politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories’ current odds-on status in Copeland doesn’t square

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

I agree with everyone on the previous thread who said that free movement between Britain and Australia is fanciful. The Aussies would bitterly dismiss it as an attempt at re-colonization and resist it tooth and nail. There was also talk of creating a kind of British Israel in the Australian desert. I think that would only be viable if you worked out a way of fencing the British settlers in.

I expect most Aussies would be more than happy with free movement between London and Australia though!

Weren't the Aussies asking for this as part of a trade deal with the UK in the weeks after Brexit?

I know the queues and visa checks they face at the UK border are frustrating for them.

Here's an idea.. let's replace those EU lines with commonwealth realms lines.

Casino_Royale said:

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

NYT: Theresa May's global Britain is baloney

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/opinion/theresa-mays-global-britain-is-baloney.html

Written by a notorious europhile quisling. Really, we need to start burning these people at Smithfield*

*metaphorically, moderators, metaphorically

I had a drink last night ('work' drinks, following a team away day) with an Islington socialist and Labour Party member, who really admires Emily Thornberry (his local MP), who bellowed to me that Theresa May was a total idiot and that Brexit was thanks to the 'fascists' up North.

And he knows full well I voted Leave.

Seats like Islington and Hartlepool are currently held by the same party. At some point - for whatever reason - they won't be, and they'll probably never be held together again.

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

I agree with everyone on the previous thread who said that free movement between Britain and Australia is fanciful. The Aussies would bitterly dismiss it as an attempt at re-colonization and resist it tooth and nail. There was also talk of creating a kind of British Israel in the Australian desert. I think that would only be viable if you worked out a way of fencing the British settlers in.

Polling suggests it is quite a popular idea, with 70% in favour.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-13/australia-canada-nz-support-eu-style-free-movement-poll-says/7242634

Interesting, but have they published the actual wording (my brief Googling revealed nothing)? My suspicion is that they only asked about the X-to-Britain flow of immigration. If not, then it's frankly astonishing that only 58% of Britons believe they should be allowed free movement to Aus/NZ/Canada.

The article implies they asked about a free movement area between the four countries. The lack of appetite for the UK is probably due to attitudes towards EU freedom of movement.

Edit: posted the press release above

Ideally, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Canada would form one nation, but that ship has sailed.

They might well, still, be able to form a very close trading bloc, with political and defence alliances between them all though.

Canada is probably the loosest of the three: I think global immigration has run far higher there - without the heavy bias to the UK that Australia and NZ still has - and the presence of Quebec pulls Canadian governance institutionally to the left.

But places like the Maritimes, rural Ontario, Victoria and Alberta are still very pro-British.

The most pro-British part of Oz is Tasmania, and most ethnically British too. Outside metropolitan Melbourne possibly Victoria, but Melbourne has most people and is delightfully multicultural, even 30 years ago when I was working there.

FF43 said:

RobD said:

tyson said:

@malcolmG

Why don't we just live in Italy?

All our joint assets are in the UK. If I died the tax implications for my wife would be horrendous. I cannot allow my wife to be exposed to that kind of uncertainty.

Can't your wife apply for UK citizenship by virtue of your marriage?

This stuff is complicated. I _THINK_ you can only qualify for UK citizenship through marriage if you have been been in an Indefinite Leave to Remain status for at least two years. To qualify for ILR through marriage, your UK. partner needs already to be residing in the UK and you need to be ordinarily resident for five years. So seven years residence in total and whether you can get to the UK in the first place is entirely at the whim of the immigration official who interviews you. He is working to informal quotas. If he has already allowed a certain number under a particular status he will find spurious grounds to refuse your application even of your case is a good one. The number of refusals is high. When I went through this twenty five years ago in a muchmore relaxed regime, over half were refused.

I think most of that is about right. I have a pretty long record of skirmishes with UK Immigration both on my own families behalf and on behalf of friends, I have had visas of close family members rejected, and after hiring some top legal advice was told that the rate of rejections increased by 20% last year, I havent heard what has happened this year yet, but one can imagine.

