somewhat premature. As things stand at the moment, a period of impotent opposition is no bad thing.
On the specific issue of Heathrow: it looks as though it will go through easily with support from Labour anyway.
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
I think any cash payment will be challenging to sell to the UK public.
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
I think any cash payment will be challenging to sell to the UK public.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Am I a bad person because I find Adrian Chiles on R5 extremely good?
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
Freedom of movement is a two-way street. We need to safeguard residency and work rights for Brits in the EU, too. I suspect that this will provide plenty of room for fudge if everyone is happy to make it.
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
I think any cash payment will be challenging to sell to the UK public.
That's why Theresa May has been so careful to tie the three Brexiteers into the decision-making. It will be DD and Boris explaining why it's a good deal to continue to be subject to lots of EU rules, have little change to immigration, and keep paying into the EU budget.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Am I a bad person because I find Adrian Chiles on R5 extremely good?
Yes.
When he's next in my local, I'll pass on the kind words.
Ask him about his disgusting attitude towards a Jewish guy who filmed himself walking around Paris for a day, and who suffered serious anti-Semitic abuse / threats. He basically said well you were asking for it weren't you.
If he had said that about a Muslim or a woman who had been raped, he would never have worked again.
I thought "golly-gate" was iffy, but after that interview I have zero time for him.
Did he also condemn those doing the abusing? I'm sure he must have. If so then I think saying it was likely to happen was not so egregious.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Am I a bad person because I find Adrian Chiles on R5 extremely good?
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
Contributions should be Overseas Aid.
The rumour is that the Government is actually considering that route in order to be able to make contributions to the EU (most probably a reconstruction fund for its poorer members) whilst still saving money by netting most of it off the foreign aid budget. So a chunk of the cost of Brexit may come out of African kids' schooling.
We could send it to PtP but we should know the answer soon enough
I'm happy to go on faith if you are. Though we may not know soon enough for the Supreme Court decision as it will surely get appealed by whichever side loses.
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
I think any cash payment will be challenging to sell to the UK public.
That's why Theresa May has been so careful to tie the three Brexiteers into the decision-making. It will be DD and Boris explaining why it's a good deal to continue to be subject to lots of EU rules, have little change to immigration, and keep paying into the EU budget.
That would be immensely amusing. Fox, presumably, would be long gone. Even better.
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
Contributions should be Overseas Aid.
The rumour is that the Government is actually considering that route in order to be able to make contributions to the EU (most probably a reconstruction fund for its poorer members) whilst still saving money by netting most of it off the foreign aid budget. So a chunk of the cost of Brexit may come out of African kids' schooling.
Sensible way forward, aid money to Eastern Europe should have always been considered aid money. If a government then wants to posit that we increase our aid budget to say 1.0 per cent in order to increase the money to "African kids schooling" then let them do so. 0.7 per cent is not locked in stone.
I'm happy to go on faith if you are. Though we may not know soon enough for the Supreme Court decision as it will surely get appealed by whichever side loses.
Ok, clarification required.
My offer is on the current High Court case. We can have a separate discussion about the appeal
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
Contributions should be Overseas Aid.
The rumour is that the Government is actually considering that route in order to be able to make contributions to the EU (most probably a reconstruction fund for its poorer members) whilst still saving money by netting most of it off the foreign aid budget. So a chunk of the cost of Brexit may come out of African kids' schooling.
Is that what they call Panamanian bank accounts these days?
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
I think any cash payment will be challenging to sell to the UK public.
That's why Theresa May has been so careful to tie the three Brexiteers into the decision-making. It will be DD and Boris explaining why it's a good deal to continue to be subject to lots of EU rules, have little change to immigration, and keep paying into the EU budget.
Yes. Unless of course by then one or all of them has flounced off in a huff, which is highly possible.
Fox is the likeliest to go.
Noticeable that Mr Nabavi didn't name Dr Fox as being someone who would explain why it's a good deal ...
@paulwaugh: BREAKING Strongest signal yet Heathrow 3rd rway to go ahead. PM told Cabinet she wd temporarily suspend collctve respsibty on airport policy
I did ask the other day what Boris Johnson would do. It seems we have found out his price.
This is the second time this year that collective responsibility has been suspended. It shows just how weak government in this Parliament is.
Johnson isn't the least bit worried about Heathrow; it was just something he needed to sign up against to maintain his coalition against Livingstone. His new constituents mostly work at the airport and he has nothing to lose by letting it go through; he will probably make sure he is on some foreign trip.
