politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Blair Impede Brexit Project: Ladbrokes makes it odds-on th

JosiasJessop said:

viewcode said:

@JosiasJessop

JosiasJessop said:

Diverting asteroids and comets into Mars would be much cheaper and easier than other methods; if you plan it right you don't need much delta-V.

I used to believe that as well, until somebody pointed out that to change an asteroid's orbit involves a shitload of delta-v. If you want to send them to Mars you have to change its existing orbit to a rather odd looking one (think spirograph, if you remember them) that intersects with Mars, and that is a ginormous delta-v. Asteroids are in a stable orbit: you can't just nudge them and they go "Woo-hoo! Let's dive towards the Sun!" You need a very big and sustained push. And before you ask, letting off nukes on the surface won't be enough.

Ah, thanks. Is that true for even asteroids with Mars-crossing orbits?

I made the point about nukes on asteroids on here a couple of weeks ago.

AlastairMeeks said:

(a) What's the probability of Article 50 not being triggered by 1/1/18?

(b) If it is, what's the probability of an extension to Britain's membership of the EU being agreed during the Article 50 period?

I'd say the odds on these two are roughly (a) 25% and (b) 40%. That makes the odds of Britain still being in the EU on 1 January 2020 close to the 10/11 offered by Ladbrokes.

Insert your own percentages according to taste.

viewcode said:

JosiasJessop said:

viewcode said:

@JosiasJessop

JosiasJessop said:

Diverting asteroids and comets into Mars would be much cheaper and easier than other methods; if you plan it right you don't need much delta-V.

I used to believe that as well, until somebody pointed out that to change an asteroid's orbit involves a shitload of delta-v. If you want to send them to Mars you have to change its existing orbit to a rather odd looking one (think spirograph, if you remember them) that intersects with Mars, and that is a ginormous delta-v. Asteroids are in a stable orbit: you can't just nudge them and they go "Woo-hoo! Let's dive towards the Sun!" You need a very big and sustained push. And before you ask, letting off nukes on the surface won't be enough.

Ah, thanks. Is that true for even asteroids with Mars-crossing orbits?

I made the point about nukes on asteroids on here a couple of weeks ago.

Unknown. It may be more productive to focus on comets, as they have water ice and already cross the Martian orbit (but of course the trick is to cross the orbit at the same time as Mars, so - yup - delta-v again). Halley's nucleus is about 80% water ice, so (very ballpark) that's about 2*10^14 kilograms. A thousand kilograms is 1 cubic metre of water, so that's 2*10^11 cubic metres. If we assume the English Channel broadly triangular then it contains approx 0.5*500*250*0.1 cubic kilometres, so that's 0.05*500*250, or 5*5*250, or 6250 cubic kilometers, or 6250*1*10^9 cubic metres, or approx 6*10^12 cubic metres

So.

* The English Channel contains about 6*10^12 cubic metres of water
* Halley's comet contains about 2*10^11 cubic metres of water

So to fill the English Channel would take about 30 Halleys.

Hhmph. That's actually not bad. You'd still need to divert a shedload of comets, but now a "shedload" is thousands, not billions. It's still a lot, but now it's moving to something the human species could do, given a couple of centuries/millennia and a blank cheque

viewcode said:

GIN1138 said:

JosiasJessop said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard

He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.

What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?

Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)

And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.

Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.

That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.

I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.

You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.

FF43 said:

Slackbladder said:

dixiedean said:

Slackbladder said:

dixiedean said:

First time poster (be gentle). Thinking about a post-negotiation 2nd referendum. A sensible government might offer 3 options on an AV basis.
1 Accept terms as negotiated.
2 WTO (hard Brexit).
3 Negotiate to stay in.
This would allow headbangers on both sides to vent. It would also give the greatest chance of the measure being passed (ie, govt terms finish in top 2, win on transfers). It would also show there is no majority for staying in, or for fantasy total isolation from EU, thus diminishing charges of "betrayal", by establishing a new will of the people. It would settle the issue and allow sensible Leavers and Remainers to unite, isolate the nutters and deal with some of the genuine problems we have.
Long way from here to there though.