At the moment I believe its 3 years for citizenship if you are an EEA national married to a British Citizen, 5 years if non-EEA married to a British Citizen, and I think 7 years if non-EEA and not married to a British Citizen.
https://www.gov.uk/becoming-a-british-citizen/if-your-spouse-is-a-british-citizen

If at any time you are tempted to look at the deceptively simple application form and a) follow the instructions and b) do it yourself. Resist it! Hire a professional, the rejection rate for self-applications is hideous.

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

NYT: Theresa May's global Britain is baloney

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/opinion/theresa-mays-global-britain-is-baloney.html

Written by a notorious europhile quisling. Really, we need to start burning these people at Smithfield*

*metaphorically, moderators, metaphorically

I had a drink last night ('work' drinks, following a team away day) with an Islington socialist and Labour Party member, who really admires Emily Thornberry (his local MP), who bellowed to me that Theresa May was a total idiot and that Brexit was thanks to the 'fascists' up North.

And he knows full well I voted Leave.

Lady Nugee. I hope you corrected him.

No. I told him to tone down his rhetoric, and then tried to explain to him the roots of the Leave vote stretched all the way back to the EU's decision to pursue economic and political union, which the UK had been increasingly uncomfortable with since the late 1980s.

But he only half-listened. Some people just like to broadcast.

You should have explained that it was after the EU took on Thatcherite characteristics after the creation of the single market that the rot set in.

Luckyguy1983 said:

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Sean_F said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

I agree with everyone on the previous thread who said that free movement between Britain and Australia is fanciful. The Aussies would bitterly dismiss it as an attempt at re-colonization and resist it tooth and nail. There was also talk of creating a kind of British Israel in the Australian desert. I think that would only be viable if you worked out a way of fencing the British settlers in.

Polling suggests it is quite a popular idea, with 70% in favour.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-13/australia-canada-nz-support-eu-style-free-movement-poll-says/7242634

Interesting, but have they published the actual wording (my brief Googling revealed nothing)? My suspicion is that they only asked about the X-to-Britain flow of immigration. If not, then it's frankly astonishing that only 58% of Britons believe they should be allowed free movement to Aus/NZ/Canada.

The article implies they asked about a free movement area between the four countries. The lack of appetite for the UK is probably due to attitudes towards EU freedom of movement.

Edit: posted the press release above

Ideally, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Canada would form one nation, but that ship has sailed.

Canada mentioned twice!

Well it is pretty big!

I really can't think why that would be in any way ideal. Why should we be ruled over as a single entity when we have hugely divergent locations, priorities, etc?

Maybe we could be ruled locally by our own national governments but could for some form of agreement between the nations for enhanced co-operation, friendliness, trade and rights. We could call this a Commonwealth of Nations for example.

MikeSmithson said:

Norm said:

.

foxinsoxuk said:

Sean_F said:

David_Evershed said:

MikeSmithson said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

dr_spyn said:

Can't see LDs on that chart, yellow on white never easy to find.

They're half and inch or so below UKIP. No further comment...

Farrron has indicated that the priority will be Stoke

Wrong choice when he has a big majority in the constituency next to Copeland.

30% could be enough to win Stoke, so Farron is probably correct.

Also the Lab candidate in Copeland is the sort of candidate that Farron himself would like. I could see a tacit agreement where the LDs concentate on the tory wards.

First and foremost the Lib Dems are suspect on nuclear power and the nuclear deterrent to boot. Secondly most remainer Tories have a pragmatic view on Brexit and accept the need to make it work unlike Lib Dems who enjoy waffling on about it all day on social media. I'd expect any self respecting Tory in Copeland would actually prefer Lib Dem canvassers to sling their hook although they'd be too polite to say so.

Not all CON GE2015 voters are self respecting Tories and can you explain why the blues are being hammered by the yellows in local election after local election?