Indeed I don't think he has many strong views at all, but simply calculates his position on each issue according to personal and party advantage. Hence the two articles etc.
I'm happy to go on faith if you are. Though we may not know soon enough for the Supreme Court decision as it will surely get appealed by whichever side loses.
Ok, clarification required.
My offer is on the current High Court case. We can have a separate discussion about the appeal
Best to clarify then. I'm happy to agree on a bet on the final end of litigation (Supreme Court if it gets there). An appealed court decision is not final and given the High Court knows its decision will almost certainly be appealed by whoever loses (it's all but been said already) then why settle on that? Like settling a Premier League winner bet on a derby game.
So £10 charity bet on the final court decision (either High Court if not appealed, or Supreme Court if it goes there). What do you say?
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Am I a bad person because I find Adrian Chiles on R5 extremely good?
Yes.
When he's next in my local, I'll pass on the kind words.
Ask him about his disgusting attitude towards a Jewish guy who filmed himself walking around Paris for a day, and who suffered serious anti-Semitic abuse / threats. He basically said well you were asking for it weren't you.
If he had said that about a Muslim or a woman who had been raped, he would never have worked again.
I thought "golly-gate" was iffy, but after that interview I have zero time for him.
Did he also condemn those doing the abusing? I'm sure he must have. If so then I think saying it was likely to happen was not so egregious.
Not really no.
His take was to compare the abuse the guy got to people shouting at him on the street for being famous ugly guy. Could you ever imagine a BBC presenter saying that to somebody who had suffered racist abuse that was black or a Muslim?
The Jewish guy then explained they cut some of the very worst comments out, he was spat at and there were threats of violence.
And his response was basically you were asking for it though weren't you, walking the streets wearing your skull cap in areas where there are large number of Muslims.
Again, the guy had to explain he walked all over different areas of Paris over the course of 10hrs.
Best to clarify then. I'm happy to agree on a bet on the final end of litigation (Supreme Court if it gets there). An appealed court decision is not final and given the High Court knows its decision will almost certainly be appealed by whoever loses (it's all but been said already) then why settle on that? Like settling a Premier League winner bet on a derby game.
So £10 charity bet on the final court decision (either High Court if not appealed, or Supreme Court if it goes there). What do you say?
I would rather bet on the High Court. Then we can discuss double or quits on the appeal, if it happens.
For straight reporting you can see how it might work. For exclusives, commentary/opinion/reviews and pictures it will be trickier. Will people pay for the latter if they get the former completely for free? In B2B I think they will. Not so sure about the MSM.
Am I a bad person because I find Adrian Chiles on R5 extremely good?
Yes.
When he's next in my local, I'll pass on the kind words.
Ask him about his disgusting attitude towards a Jewish guy who filmed himself walking around Paris for a day, and who suffered serious anti-Semitic abuse / threats. He basically said well you were asking for it weren't you.
If he had said that about a Muslim or a woman who had been raped, he would never have worked again.
I thought "golly-gate" was iffy, but after that interview I have zero time for him.
Did he also condemn those doing the abusing? I'm sure he must have. If so then I think saying it was likely to happen was not so egregious.
Not really no.
His take was to compare the abuse the guy got to people shouting at him on the street for being famous ugly guy. Could you ever imagine a BBC presenter saying that to somebody who had suffered racist abuse that was black or a Muslim?
The Jewish guy then explained they cut some of the very worst comments out, he was spat at and there were threats of violence.
And his response was basically you were asking for it though weren't you, walking the streets wearing your skull cap in areas where there are large number of Muslims.
Again, the guy had to explain he walked all over different areas of Paris over the course of 10hrs.
Best to clarify then. I'm happy to agree on a bet on the final end of litigation (Supreme Court if it gets there). An appealed court decision is not final and given the High Court knows its decision will almost certainly be appealed by whoever loses (it's all but been said already) then why settle on that? Like settling a Premier League winner bet on a derby game.
So £10 charity bet on the final court decision (either High Court if not appealed, or Supreme Court if it goes there). What do you say?
I would rather bet on the High Court. Then we can discuss double or quits on the appeal, if it happens.
No thanks that's silly. The Supreme Court is the actual decision it's not 'double or quits' or 'best out of three'.
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
Contributions should be Overseas Aid.