What happens with option 3 if the EU refuse it?

The ball would be back in the EU's court. This could happen anyway with any potential referendum 2. My argument is that an AV vote would be the easiest way to get a reasonable deal passed.

BIT of a dogs dinner then wouldn't.

UK: We want to leave
EU: OK, leave
UK: Eerrr can we stay instead
EU: No


Then what?

The whole Brexit thing's a dog's dinner. Option (3) wouldn't be "negotiate to stay in", It would be "continue with EU membership on current terms". If the EU doesn't agree, fall back to the second choice: (1) deal as negotiated or (2) hard Brexit.

It could work but I'm not sure what problem this second referendum would be solving. Presumably we are hoping for "(1) negotiated terms" that are better than both (3) continued membership of the EU and the (2) no deal default.

If we decide that the (1) negotiated terms are worse than (3) EU membership, the first referendum is moot and it would be simpler to run the question again, "Do you wish to remain in the EU?".

If we decide the (1) negotiated terms are even worse than (2) no deal, but still better than (3) EU membership, option (2), becomes option (1), our preferred exit choice.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Shocked by this. SHOCKED!

Nigel Farage's pro-Brexit march on Supreme Court 'postponed' over fears of far-right hijacking

Leave.EU confirms to IBTimes UK that the demonstration has been called off.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pro-brexit-march-supreme-court-led-by-nigel-farage-postponed-1593471

tyson said:

The whole Brexit thing is like a gross miscarriage of justice...we all know that we have done the wrong thing (unless you are a loony), and yet the countdown to the execution continues.

Major- the tyranny of the majority. Good old John...I love it....

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Hearing unconfirmed and potentially fictitious rumours that a second referendum ballot paper would be two stage. Only those who are able to define what an avocado is would have their vote count.

MaxPB said:

YellowSubmarine said:

I see @MaxPB has called my a Traitor. I think this particularly word goes beyond PB rough and tumble and needs challenging. It's really very simple. We're a Democracy. They'll be approx. 2 years 9 months between the Referendum result and us finally leaving the EU. What ever the legalities for practical purposes it will be possible not to leave right up to the point we actually do leave. The referendum result was decisive but quite close. It's possible voters will change their minds before we leave. If they do the democratic thing would be not to leave. If they don't we should and I don't don't we will leave. Indeed we are leaving. Numerous processes are already in train.

In a Democracy campaigning to change minds isn't traitorous it's the essence of democracy.

@MaxPB is clearly very clever so his repeated falsehoods about our Rebate and how the Commission President is appointment seems to be lies rather than errors. Perhaps his desire to label political opponents Traitors is part of this pathology.

Or it may simply be that like so many Brexiters he is rattled. After the Brexit Devaluation, the Sovereign Rating downgrade, the emergency money printing and interest cut, the abandonment of the deficit target , the growth downgrades, the secret comfort letter to Nissan and the OBR and IFS assessments all does not look well. The polls show an essential standstill. The direct costs of Brexit to HMG have already hit £500m.

In my view one of ths is enough - yet - to stop Brexit. But the policy vacuum, the Briefing from our negotiating opponents, the perceptible sense of drift...

I am understand exactly why some Brexiters think this could slip from their fingers. But the response to that is to address what's going wrong and face up to how Leave won whch is what the results legitimacy rests on.

Handing out verbal abuse will get you no where. Tick Tock.

You want to block the democratic will of the people in the unelected chamber. That seems like the behaviour of someone who has the interests of the EU rather than the UK in mind. You have previously called yourself a commited EUphile. You support the EU, not this country. Overthrowing a democratic decision with the votes of unelected Lords is traitorous. I note that most other remainers aren't in favour of blocking Brexit like you are.