Mike

The real local elections will take place in May - what happens on Thursdays are the equivalent of a few local showers before a nationwide deluge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2017

Now if you think the 'blues are being hammered by the yellows in local election after local election' can we assume you are predicting that the LibDems will outpoll the Conservative in the May elections with corresponding hundreds of gains ?

BTW I agree with you about Copeland - the Conservatives are ludicrously short odds.

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:

Casino_Royale said:

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

NYT: Theresa May's global Britain is baloney

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/opinion/theresa-mays-global-britain-is-baloney.html

Written by a notorious europhile quisling. Really, we need to start burning these people at Smithfield*

*metaphorically, moderators, metaphorically

I had a drink last night ('work' drinks, following a team away day) with an Islington socialist and Labour Party member, who really admires Emily Thornberry (his local MP), who bellowed to me that Theresa May was a total idiot and that Brexit was thanks to the 'fascists' up North.

And he knows full well I voted Leave.

Lady Nugee. I hope you corrected him.

No. I told him to tone down his rhetoric, and then tried to explain to him the roots of the Leave vote stretched all the way back to the EU's decision to pursue economic and political union, which the UK had been increasingly uncomfortable with since the late 1980s.

But he only half-listened. Some people just like to broadcast.

You should have explained that it was after the EU took on Thatcherite characteristics after the creation of the single market that the rot set in.

I quite liked the SEA. It was Maastricht when the rot set in. The Euro was a bad idea.

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

I agree with everyone on the previous thread who said that free movement between Britain and Australia is fanciful. The Aussies would bitterly dismiss it as an attempt at re-colonization and resist it tooth and nail. There was also talk of creating a kind of British Israel in the Australian desert. I think that would only be viable if you worked out a way of fencing the British settlers in.

Polling suggests it is quite a popular idea, with 70% in favour.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-13/australia-canada-nz-support-eu-style-free-movement-poll-says/7242634

Interesting, but have they published the actual wording (my brief Googling revealed nothing)? My suspicion is that they only asked about the X-to-Britain flow of immigration. If not, then it's frankly astonishing that only 58% of Britons believe they should be allowed free movement to Aus/NZ/Canada.

The article implies they asked about a free movement area between the four countries. The lack of appetite for the UK is probably due to attitudes towards EU freedom of movement.

Edit: posted the press release above

Ideally, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Canada would form one nation, but that ship has sailed.

They might well, still, be able to form a very close trading bloc, with political and defence alliances between them all though.

Canada is probably the loosest of the three: I think global immigration has run far higher there - without the heavy bias to the UK that Australia and NZ still has - and the presence of Quebec pulls Canadian governance institutionally to the left.

But places like the Maritimes, rural Ontario, Victoria and Alberta are still very pro-British.

The most pro-British part of Oz is Tasmania, and most ethnically British too. Outside metropolitan Melbourne possibly Victoria, but Melbourne has most people and is delightfully multicultural, even 30 years ago when I was working there.

I was referring to Canada.

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

I agree with everyone on the previous thread who said that free movement between Britain and Australia is fanciful. The Aussies would bitterly dismiss it as an attempt at re-colonization and resist it tooth and nail. There was also talk of creating a kind of British Israel in the Australian desert. I think that would only be viable if you worked out a way of fencing the British settlers in.

I expect most Aussies would be more than happy with free movement between London and Australia though!

They just want to steal our Ashes team for themselves!

My £50 at 20/1 the Lib Dems in Stoke now looking like one of my worst ever bets

Lab 1.78-1.8
UKIP 2.52-2.78
Cons 14.5-21
LD 32-38

Lib Dems traded 6.4!! Well done whoever laid that. maybe it was Mike?

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

I agree with everyone on the previous thread who said that free movement between Britain and Australia is fanciful. The Aussies would bitterly dismiss it as an attempt at re-colonization and resist it tooth and nail. There was also talk of creating a kind of British Israel in the Australian desert. I think that would only be viable if you worked out a way of fencing the British settlers in.