The rumour is that the Government is actually considering that route in order to be able to make contributions to the EU (most probably a reconstruction fund for its poorer members) whilst still saving money by netting most of it off the foreign aid budget. So a chunk of the cost of Brexit may come out of African kids' schooling.
Sensible way forward, aid money to Eastern Europe should have always been considered aid money. If a government then wants to posit that we increase our aid budget to say 1.0 per cent in order to increase the money to "African kids schooling" then let them do so. 0.7 per cent is not locked in stone.
The one slight flaw in the government idea is that a proportion of our EU payment is already counted as foreign aid. They will need to knock this off and so it will reduce the saving from counting any new payments as aid. Indeed it will reduce the saving even if we make no new payments since we have committed to the 0.7
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
Contributions should be Overseas Aid.
The rumour is that the Government is actually considering that route in order to be able to make contributions to the EU (most probably a reconstruction fund for its poorer members) whilst still saving money by netting most of it off the foreign aid budget. So a chunk of the cost of Brexit may come out of African kids' schooling.
Couldn't we offer African countries free(er) trade on (say) agricultural products to compensate so to speak?
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
Contributions should be Overseas Aid.
The rumour is that the Government is actually considering that route in order to be able to make contributions to the EU (most probably a reconstruction fund for its poorer members) whilst still saving money by netting most of it off the foreign aid budget. So a chunk of the cost of Brexit may come out of African kids' schooling.
Sensible way forward, aid money to Eastern Europe should have always been considered aid money. If a government then wants to posit that we increase our aid budget to say 1.0 per cent in order to increase the money to "African kids schooling" then let them do so. 0.7 per cent is not locked in stone.
The one slight flaw in the government idea is that a proportion of our EU payment is already counted as foreign aid. They will need to knock this off and so it will reduce the saving from counting any new payments as aid. Indeed it will reduce the saving even if we make no new payments since we have committed to the 0.7
I don't see a problem with that. It's good honest accounting to report it properly, I'm not looking to make vast savings here as if that's the price to be paid it's the price to be paid. You can't have your cake and eat it too by saying there will be no saving and that the saving will come at the cost of African kids schooling. Either there will be a saving (good) or there won't be ans African kids schooling continues uninterrupted (also presumably good).
Incidentally if we are reporting aid properly as aid we can then in our sovereign Parliament debate issues properly. If a party wants to abolish the European aid (thus cancelling our deal and market access presumably) in order to redirect the aid to Africa then let them say so.
F##king hell, some of the second lots of children look even older than yesterdays intake....one has wrinkles and looks like is about to go grey....no sign of what most people would think as kids.
Apparently the Home Office says, may look older 'because war has toughened them up'.
No thanks that's silly. The Supreme Court is the actual decision it's not 'double or quits' or 'best out of three'.
Fair enough, although that was the intent of my original post that sparked this "What happens when the Government lose the Article 50 court case?"
I meant the current High Court case.
That was not clear as the answer to that is crystal clear. What happens if the government loses the High Court case is an appeal is immediately lodged with the Supreme Court and the case continues there.
Most people's real incomes have been falling for years. More so here than the rest of Europe. To what level of penury do you wish us to descend?
That's not going to change with Brexit, I'm afraid.
Since 1997, we have borrowed to an extent that makes the Greeks look prudent. We've gone from the rest of the world owing us a great deal, to us owing them a great deal.
The savings rate is going to have to rise to close the current account. This will be extremely painful. There is really no way to get around this.
Spending on British goods and services would surely be another way.
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
Contributions should be Overseas Aid.
The rumour is that the Government is actually considering that route in order to be able to make contributions to the EU (most probably a reconstruction fund for its poorer members) whilst still saving money by netting most of it off the foreign aid budget. So a chunk of the cost of Brexit may come out of African kids' schooling.
Sensible way forward, aid money to Eastern Europe should have always been considered aid money. If a government then wants to posit that we increase our aid budget to say 1.0 per cent in order to increase the money to "African kids schooling" then let them do so. 0.7 per cent is not locked in stone.
IF we were to be an EFTA member, and therefore a contributor to the Norway and EEA Grants system, then this fits neatly into the development aid folder. The EEA Grants system is purely for development of the economic and welfare conditions in the accession states.
I sure am glad I don't have any true liabilities on this election at the moment.
You were forever ramping Trump up until a fortnight or so ago!