On the rebate, I was mistaken. Hands up.

AlastairMeeks said:

A new group has been allowed to make written submissions to the Supreme Court, Lawyers for Britain.

Two other groups (4A Law and New Europeans) have been refused permission.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/interveners-article-50-brexit-case.html

In the Supreme Court's own words:

"The Court does not typically publish detailed reasons for decisions on applications to intervene. In broad terms, decisions on allowing interventions are made based on the standing of those applying in relation to the case, with particular weight given to applications from public interest bodies; consideration is also given to the extent to which applications raise points not already being covered by the existing parties."

So presumably Lawyers for Britain are raising different arguments from the government.

As those who click on the link will see, the Supreme Court has already allowed the following parties to intervene as well:

•The Lord Advocate, Scottish Government
•The Counsel General for Wales, Welsh Government
•The 'Expat Interveners', George Birnie and Others
•The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain

The Attorney General for Northern Ireland had the right to intervene regarding devolution issues so didn't need permission and will be doing so.

david_herdson said:

MaxPB said:

YellowSubmarine said:

I see @MaxPB has called my a Traitor. I think this particularly word goes beyond PB rough and tumble and needs challenging. It's really very simple. We're a Democracy. They'll be approx. 2 years 9 months between the Referendum result and us finally leaving the EU. What ever the legalities for practical purposes it will be possible not to leave right up to the point we actually do leave. The referendum result was decisive but quite close. It's possible voters will change their minds before we leave. If they do the democratic thing would be not to leave. If they don't we should and I don't don't we will leave. Indeed we are leaving. Numerous processes are already in train.

In a Democracy campaigning to change minds isn't traitorous it's the essence of democracy.

@MaxPB is clearly very clever so his repeated falsehoods about our Rebate and how the Commission President is appointment seems to be lies rather than errors. Perhaps his desire to label political opponents Traitors is part of this pathology.

Or it may simply be that like so many Brexiters he is rattled. After the Brexit Devaluation, the Sovereign Rating downgrade, the emergency money printing and interest cut, the abandonment of the deficit target , the growth downgrades, the secret comfort letter to Nissan and the OBR and IFS assessments all does not look well. The polls show an essential standstill. The direct costs of Brexit to HMG have already hit £500m.

In my view one of ths is enough - yet - to stop Brexit. But the policy vacuum, the Briefing from our negotiating opponents, the perceptible sense of drift...

I am understand exactly why some Brexiters think this could slip from their fingers. But the response to that is to address what's going wrong and face up to how Leave won whch is what the results legitimacy rests on.

Handing out verbal abuse will get you no where. Tick Tock.

You want to block the democratic will of the people in the unelected chamber. That seems like the behaviour of someone who has the interests of the EU rather than the UK in mind. You have previously called yourself a commited EUphile. You support the EU, not this country. Overthrowing a democratic decision with the votes of unelected Lords is traitorous. I note that most other remainers aren't in favour of blocking Brexit like you are.

On the rebate, I was mistaken. Hands up.

It's not traitorous; it's undemocratic. An action is traitorous or not; it cannot be converted from one to the other simply on the basis of who supports or opposes it.

JosiasJessop said:

viewcode said:

JosiasJessop said:

viewcode said:

@JosiasJessop

JosiasJessop said:

Diverting asteroids and comets into Mars would be much cheaper and easier than other methods; if you plan it right you don't need much delta-V.

I used to believe that as well, until somebody pointed out that to change an asteroid's orbit involves a shitload of delta-v. If you want to send them to Mars you have to change its existing orbit to a rather odd looking one (think spirograph, if you remember them) that intersects with Mars, and that is a ginormous delta-v. Asteroids are in a stable orbit: you can't just nudge them and they go "Woo-hoo! Let's dive towards the Sun!" You need a very big and sustained push. And before you ask, letting off nukes on the surface won't be enough.