Polling suggests it is quite a popular idea, with 70% in favour.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-13/australia-canada-nz-support-eu-style-free-movement-poll-says/7242634

Interesting, but have they published the actual wording (my brief Googling revealed nothing)? My suspicion is that they only asked about the X-to-Britain flow of immigration. If not, then it's frankly astonishing that only 58% of Britons believe they should be allowed free movement to Aus/NZ/Canada.

The article implies they asked about a free movement area between the four countries. The lack of appetite for the UK is probably due to attitudes towards EU freedom of movement.

Edit: posted the press release above

Ideally, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Canada would form one nation, but that ship has sailed.

They might well, still, be able to form a very close trading bloc, with political and defence alliances between them all though.

Canada is probably the loosest of the three: I think global immigration has run far higher there - without the heavy bias to the UK that Australia and NZ still has - and the presence of Quebec pulls Canadian governance institutionally to the left.

But places like the Maritimes, rural Ontario, Victoria and Alberta are still very pro-British.

The most pro-British part of Oz is Tasmania, and most ethnically British too. Outside metropolitan Melbourne possibly Victoria, but Melbourne has most people and is delightfully multicultural, even 30 years ago when I was working there.

I was referring to Canada.

Ah! Victoria on Vancouver Island.

isam said:

My £50 at 20/1 the Lib Dems in Stoke now looking like one of my worst ever bets

Lab 1.78-1.8
UKIP 2.52-2.78
Cons 14.5-21
LD 32-38

Lib Dems traded 6.4!! Well done whoever laid that. maybe it was Mike?

If that's one of your worst ever bets I heartily congratulate you on your political savvy! Wouldn't make my bottom 50.

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

RobD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

I agree with everyone on the previous thread who said that free movement between Britain and Australia is fanciful. The Aussies would bitterly dismiss it as an attempt at re-colonization and resist it tooth and nail. There was also talk of creating a kind of British Israel in the Australian desert. I think that would only be viable if you worked out a way of fencing the British settlers in.

Polling suggests it is quite a popular idea, with 70% in favour.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-13/australia-canada-nz-support-eu-style-free-movement-poll-says/7242634

I

The article implies they asked about a free movement area between the four countries. The lack of appetite for the UK is probably due to attitudes towards EU freedom of movement.

Edit: posted the press release above

Ideally, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Canada would form one nation, but that ship has sailed.

They might well, still, be able to form a very close trading bloc, with political and defence alliances between them all though.

Canada is probably the loosest of the three: I think global immigration has run far higher there - without the heavy bias to the UK that Australia and NZ still has - and the presence of Quebec pulls Canadian governance institutionally to the left.

But places like the Maritimes, rural Ontario, Victoria and Alberta are still very pro-British.

The most pro-British part of Oz is Tasmania, and most ethnically British too. Outside metropolitan Melbourne possibly Victoria, but Melbourne has most people and is delightfully multicultural, even 30 years ago when I was working there.

I was referring to Canada.

Ah! Victoria on Vancouver Island.

Yup.

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Cultural similarity, and a shared language? Just a guess.

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

I agree with everyone on the previous thread who said that free movement between Britain and Australia is fanciful. The Aussies would bitterly dismiss it as an attempt at re-colonization and resist it tooth and nail. There was also talk of creating a kind of British Israel in the Australian desert. I think that would only be viable if you worked out a way of fencing the British settlers in.

I expect most Aussies would be more than happy with free movement between London and Australia though!

Weren't the Aussies asking for this as part of a trade deal with the UK in the weeks after Brexit?

I know the queues and visa checks they face at the UK border are frustrating for them.

There's never been anything to stop us doing expedited entry for Australians and New Zealanders, and the only countries we'd need to agree it with would be the Common Travel Area ones.

it's just that those things tend to happen through bilateral agreements, where British travelers are treated similarly in Oz/NZ

SeanT said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Mortimer said:

Govt can point to Labour weakness in both seats:

Stoke - On Brexit/On past leadership positions re: Ireland
Copeland - On Nuclear

Entirely possible to see two Labour losses here. Entirely possible to see two Govt gains. Though the latter VERY unlikely.