I note the Trump rampers generally have quietened :-)
Well a Trump win works best for me, but I'm not as bold as some others about his chances
Mentioning Trump, his net approval rating on the HuffPost average has dropped to -30 for the first time since April. I don't see a way out for him here: he is where he is because of who he is and how he is, and you really can't change that. Attacking Hillary harder will just reinforce his own negatives unless he has something new to bring to the table there.
The Trump rampers at the start of the year had a serious case of projection.
They'd asked themselves "What would I do if I was a clever billionarie who wanted to secure the presidential nomination as a Republican then become President?" "I know, I'll play to the deepest corners of the base then elegantly pivot to centrist policies come the general election to mop up Independents"
Instead they should have asked the question "What will a mysoginistict racist with a narcissistic personality disorder who has frequent Twitter meltdowns and obsessively retweets praise like a needy child do?"
Basically they had projected their cleverness and insight onto Trump and thought that his persona was an act rather than being him.
I sure am glad I don't have any true liabilities on this election at the moment.
You were forever ramping Trump up until a fortnight or so ago!
I note the Trump rampers generally have quietened :-)
Well a Trump win works best for me, but I'm not as bold as some others about his chances
Mentioning Trump, his net approval rating on the HuffPost average has dropped to -30 for the first time since April. I don't see a way out for him here: he is where he is because of who he is and how he is, and you really can't change that. Attacking Hillary harder will just reinforce his own negatives unless he has something new to bring to the table there.
The Trump rampers at the start of the year had a serious case of projection.
They'd asked themselves "What would I do if I was a clever billionarie who wanted to secure the presidential nomination as a Republican then become President?" "I know, I'll play to the deepest corners of the base then elegantly pivot to centrist policies come the general election to mop up Independents"
Instead they should have asked the question "What will a mysoginistict racist with a narcissistic personality disorder who has frequent Twitter meltdowns and obsessively retweets praise like a needy child do?"
Basically they had projected their cleverness and insight onto Trump and thought that his persona was an act rather than being him.
This is true, but TBF he won the primaries and until the campaign got going most informed observers had a hard time telling whether he was a tactical genius or a monkey hitting buttons at random.
I think it's straightforward for Remainers, even if it is unpalatable to them. It is time to give up. There should be no talk of reruns, and no attempts to finesse the negotiations to frustrate the public will.
The current case will only be decided when all appeals are heard.
But from a betting perspective they are not contingent events.
Which is why I wanted a bet on each one separately.
But no takers...
I bet £10 that Man City will win the League and ask that you give me odds of 1/1 (Sky are giving 1/1).
Bet to be settled on the outcome of this Sunday's fixture, if Man City beat Southampton then they've won the League, if they don't they haven't. If you lose we can double or quits the following week.
The next and looming digital/AI/VR/robotic revolution is totally different in scale to anything we have seen before. It's going to transform society. Driverless vehicles and drones, by themselves, are a huge change, and that's just one little part of what's about to hit us.
Many forecasters expect huge job losses, and no one is sure how they will be replaced.
"One widely-cited study from Carl Frey and Michael Osborne of Oxford's Program on the Impacts of Future Technology, put the matter starkly. In their analysis of over 700 different job categories, almost half could be done by a computer in the future. This wave of computerization will destroy not simply low-wage, low-skill jobs (though those are in acute danger) but some white collar and service-sector jobs previously thought to be immune as well. Many fear that the pace and scope of robot-induced job loss could easily overwhelm even the creation of new job categories and industries"
The same could have been, and probably was, said by experts in the 18th century. Look what happened then - the biggest explosion in wealth and living standards in the history of mankind.
Maybe the lesson to be learned is don't pay too much attention to the people who have a vested interest in the present system.
But whoever loses will appeal. So you might as well bet on the flip of a coin.
Except when I asked the question "What happens when the Government lose the Article 50 court case?", 3 different people wanted the other side of the coin to me, but don't want to bet on it...
So is the PB Leaver brains trust agreed that Soft Brexit means SM access, control of low-skilled immigration, and a large cheque paid to Brussels?
Yes. Probably. But if this happens the terms will be changed and fudged, so as to not frighten the horses. Contributions will become Access Premiums, the Single Market will be Wider Common Trade Area, blah blah
Contributions should be Overseas Aid.
The rumour is that the Government is actually considering that route in order to be able to make contributions to the EU (most probably a reconstruction fund for its poorer members) whilst still saving money by netting most of it off the foreign aid budget. So a chunk of the cost of Brexit may come out of African kids' schooling.
I hope that is what they do. Sound advice from PB.
