Nigel Farage is due to meet with President Elect this evening, according to this mornings Telegraph.
Hands up those that think that Farage is carrying messages from No.10?
Bad times.
You sometimes despite your view on his policies and even personality have to step back and admire some people for what they have managed to do from err nothing - How the hell as Farage managed to go from being an unknown minor politician leading a fringe party to causing ruptions in Europe , making PM's resign and to top it all probably electing Trump in the White House to the extent that the most powerful man in the world come January is beholden to him . Unbelievable really
It is. Doesn't change the fact that he's a c*nt though.
Nigel Farage is due to meet with President Elect this evening, according to this mornings Telegraph.
Hands up those that think that Farage is carrying messages from No.10?
Bad times.
If Trump declared that he would only cooperate with Britain if we installed Nigel as leader, I can imagine some in the Leave camp not seeing any problem.
Back to slightly more relevant matters and the ongoing A50/Brexit argument.
I voted LEAVE on June 23rd and don't regret doing so at the moment but I voted for the process rather than necessarily the outcome by which I mean I gave my trust to the Government (led by David Cameron at the time) to begin and take forward the process of withdrawing Britain from membership of the European Union.
Implicit in that (or so I thought) was the notion said Government would seek to obtain the best deal for the people of the United Kingdom (rather than just the Conservative Party).
Equally implicit on a personal level was the hope said outcome or new Treaty would be put to the British people either via a second referendum or as part of a General Election.
The terms on which we leave - the terms on which the Britain of the 2020s and beyond will conduct its economic affairs not just with the EU but with the rest of the world - are important and will define the kind of nation we will be for the rest of the first half of this century.
For me, that Treaty requires proper scrutiny and consideration not just in Parliament but beyond. That means the May Government needing to say what would happen if the Treaty was rejected either in parliament or by referendum or in a General Election.
I think Tim Farron (and let's do the man the simple courtesy of getting his name right) is wrong to hang A50 on the promise of a second referendum once the Treaty has been agreed. The vote to LEAVE, whatever the legalistic nuances being offered, was for me and for most people an unequivocal signal to begin a process. What it wasn't was carte blanche support for whatever hard boiled, soft shoe shuffle or half baked Brexit negotiated by her Government.
To be honest, if May was any kind of leader or politician, she would gladly offer the British people the opportunity to approve or reject the post-EU Treaty in a referendum in June 2019 and explain clearly what she would do if the Treaty was rejected.
An interesting piece from David H (for which as always many thanks). As a fellow member of the "Big 10" (finalists in the 2007 PB POTY contest), I know that pieces like this are designed to provoke a response and a debate - OGH's income via site traffic would be hurt if someone wrote a piece so anodyne as to create no response.
Is Trump a fascist ? Depends on what you mean by the term "fascist". Assuming the Mussolini model, it's nationalist, authoritarian and references internal past culture as a mechanism for modernity and modern behaviour.
Trump said "make America great again" and that resonated most with those who remembered or nostalgically recalled when America was great before but within that was more than a nod to an again romanticised past (the 50s or early 60s perhaps).
When the world becomes too difficult to understand or even face, it's easy to listen to those who evoke the nostalgia of better times, of simpler times, of more certain times.
There's a lot written about Brexit and the vote of Trump seen in terms of "globalisation" but perhaps what 2008 showed was the interconnection and vulnerability of a financially connected system in which the idea of elements failing was too terrible to contemplate.
Those in the Rust Belt remember the days when they had factories, jobs, an identity and a purpose. Trump promises them all that again and they believe it because they want to believe it. We've heard all this before.
On Wednesday morning, I said Trump had, in his acceptance speech, channeled Reagan, JFK and FDR and his speech was brilliant. There was literally something for everyone but string the platitudes together and you have an incoherent wish list of the unachievable and the impossible.
Promising the Sun, the Moon and the stars is easy - it's what happens when you don;t or can't deliver which is more difficult.
I think Populist is about the best we are going to get on this. For me, Fascism would involve at least -
1) Real destruction of democracy (not being rude about opponents) - to leave the Leader and his Party the only effective one standing. 2) Paramilitary private army 3) Cult of leadership - yes, Trump ran a populistic campaign, but nothing close to the orchestrated leader worship that, say, the Perons did..