Let's hope so, wouldn't want you frotted into an early grave.

I presume - despite your enjoyably waspish cynicism - that you are a student of romantic Scottish history?

If so, I heartily recommend the TV drama series "Outlander". Have you seen it? They take an absurd piece of soap opera hokum - an English nurse time traveling back to Culloden Scotland, and turn it into gripping drama. Indeed season 2 is something of a masterpiece, however ludicrous,

It's helped by a brilliant script and great acting. Bonnie Prince Charlie is fabulously effete

The books are pulp fiction of the better sort. National stereotypes ahoy (obv. apart from the male on male rape but perhaps I'm missing a subliminal kilt/sporran message).

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Not that it matter, but I'm not sure that Australia, Canada or NZ are much more "White" than continental Europe in any event.

Tory candidate for Bath/Bristol/S Gloucs et al Mayor. BBC Bristol add he is a councillor from South Gloucs.

https://twitter.com/ben4bath/status/822846319702265857

Up against a failed Green wanabee MP in Bristol W, and a Labour Parish Councillor. Wonder if the LDs can pick an ex MP?

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Europe is about as "white" as Australia I think, common language and similiar culture would be my guess.
The politics there is definitely centred to the right of Europe too.

I'll be honest, I'd rather free movement with Aus than Europe personally too

Britain with the sunshine.

Omnium said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Cultural similarity, and a shared language? Just a guess.

And a similar level of economic development.

There was after all very little economic migration between Britain and France, Germany and the Benelux or concerns about the socioeconomic problems that it might bring.

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Touchy. I fear that your barely closeted racism and overt Islamophobia have made you terribly snowflaky.

I haven't looked at the figures, but I would guess that having free movement with countries that British people like going to/would want to live in is likely to be more popular than free movement with places where they don't.

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Touchy. I fear that your barely closeted racism and overt Islamophobia have made you terribly snowflaky.

I haven't looked at the figures, but I would guess that having free movement with countries that British people like going to/would want to live is likely to be more popular than free movement with places where they don't.

Polling posted downthread.. but here's an article summarising it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/19/britons-arent-actually-opposed-mass-immigration-just-dont-want/

SeanT said:

<>

I think the aussies regard as something between a respected but faintly tragic grandparent and an amusing and oddly raffish older sibling. Either way, they feel the ties of blood, and I am sure the Brits return this.

The question is, who would fight for us in a war, if we were truly imperiled?

I'd put Australia first, alongside NZ, then Canada and America. Probably France. Maybe Italy and the Nordics. Germany probably not. Spain no. And the same in reverse. The Brits would fight for Australia before Germany, America before Spain.

Interesting question. I think Germany probably, maybe the U.S.and France. Australia possibly if the U.S. were also involved. Canada, I'm not sure. It's a different world from 1939.

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Touchy. I fear that your barely closeted racism and overt Islamophobia have made you terribly snowflaky.

Is Islam friendly to homosexuals?

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Touchy. I fear that your barely closeted racism and overt Islamophobia have made you terribly snowflaky.

We're either full up or we're not, aren't we?

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Touchy. I fear that your barely closeted racism and overt Islamophobia have made you terribly snowflaky.

We're either full up or we're not, aren't we?

Apparently not for "the right sort".

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Europe is about as "white" as Australia I think, common language and similiar culture would be my guess.
The politics there is definitely centred to the right of Europe too.

I'll be honest, I'd rather free movement with Aus than Europe personally too

Britain with the sunshine.

And the snakes and creepy-crawlies

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

NYT: Theresa May's global Britain is baloney

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/opinion/theresa-mays-global-britain-is-baloney.html

Written by a notorious europhile quisling. Really, we need to start burning these people at Smithfield*

*metaphorically, moderators, metaphorically

I think what REALLY worries some that voted Remain and who constantly equate all those that voted Leave with fascist idiots is that Brexit MIGHT actually work.