Most people's real incomes have been falling for years. More so here than the rest of Europe. To what level of penury do you wish us to descend?
That's not going to change with Brexit, I'm afraid.
Since 1997, we have borrowed to an extent that makes the Greeks look prudent. We've gone from the rest of the world owing us a great deal, to us owing them a great deal.
The savings rate is going to have to rise to close the current account. This will be extremely painful. There is really no way to get around this.
Spending on British goods and services would surely be another way.
I sure am glad I don't have any true liabilities on this election at the moment.
You were forever ramping Trump up until a fortnight or so ago!
I note the Trump rampers generally have quietened :-)
Well a Trump win works best for me, but I'm not as bold as some others about his chances
Mentioning Trump, his net approval rating on the HuffPost average has dropped to -30 for the first time since April. I don't see a way out for him here: he is where he is because of who he is and how he is, and you really can't change that. Attacking Hillary harder will just reinforce his own negatives unless he has something new to bring to the table there.
The Trump rampers at the start of the year had a serious case of projection.
They'd asked themselves "What would I do if I was a clever billionarie who wanted to secure the presidential nomination as a Republican then become President?" "I know, I'll play to the deepest corners of the base then elegantly pivot to centrist policies come the general election to mop up Independents"
Instead they should have asked the question "What will a mysoginistict racist with a narcissistic personality disorder who has frequent Twitter meltdowns and obsessively retweets praise like a needy child do?"
Basically they had projected their cleverness and insight onto Trump and thought that his persona was an act rather than being him.
This is true, but TBF he won the primaries and until the campaign got going most informed observers had a hard time telling whether he was a tactical genius or a monkey hitting buttons at random.
My feeling is he won due to the massive multiway field. If it had been a head to head between him and AN Other then he'd probably have lost. But Republicans don't understand collective action problems and all 17 of them thought they could be #NeverTrump.
My only regret about the Primaries is that my initial bets in December on Trump were only play money. My second biggest regret was not having a significant enough bankroll to truly take advantage of the massive free money available laying Rubio after Iowa.
But whoever loses will appeal. So you might as well bet on the flip of a coin.
Except when I asked the question "What happens when the Government lose the Article 50 court case?", 3 different people wanted the other side of the coin to me, but don't want to bet on it...
I do. The court case being over when it is settled by the Supreme Court as everyone knows its going to reach. Not the court case being in the middle of proceedings as the Supreme Court haven't heard it yet.
Comments
Super wealthy individuals and institutions shouldn't be able to dictate party policy.
But in Part 3, Free Movement of Persons it states:
a) "Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured among EC Member States and EFTA States."
Note it is workers not persons.
b) Article 33, within that Chapter states "The provisions of this Chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health."
Plenty of scope there.
What the case amounts to is campaigners asking the courts to find a legal objection for political reasons.
If the judges are sensible, and I think they will be, they will decide the case on points of law alone.
Sunil makes the point well.
If an MP has a majority of 1, then that MP and that party are the ones who go to Westminster. No one says, "it's close so let's share the role between both MPs".
Brexit is Brexit. The exact shade between hard and soft is yet to be revealed.
From personal experience you never know how the judge will end up until the verdict.
If he had said that about a Muslim or a woman who had been raped, he would never have worked again.
I thought "golly-gate" was iffy, but after that interview I have zero time for him.
...apart from the fact it will be an offing disaster for the world. Try to see beyond your book. I will win handsomely if Trump wins and lose if Clinton does. I'd rather lose my money than have that moron in charge of the free world.
RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 11 https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm #HillaryClinton #imWithHer #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails11 https://t.co/jufiR7stMZ
As far as your second point is concerned, the courts have yet to decide if the referendum (by itself) means Brexit.
This is the second time this year that collective responsibility has been suspended. It shows just how weak government in this Parliament is.
You might as well argue the advent of computers killed professional job markets. It didn't – it made professional jobs much less mundane.
That robot maintenance engineer course is looking interesting all of a sudden.
Robot indemnity insurance anyone?
To cut to the nub of it, parliament in effect assented to A50 being triggered off a Leave vote when it passed the enabling Act last year. Had it wanted to specify a procedure for triggering A50, it could have inserted a clause in that Act to require further votes in parliament after the referendum. It didn't, therefore the pre-existing powers remain.
Continuity remainers should take comfort in the fact they have intellectual and moral titans like Nick Clegg on their side.
People like me.
They use computer chips. Chips designed by people like Mrs J.