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
This is a bit misleading, for two reasons.
1. The Electoral College has been in place for what? Nearly 250 years? And in all that time the USA collectively has never felt the need to change it. The Democrats knew the rules going into the election and raised no objection. Indeed, for all we know, they may even have believed that it would favour them by magnifying the size of their "inevitable" win.
2. The Electoral College rules shape the campaigns. If you know that your party is going to lose by about 70-30 in some state, then there is almost no point campaigning there, since you gain nothing in the EC by "improving" your loss to, say, 69-31. However, if the election were decided by a simple vote total, then it would absolutely become worth the Republicans making a major effort in (for example) California - not to win the state, obviously, but to boost their total vote.
Arguably, Trump's decisive EC win and slender total vote loss is proof that he campaigned efficiently - committing his limited effort where it would make a real difference. Certainly you cannot use the votes cast in an election under EC rules to assert what the result would have been under different rules.
Good article. Didn't mention Poland, Hungary etc. Won't be long until a majority of countries are fascist in the classical definition. If there was a tipping point it was the failure of the liberal west to contain Islamic fundamentalists. Which type of tyranny do we prefer? Isis or trump? That's how people see it. That and ignorance of history.
There is also a major element in the current "revolt of the plebs" at the hypocrisy they see - while they can lose a job for the wrong joke, the establishment wants to import people from the 13th Cent. Who are declared to be morally their superiors....
I'm a leaver and I would have voted Hillary, albeit with gritted teeth. I am worried by a Trump presidency. But I'm also fairly sure that most of the 70 million-odd Trump voters are good people who live in very different circumstances to me and who came to a different conclusion than I would have done, and I'm loath to join in the demonising of half of the American population. I'm also, like Nick P, waiting to see how it turns out before despairing utterly. Don't confuse that position with enthusiasm for President Trump!
Yes, I think people are mistaking an open mind for enthusiasm. Since so many on the liberal left don't know what an open mind looks or feels like it's obviously confusing for them. I didn't want Trump but he's won and the only sensible way to approach it now is to have an open mind and hope to be surprised, but prepare for the opposite by increasing defence spending.
Ha, ha. The wicked liberal left again. Lazy, lazy, lazy. It seems many on the intolerant right prefer to misrepresent arguments than engage with them. As for defence spending: if Russia invades Estonia and the US stands by there will be nothing the rest of Europe could do, whatever was spent.
Russia may be invited into Estonia after the fall of their government and a pro Russia coalition
Have you ever been to Estonia?
Yes and Tallinn is beautiful and quaint. Not sure the point is in your comment though
How many times? When was the last time you were there? Were you just a tourist, not venturing far from Vanalinn?
I went a few years ago to Tallinn and it was fascinating. However I am only commenting on the fall of the government this week and reports that a pro Russia coalition is likely. I do not know more than that which has been reported
Ah. As I thought.
My wife is Estonian and we go to visit her parents twice a year. I think I can claim a greater knowledge of the country than any PBer other than, I believe, Cicero?
Basically, you're talking nonsense. The Russian minority in Estonia is not nearly big enough to overcome the quite understandable Estonian antipathy to Russia.
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
When was the last time that the electors in the UK got a government that the majority voted for?
Arguably 2010.
Tell that to those who opposed increased tuition fees.
who were outvoted by supporters of the party (most likely parties) that wanted to increase fees?
So what are the chances that the EU tells the USA to have another election so that they can get the 'right' answer ?
A big difference between Trump's victory and the Leave win is that Trump did not get most votes.
"The Democrats cannot complain either about the inequity of the electoral college and say Clinton won the popular vote. They accepted the system and framed their entire campaign on winning on those terms. Yet in the places she needed to inspire and motivate more voters than Trump she failed. That goes for Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Trump crushed her and the smug liberals who operated on the basis that his triumph there was unthinkable."