Who are the idiots then? Who are the wrecking crew now?

And it is a question to which i am not sure we have given any real coverage on here in terms of how it affects domestic politics.

If Brexit is seen to be a failure the Cons will clearly suffer badly, Labour will probably suffer as well-in part because they are clearly split on the issue.

The Libs will clearly be VERY big gainers-as will the SNP

BUT what if BREXIT is perceived to be a success.

Clearly the absolute level of success will be relevant-being slightly less shit than Europe will not be the same as Brexit being seen to be a clear success.

The Libs clearly will have some serious thinking to do-as will the SNP

But with Nuttall as leader Labour could have some seriously difficult times ahead-as someone said below- it is difficult to see how Hartlepool and Islington can be both represented by the same Labour party that was split over Brexit especially if Brexit turns out to be successful.

Sunil's "Commonwealth Union":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox

FF43 said:

SeanT said:

<>

I think the aussies regard as something between a respected but faintly tragic grandparent and an amusing and oddly raffish older sibling. Either way, they feel the ties of blood, and I am sure the Brits return this.

The question is, who would fight for us in a war, if we were truly imperiled?

I'd put Australia first, alongside NZ, then Canada and America. Probably France. Maybe Italy and the Nordics. Germany probably not. Spain no. And the same in reverse. The Brits would fight for Australia before Germany, America before Spain.

Interesting question. I think Germany probably, maybe the U.S.and France. Australia possibly if the U.S. were also involved. Canada, I'm not sure. It's a different world from 1939.

It is indeed a different world, Mr. 43, but Canada has given military assistance (well naval, really) a couple of times recently without quibble or cavail. I think we can rely more on Canada than we could any European country if the bite were to come.

Anyway off for supper. Thanks all for some interesting posts today.

Casino_Royale said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Not that it matter, but I'm not sure that Australia, Canada or NZ are much more "White" than continental Europe in any event.

New Zealand certainly isnt

New Zealand would be the one country I'd choose to have FoM with if I could pick anywhere.

https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1375163964/260/8982260.jpg

Look at that for a ground !

If I was a New Zealander, no way would I chose to have FoM with Britain though.

Fox News and CNN reporting that Theresa May will be here next week.

Well, not 'here' exactly - I doubt I have enough bedrooms for the entire party. She'll be in DC.

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Sunil's "Commonwealth Union":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox

I'm guessing the German states are due to the Hanoverian personal union?

Nope, read note [b]

Core membership based around the six majority English-speaking "Anglosphere" countries: Australia, Canada, Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States, along with their dependencies, external territories and associated states, and the 12 other Commonwealth Realms, which share the UK Monarchy, as well as the 26 other European Union member states, which are in political union with the UK and Ireland, along with their dependencies and external territories.

AlastairMeeks said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Touchy. I fear that your barely closeted racism and overt Islamophobia have made you terribly snowflaky.

We're either full up or we're not, aren't we?

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Touchy. I fear that your barely closeted racism and overt Islamophobia have made you terribly snowflaky.

We're either full up or we're not, aren't we?

Apparently not for "the right sort".

Why would that be controversial?!

Mr Meeks' posts this evening somehow remind me of the Monty Python 'arguments are next door' thing. Oddly though for once this wasn't the location of 'Abuse'

surbiton said:

RepublicanTory said:

Casino_Royale said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Not that it matter, but I'm not sure that Australia, Canada or NZ are much more "White" than continental Europe in any event.

New Zealand certainly isnt

But the Brexiters dream of a "white" Commonwealth. They call it the "old" commonwealth. I am not sure why Sunil is amongst them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox#cite_note-c-2

isam said:

foxinsoxuk said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Touchy. I fear that your barely closeted racism and overt Islamophobia have made you terribly snowflaky.