WE ARE YOUR GODS!
It can only be a matter of time before one of them turns up on your doorstep, wanting more life.
You know what happens next.
On the specific issue of Heathrow: it looks as though it will go through easily with support from Labour anyway.
You want the bet?
We could send it to PtP but we should know the answer soon enough
We'll more than repay that by buying their products outside the Africa-impoverishing European UNion.
My offer is on the current High Court case. We can have a separate discussion about the appeal
Indeed I don't think he has many strong views at all, but simply calculates his position on each issue according to personal and party advantage. Hence the two articles etc.
"The Sunil come out, tomorrow....."
So £10 charity bet on the final court decision (either High Court if not appealed, or Supreme Court if it goes there). What do you say?
His take was to compare the abuse the guy got to people shouting at him on the street for being famous ugly guy. Could you ever imagine a BBC presenter saying that to somebody who had suffered racist abuse that was black or a Muslim?
The Jewish guy then explained they cut some of the very worst comments out, he was spat at and there were threats of violence.
And his response was basically you were asking for it though weren't you, walking the streets wearing your skull cap in areas where there are large number of Muslims.
Again, the guy had to explain he walked all over different areas of Paris over the course of 10hrs.
We don;t have to explain that d8gsh*t deal to an angry public.
And we don;t have to cope with a resurgent UKIP screaming betrayal.
So we are a bit biased, probably.
Clinton 39 (2 pt lead)
Trump 37
Johnson 8
Stein 3
HighGround Public Affairs poll of AZ voters Oct. 14.
https://t.co/bkUCaUed2S
UTAH
Trump 30 (1 pt lead)
McMullin 29
Clinton 28
Johnson 5
Stein 1
Rasmussen Reports, likely voters, Oct. 14-16.
https://t.co/HPrvkfsfp2
COLORADO
Trump there today:
Clinton 45 (7 pts up)
Trump 37
Johnson 10
Stein 3
Q poll of likely voters Oct 10-16
https://t.co/vaO45sbZmN
Three different posters challenged my question about the Government losing the court case, so I asked all 3 if they wanted the same wager
The terms were on the outcome of the case, now clarified to mean the current High Court case, not any subsequent appeal.
£10 charity.
I meant the current High Court case.
Incidentally if we are reporting aid properly as aid we can then in our sovereign Parliament debate issues properly. If a party wants to abolish the European aid (thus cancelling our deal and market access presumably) in order to redirect the aid to Africa then let them say so.
Apparently the Home Office says, may look older 'because war has toughened them up'.
What a total farce.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3847262/They-look-older-war-toughened-Home-Office-claims-Calais-child-migrants-aged-conflict-REFUSE-carry-intrusive-checks.html
The current case will only be decided when all appeals are heard.
They'd asked themselves "What would I do if I was a clever billionarie who wanted to secure the presidential nomination as a Republican then become President?" "I know, I'll play to the deepest corners of the base then elegantly pivot to centrist policies come the general election to mop up Independents"
Instead they should have asked the question "What will a mysoginistict racist with a narcissistic personality disorder who has frequent Twitter meltdowns and obsessively retweets praise like a needy child do?"
Basically they had projected their cleverness and insight onto Trump and thought that his persona was an act rather than being him.
Which is why I wanted a bet on each one separately.
But no takers...
Clinton 54 .. Trump 28
http://www.wbur.org/politicker/2016/10/18/poll-clinton-trump-massachusetts
But whoever loses will appeal. So you might as well bet on the flip of a coin.
Bet to be settled on the outcome of this Sunday's fixture, if Man City beat Southampton then they've won the League, if they don't they haven't. If you lose we can double or quits the following week.
Do you want to take that?
Cameron 'wasted' £1.3bn on Troubled Families Programme
The former Prime Minister claimed the scheme "turned around" the lives of nearly all those it helped. Not so, says a report.
http://news.sky.com/story/cameron-wasted-16313bn-on-troubled-families-programme-10621958
I pay you if the decision is that parliament has to vote in order that Article 50 is invoked; you pay me if it's that parliament does not have to?
Maybe the lesson to be learned is don't pay too much attention to the people who have a vested interest in the present system.
NEW THREAD
Clinton 51 .. Trump 40
http://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2016/161018/
My only regret about the Primaries is that my initial bets in December on Trump were only play money. My second biggest regret was not having a significant enough bankroll to truly take advantage of the massive free money available laying Rubio after Iowa.
What a crazy time.