Ah, thanks. Is that true for even asteroids with Mars-crossing orbits?

I made the point about nukes on asteroids on here a couple of weeks ago.

Unknown. It may be more productive to focus on comets, as they have water ice and already cross the Martian orbit (but of course the trick is to cross the orbit at the same time as Mars, so - yup - delta-v again). Halley's nucleus is about 80% water ice, so (very ballpark) that's about 2*10^14 kilograms. A thousand kilograms is 1 cubic metre of water, so that's 2*10^11 cubic metres. If we assume the English Channel broadly triangular then it contains approx 0.5*500*250*0.1 cubic kilometres, so that's 0.05*500*250, or 5*5*250, or 6250 cubic kilometers, or 6250*1*10^9 cubic metres, or approx 6*10^12 cubic metres

So.

* The English Channel contains about 6*10^12 cubic metres of water
* Halley's comet contains about 2*10^11 cubic metres of water

So to fill the English Channel would take about 30 Halleys.

Hhmph. That's actually not bad. You'd still need to divert a shedload of comets, but now a "shedload" is thousands, not billions. It's still a lot, but now it's moving to something the human species could do, given a couple of centuries/millennia and a blank cheque

I love your maths, and your use of English Channels as a comparator. Beats London busses!

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, there is Danegeld, or there is war. Just the message one might expect from trusty allies

Mr. T, if it's French philosophy, your vote counts double

david_herdson said:

It's not traitorous; it's undemocratic. An action is traitorous or not; it cannot be converted from one to the other simply on the basis of who supports or opposes it.

AlastairMeeks said:

Relevant to this thread:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/802175564593397760

Morris_Dancer said:

Only those who are able to define what an avocado is would have their vote count.

JohnLilburne said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Relevant to this thread:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/802175564593397760

If we can lease Hong Kong for 99 years, I'd be happy with a 99 year transitional deal that keeps us in the single market and customs union

I'm a free trader, I don't want to be in no customs union. Zero tariffs on all imports should be the starting point.

williamglenn said:

MaxPB said:

You support the EU, not this country.

This country is part of the EU. This country is part of Europe. The real traitors are those who seek to diminish and deny this fact.

viewcode said:

JosiasJessop said:

viewcode said:

@JosiasJessop

JosiasJessop said:

Diverting asteroids and comets into Mars would be much cheaper and easier than other methods; if you plan it right you don't need much delta-V.

I used to believe that as well, until somebody pointed out that to change an asteroid's orbit involves a shitload of delta-v. If you want to send them to Mars you have to change its existing orbit to a rather odd looking one (think spirograph, if you remember them) that intersects with Mars, and that is a ginormous delta-v. Asteroids are in a stable orbit: you can't just nudge them and they go "Woo-hoo! Let's dive towards the Sun!" You need a very big and sustained push. And before you ask, letting off nukes on the surface won't be enough.

Ah, thanks. Is that true for even asteroids with Mars-crossing orbits?

I made the point about nukes on asteroids on here a couple of weeks ago.

Unknown. It may be more productive to focus on comets, as they have water ice and already cross the Martian orbit (but of course the trick is to cross the orbit at the same time as Mars, so - yup - delta-v again). Halley's nucleus is about 80% water ice, so (very ballpark) that's about 2*10^14 kilograms. A thousand kilograms is 1 cubic metre of water, so that's 2*10^11 cubic metres. If we assume the English Channel broadly triangular then it contains approx 0.5*500*250*0.1 cubic kilometres, so that's 0.05*500*250, or 5*5*250, or 6250 cubic kilometers, or 6250*1*10^9 cubic metres, or approx 6*10^12 cubic metres

So.

* The English Channel contains about 6*10^12 cubic metres of water
* Halley's comet contains about 2*10^11 cubic metres of water

So to fill the English Channel would take about 30 Halleys.