I haven't looked at the figures, but I would guess that having free movement with countries that British people like going to/would want to live in is likely to be more popular than free movement with places where they don't.

Wot, like Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, Malta and Italy? An excellent idea! Why don't we set up a free movement area with them?

We can if we want to

I amazed so many still don’t quite understand what leaving the EU entails.

We can – if we choose to. - Sounds great doesn’t it

isam said:

foxinsoxuk said:

isam said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Touchy. I fear that your barely closeted racism and overt Islamophobia have made you terribly snowflaky.

I haven't looked at the figures, but I would guess that having free movement with countries that British people like going to/would want to live in is likely to be more popular than free movement with places where they don't.

Wot, like Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, Malta and Italy? An excellent idea! Why don't we set up a free movement area with them?

We can if we want to

We already have one, and with many other delightful countries.

What is it about Brexiteers that makes them so keen on emigrating? ;-)

Omnium said:

Mr Meeks' posts this evening somehow remind me of the Monty Python 'arguments are next door' thing. Oddly though for once this wasn't the location of 'Abuse'

I wasn't expecting the overt racism to surface quite so quickly on pb after Trump's inauguration. I thought we might get a few months' grace,

Trump is the least popular populist ever.

surbiton said:

RepublicanTory said:

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

NYT: Theresa May's global Britain is baloney

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/opinion/theresa-mays-global-britain-is-baloney.html

Written by a notorious europhile quisling. Really, we need to start burning these people at Smithfield*

*metaphorically, moderators, metaphorically

I think what REALLY worries some that voted Remain and who constantly equate all those that voted Leave with fascist idiots is that Brexit MIGHT actually work.

Who are the idiots then? Who are the wrecking crew now?

And it is a question to which i am not sure we have given any real coverage on here in terms of how it affects domestic politics.

If Brexit is seen to be a failure the Cons will clearly suffer badly, Labour will probably suffer as well-in part because they are clearly split on the issue.

The Libs will clearly be VERY big gainers-as will the SNP

BUT what if BREXIT is perceived to be a success.

Clearly the absolute level of success will be relevant-being slightly less shit than Europe will not be the same as Brexit being seen to be a clear success.

The Libs clearly will have some serious thinking to do-as will the SNP

But with Nuttall as leader Labour could have some seriously difficult times ahead-as someone said below- it is difficult to see how Hartlepool and Islington can be both represented by the same Labour party that was split over Brexit especially if Brexit turns out to be successful.

I am tired of hearing about the expected UKIP avalanche in the North. They are even doing badly in local by-elections. Let's see what they do in Stoke.

If all these theories are anywhere near correct, UKIP should win Stoke. Frankly, the Liberals have a better chance !

Yeah, UKIP aren't looking too healthy these days.

For the record, I think we should definitely have a freedom of movement deal with the Aussies and Kiwis. They are our brothers. Not sure they'd want it though.

SouthamObserver said:

For the record, I think we should definitely have a freedom of movement deal with the Aussies and Kiwis. They are our brothers. Not sure they'd want it though.

New Zealand has a pop density of 17.5/sq km. Heaven.

Glasgow are going alright in the rugby

Jonathan said:

Trump is the least popular populist ever.

No, that's Corbyn.

Omnium said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Omnium said:

Mr Meeks' posts this evening somehow remind me of the Monty Python 'arguments are next door' thing. Oddly though for once this wasn't the location of 'Abuse'

I wasn't expecting the overt racism to surface quite so quickly on pb after Trump's inauguration. I thought we might get a few months' grace,

Oh tosh - you were at least in part baiting.

However there's nothing wrong in a good argument, and although you were baiting I do think that it's an interesting point about why we (or whatever group) might be more pro CanAusNZ than perhaps we might be towards SA, or Poland. Is there xenophobia or racism, both or neither. I don't personally think I'm racist, but I do give myself pause for thought sometimes.

The new South African chap at our work is tremendously in favour of Brexit. He's quite right wing :> !