The Electoral College is designed to ensure that smaller states are not ignored, and with good reason. If the campaign were fought entirely on the national vote then the candidates would probably spend virtually all of their time pandering to the concerns of voters in a few large conurbations (link: http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9?IR=T ) If you add up the numbers of voters in the most populous counties in the US, then by the time you get through the first 146 in the list you've already accounted for half of the entire population. There are over 3,000 counties in all.
Without a system like the Electoral College, the risk is that the entire election could end up revolving around the dozen or so largest cities, which would be even more narrow and exclusive than a list of maybe fifteen or so swing states.
I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
Ahh the good old PV meme again.
It's odd that if the voting system was so unfair you would have thought the democrats would have changed it in the last 8 years of Obama or even during the Clinton years. Of course they would have lost the mass of electoral college votes California always guarantees them.
It's a system they were all more than happy with when they were winning. Just like Labour during their GE wins, Remainers while they thought they would win and democrats while they thought they were shoo ins.
Comments
I voted LEAVE on June 23rd and don't regret doing so at the moment but I voted for the process rather than necessarily the outcome by which I mean I gave my trust to the Government (led by David Cameron at the time) to begin and take forward the process of withdrawing Britain from membership of the European Union.
Implicit in that (or so I thought) was the notion said Government would seek to obtain the best deal for the people of the United Kingdom (rather than just the Conservative Party).
Equally implicit on a personal level was the hope said outcome or new Treaty would be put to the British people either via a second referendum or as part of a General Election.
The terms on which we leave - the terms on which the Britain of the 2020s and beyond will conduct its economic affairs not just with the EU but with the rest of the world - are important and will define the kind of nation we will be for the rest of the first half of this century.
For me, that Treaty requires proper scrutiny and consideration not just in Parliament but beyond. That means the May Government needing to say what would happen if the Treaty was rejected either in parliament or by referendum or in a General Election.
I think Tim Farron (and let's do the man the simple courtesy of getting his name right) is wrong to hang A50 on the promise of a second referendum once the Treaty has been agreed.
The vote to LEAVE, whatever the legalistic nuances being offered, was for me and for most people an unequivocal signal to begin a process. What it wasn't was carte blanche support for whatever hard boiled, soft shoe shuffle or half baked Brexit negotiated by her Government.
To be honest, if May was any kind of leader or politician, she would gladly offer the British people the opportunity to approve or reject the post-EU Treaty in a referendum in June 2019 and explain clearly what she would do if the Treaty was rejected.
NEW THREAD
1) Real destruction of democracy (not being rude about opponents) - to leave the Leader and his Party the only effective one standing.
2) Paramilitary private army
3) Cult of leadership - yes, Trump ran a populistic campaign, but nothing close to the orchestrated leader worship that, say, the Perons did..
This is a bit misleading, for two reasons.
1. The Electoral College has been in place for what? Nearly 250 years? And in all that time the USA collectively has never felt the need to change it. The Democrats knew the rules going into the election and raised no objection. Indeed, for all we know, they may even have believed that it would favour them by magnifying the size of their "inevitable" win.
2. The Electoral College rules shape the campaigns. If you know that your party is going to lose by about 70-30 in some state, then there is almost no point campaigning there, since you gain nothing in the EC by "improving" your loss to, say, 69-31. However, if the election were decided by a simple vote total, then it would absolutely become worth the Republicans making a major effort in (for example) California - not to win the state, obviously, but to boost their total vote.
Arguably, Trump's decisive EC win and slender total vote loss is proof that he campaigned efficiently - committing his limited effort where it would make a real difference. Certainly you cannot use the votes cast in an election under EC rules to assert what the result would have been under different rules.
My wife is Estonian and we go to visit her parents twice a year. I think I can claim a greater knowledge of the country than any PBer other than, I believe, Cicero?
Basically, you're talking nonsense. The Russian minority in Estonia is not nearly big enough to overcome the quite understandable Estonian antipathy to Russia.
It's odd that if the voting system was so unfair you would have thought the democrats would have changed it in the last 8 years of Obama or even during the Clinton years. Of course they would have lost the mass of electoral college votes California always guarantees them.
It's a system they were all more than happy with when they were winning. Just like Labour during their GE wins, Remainers while they thought they would win and democrats while they thought they were shoo ins.
Hypocrites all of them.