Hhmph. That's actually not bad. You'd still need to divert a shedload of comets, but now a "shedload" is thousands, not billions. It's still a lot, but now it's moving to something the human species could do, given a couple of centuries/millennia and a blank cheque

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Relevant to this thread:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/802175564593397760

If we can lease Hong Kong for 99 years, I'd be happy with a 99 year transitional deal that keeps us in the single market and customs union

Perhaps the UK can lease London and Scotland to the EU for 99 years in return for an annual sum?

justin124 said:

viewcode said:

justin124 said:

viewcode said:

GIN1138 said:

JosiasJessop said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard

He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.

What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?

Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)

And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.

Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.

That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.

I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.

You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.

On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.

I'm pretty sure none of the Nuremburg defendants were charged with "we're not sure but we think something might have happened". My point was that there has to be a charge and GIN1138 wanted a trial without one. Weirdly enough, his was a very inquisitorial position...and hence very French in that respect.

But it was a Tribunal set up by the Allies which had no legal standing which then proceeded to charge people on the basis of retrospective law which the victors had invented and dictated. It could reasonably be argued that the Allies showed less restraint than the Nazis post Fall of France in 1940. Daladier and Reynaud were not put on trial - never mind executed.

AlastairMeeks said:

It begs the question whether the transitional arrangement will be within the EU by extending the Article 50 period or outside the EU under a prenegotiated transition. I suggest that the former is much easier to achieve in the time available, though politically tricky for PMTM.

williamglenn said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It begs the question whether the transitional arrangement will be within the EU by extending the Article 50 period or outside the EU under a prenegotiated transition. I suggest that the former is much easier to achieve in the time available, though politically tricky for PMTM.

A transitional arrangement outside the EU would mean all the legal work in the UK needed to take us out would have to be complete so it's probably impractical for that reason too.

If I had to bet I now think the most likely scenario is a 'transitional' deal based on Cameron's agreement that ultimately becomes the status quo. The EU itself will reframe the assumptions about reciprocal benefit entitlements in a way that will help May sell it as a win.

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: just perusing the practice times. Nothing unexpected at the sharp end. The key may be the start. If Rosberg is first or second into the first corner, I'd expect the title to be his.

FF43 said:

rkrkrk said:

FF43 said:

The whole Brexit thing's a dog's dinner. Option (3) wouldn't be "negotiate to stay in", It would be "continue with EU membership on current terms". If the EU doesn't agree, fall back to the second choice: (1) deal as negotiated or (2) hard Brexit.

It could work but I'm not sure what problem this second referendum would be solving. Presumably we are hoping for "(1) negotiated terms" that are better than both (3) continued membership of the EU and the (2) no deal default.

If we decide that the (1) negotiated terms are worse than (3) EU membership, the first referendum is moot and it would be simpler to run the question again, "Do you wish to remain in the EU?".

If we decide the (1) negotiated terms are even worse than (2) no deal, but still better than (3) EU membership, option (2), becomes option (1), our preferred exit choice.

A second referendum could play the same role as the first... In that it helps the conservative PM resolve an internal party dispute.

If we assume that the EU is not going to give us everything we want for free... Then it seems likely that whatever deal is arrived at will split the conservative party and divide her government.

As a remainer implementing leave... May is very vulnerable. She may find that giving the hardvore brexiteers the chance to make their case satisfies them- particularly if she promises to be neutral/more neutral than David Cameron was.

I don't think the third option of continuing should be on the ballot. That ship has sailed.

But then what's the point of a referendum that chooses between a negotiated settlement, even a very poor one, and crashing out with no settlement at all? The basic aim of negotiations is to get something that's better than the default.

viewcode said:

JosiasJessop said:

viewcode said:

@JosiasJessop

JosiasJessop said:

Diverting asteroids and comets into Mars would be much cheaper and easier than other methods; if you plan it right you don't need much delta-V.

I used to believe that as well, until somebody pointed out that to change an asteroid's orbit involves a shitload of delta-v. If you want to send them to Mars you have to change its existing orbit to a rather odd looking one (think spirograph, if you remember them) that intersects with Mars, and that is a ginormous delta-v. Asteroids are in a stable orbit: you can't just nudge them and they go "Woo-hoo! Let's dive towards the Sun!" You need a very big and sustained push. And before you ask, letting off nukes on the surface won't be enough.

Ah, thanks. Is that true for even asteroids with Mars-crossing orbits?

I made the point about nukes on asteroids on here a couple of weeks ago.

Unknown. It may be more productive to focus on comets, as they have water ice and already cross the Martian orbit (but of course the trick is to cross the orbit at the same time as Mars, so - yup - delta-v again). Halley's nucleus is about 80% water ice, so (very ballpark) that's about 2*10^14 kilograms. A thousand kilograms is 1 cubic metre of water, so that's 2*10^11 cubic metres. If we assume the English Channel broadly triangular then it contains approx 0.5*500*250*0.1 cubic kilometres, so that's 0.05*500*250, or 5*5*250, or 6250 cubic kilometers, or 6250*1*10^9 cubic metres, or approx 6*10^12 cubic metres

So.

* The English Channel contains about 6*10^12 cubic metres of water
* Halley's comet contains about 2*10^11 cubic metres of water

So to fill the English Channel would take about 30 Halleys.

Hhmph. That's actually not bad. You'd still need to divert a shedload of comets, but now a "shedload" is thousands, not billions. It's still a lot, but now it's moving to something the human species could do, given a couple of centuries/millennia and a blank cheque

viewcode said:

JohnLilburne said:

viewcode said:

GIN1138 said:

JosiasJessop said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard

He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.

What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?

Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)

And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.

Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.

That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.

I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.

You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.

Of course you can. You can be tried for murder, and successfully defend yourself on the basis it was self defence. The killing was therefore "potentially" illegal.

No. You're confusing "was a law broken?" with "was there a law to break?". Your example was the former, Gin's example was the latter.

pbr2013 said:

justin124 said:

viewcode said:

justin124 said:

viewcode said:

GIN1138 said:

JosiasJessop said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tony shouldn't worry about the treason stuff, it's only the same halfwits saying it whose first comment when Jo Cox was attacked was to ask if her attacker had a beard

He shouldn't be put in prison for treason... But he should be arrested and put on trial for his potentially illegal war.

What part(s) of the Chilcott report are you basing that on?

Chilcott didn't judge on the legality or otherwise of the war (though he did say the legal "basis" was "far from satisfactory)

And I didn't say the way WAS illegal, I said it was potentially illegal, meaning that the case should be tested.

Maybe it was legal... I'm not a legal expert, but there are certainly enough questions to make a trial worthwhile (not that it'll happen) in my opinion.

That has been my view since 2004 and will always be my view.

I disagree that it was illegal, but thankfully my point doesn't revolve around that.

You can't have a trial for something that *might* be illegal. There has to be a charge, otherwise we're in Constable Savage territory.

On that basis the Nuremberg Trial should not have happened in 1945/46. On the indictment related to 'Planning for War' there was more evidence against Blair - and Bush - than any of the defendants put on trial there with the possible exception of Ribbentrop.

I'm pretty sure none of the Nuremburg defendants were charged with "we're not sure but we think something might have happened". My point was that there has to be a charge and GIN1138 wanted a trial without one. Weirdly enough, his was a very inquisitorial position...and hence very French in that respect.

But it was a Tribunal set up by the Allies which had no legal standing which then proceeded to charge people on the basis of retrospective law which the victors had invented and dictated. It could reasonably be argued that the Allies showed less restraint than the Nazis post Fall of France in 1940. Daladier and Reynaud were not put on trial - never mind executed.

Revolting, loathsome false equivalence. The Holocaust was unique and demanded a unique form of justice. I think more Nazis should have been hanged.

NickPalmer said:

Paristonda said:

MaxPB said:

If that's all Macron gives then it could be mid 40s for Le Pen. With no promise of any kind I'd put it at TCTC. It wasn't until I spoke to a few friends from France that I realised just how much anger there is in France wrt to the EU and Euro and my colleague who has gone from raging EUphile to sceptic over the last two years.

The Euro especially seems unpopular - I was surprised i'll admit (speaking as a remainer) talking to my girlfriend's family, and to colleagues, after the Brexit vote, at how many of them were against the Euro, and quite sympathetic to the idea of leaving. Someone else mentioned upthread the difference between elite France's pro-europeanism, and actual France's euroscepticism. Probably the biggest gulf among any member state.

This is all a bit anecdotal. Comparative polls in a series of countries have shown a marked shift to pro-EU sentiment since Brexit, as people recoil from the mess. I've not seen any lately from France, though - in general French polls seems few and far between - so I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see some more hard data.

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Relevant to this thread:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/802175564593397760

If we can lease Hong Kong for 99 years, I'd be happy with a 99 year transitional deal that keeps us in the single market and customs union

I'm a free trader, I don't want to be in no customs union. Zero tariffs on all imports should be the starting point.

True, that's why we should extend the customs union as far and as wide as possible.

We need to invite Russia into the EU.

FF43 said:

rkrkrk said:

FF43 said:

rkrkrk said:

FF43 said:

The whole Brexit thing's a dog's dinner. Option (3) wouldn't be "negotiate to stay in", It would be "continue with EU membership on current terms". If the EU doesn't agree, fall back to the second choice: (1) deal as negotiated or (2) hard Brexit.

It could work but I'm not sure what problem this second referendum would be solving. Presumably we are hoping for "(1) negotiated terms" that are better than both (3) continued membership of the EU and the (2) no deal default.

If we decide that the (1) negotiated terms are worse than (3) EU membership, the first referendum is moot and it would be simpler to run the question again, "Do you wish to remain in the EU?".

If we decide the (1) negotiated terms are even worse than (2) no deal, but still better than (3) EU membership, option (2), becomes option (1), our preferred exit choice.

A second referendum could play the same role as the first... In that it helps the conservative PM resolve an internal party dispute.

If we assume that the EU is not going to give us everything we want for free... Then it seems likely that whatever deal is arrived at will split the conservative party and divide her government.

As a remainer implementing leave... May is very vulnerable. She may find that giving the hardvore brexiteers the chance to make their case satisfies them- particularly if she promises to be neutral/more neutral than David Cameron was.

I don't think the third option of continuing should be on the ballot. That ship has sailed.

But then what's the point of a referendum that chooses between a negotiated settlement, even a very poor one, and crashing out with no settlement at all? The basic aim of negotiations is to get something that's better than the default.

Yes- but better for whom?

And opinions might differ on whether crashing out as you put it is really worse than a negotiated settlement.

Maybe. We're talking hypothetically, anyway. Practically speaking, it's impossible for us to leave without negotiating with the EU. Even the so called "WTO rules" will need to be negotiated with the EU, and others. Those negotiations will be a lot harder if we don't have our ducks in a row from previous bilateral negotiations with the EU.

viewcode said:

No. You're confusing "was a law broken?" with "was there a law to break?". Your example was the former, Gin's example was the latter.

DavidL said:

I can well believe that comets hit the earth and that they provided a source of water. I cannot believe they supplied the Pacific Ocean.

JohnLilburne said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Relevant to this thread:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/802175564593397760

If we can lease Hong Kong for 99 years, I'd be happy with a 99 year transitional deal that keeps us in the single market and customs union

I'm a free trader, I don't want to be in no customs union. Zero tariffs on all imports should be the starting point.

True, that's why we should extend the customs union as far and as wide as possible.

We need to invite Russia into the EU.

The customs union has big tariff barriers Customs unions are anti-free trade, not pro. I want tariff free trade with the USA, Australia, Canada, India... as well as EU countries

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

Interesting maths but it is also why I have always been highly dubious of the suggestion that Comets were the major contributor of water (and hence possibly) life on earth. The quantity of water is just so damn massive you would be talking millions of them, at least if comets were anything like the same size in the early days of the solar system. And why would the earth be the lucky recipient of a disproportionate number?

I can well believe that comets hit the earth and that they provided a source of water. I cannot believe they supplied the Pacific Ocean.

The answer to that is that other planets had/have water, but have either lost it or hold it in different forms (e.g. sub-surface ice). Hydrogen and oxygen are two of the most common elements in the universe, and water has been found all over the place.

Also, do not underestimate the violence of the early solar system. Not only do we believe an impact of Theia formed the Moon from Earth; Mars might similarly have formed from the remains of an impact on Venus (citation required). Early on in the solar system's development, Jupiter and Saturn voyaged inwards on a grand tack, nearing the orbit of Mars and sending various bodies all over the place. It was an incredibly violent period, and nothing like the relative stability we have now. Who knows how many formative icy bodies were swept up and sent into us by Jupiter and Saturn.

If the theories are right ...

The Earth itself may have lost a large proportion of its water in various ways. Not, sadly, my proposed 'space straw' to such up water to defeat rising sea levels, but I live in hope!

I also like the theory that Earth's had three distinct atmospheres through history, including one of metal vapour ...

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

Interesting maths but it is also why I have always been highly dubious of the suggestion that Comets were the major contributor of water (and hence possibly) life on earth. The quantity of water is just so damn massive you would be talking millions of them, at least if comets were anything like the same size in the early days of the solar system. And why would the earth be the lucky recipient of a disproportionate number?

I can well believe that comets hit the earth and that they provided a source of water. I cannot believe they supplied the Pacific Ocean.

The answer to that is that other planets had/have water, but have either lost it or hold it in different forms (e.g. sub-surface ice). Hydrogen and oxygen are two of the most common elements in the universe, and water has been found all over the place.

Also, do not underestimate the violence of the early solar system. Not only do we believe an impact of Theia formed the Moon from Earth; Mars might similarly have formed from the remains of an impact on Venus (citation required). Early on in the solar system's development, Jupiter and Saturn voyaged inwards on a grand tack, nearing the orbit of Mars and sending various bodies all over the place. It was an incredibly violent period, and nothing like the relative stability we have now. Who knows how many formative icy bodies were swept up and sent into us by Jupiter and Saturn.

If the theories are right ...

The Earth itself may have lost a large proportion of its water in various ways. Not, sadly, my proposed 'space straw' to such up water to defeat rising sea levels, but I live in hope!

I also like the theory that Earth's had three distinct atmospheres through history, including one of metal vapour ...

Sure, more violent. But there is something like 1,386,000,000km3 of water on earth. That is one hell of a lot of comets.

JohnLilburne said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnLilburne said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Relevant to this thread:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/802175564593397760

If we can lease Hong Kong for 99 years, I'd be happy with a 99 year transitional deal that keeps us in the single market and customs union

I'm a free trader, I don't want to be in no customs union. Zero tariffs on all imports should be the starting point.

True, that's why we should extend the customs union as far and as wide as possible.

We need to invite Russia into the EU.

The customs union has big tariff barriers Customs unions are anti-free trade, not pro. I want tariff free trade with the USA, Australia, Canada, India... as well as EU countries

viewcode said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Only those who are able to define what an avocado is would have their vote count.

On the ongoing Red Queen Race between the upper classes and the lower (see Toby Young for an egregious example), the avocado test has been deprecated. It was replaced by knowing how to pronounce feng shui, then it was replaced by knowing how to pronounce quinoa. God alone knows what it is now.