politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on whether or not we’ll have another EU referendum bef
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on whether or not we’ll have another EU referendum before 2019
Paddy Power have a market up on whether we’ll have a referendum on a UK-wide referendum on in/out EU membership or on acceptance of new membership terms. Must offer option of membership terms. I’m backing the No side of this bet.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
No, there won't be another referendum. Not unless the Tories lose a GE to a Labour Party promising one. Which given our friends in the EU will be saying "this deal take it or WTO it" after article 50.
As it's written, it's awfully ambiguous though, and I'd bet that Paddy won't be accepting substantial wagers on it either.
At which point it becomes clear we either sink without trace or we rejoin the only viable and politically stable block in the world.
The only snag is that we'd still have to have another referendum and there's no reason to suppose that even as we visibly go to Hell in a handcart the good folk of Hartlepool will feel any better disposed to foreigners than they did last time
So NO. Not a good bet
Off-topic but have you seen the Hyperloop tests that are going on this weekend? I think they'll be livestreamed later.
Some competitors:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/spacex-hyperloop-competitions-teams-2017-1?r=US&IR=T
As you can imagine, I'm finding this both technologically fascinating and hilarious at the same time ...
No is by far the more likely option, however on Paddy’s past record they may pay out on both.
Makes me wonder.... - Does anyone know the poster with the highest number of posts?
The lawsuit was filed on Saturday which is a day after the president signed the executive order.
The document states Trump violated the Constitution as well as laws and treaties of the United States. The lawyers claim Trump did not do his job by protecting the civil rights of those living in the state of California, but also the United States.
http://kron4.com/2017/01/28/california-lawyers-sue-president-trump-to-repeal-immigration-order/
It's a failure by the (sometimes good) universities they studied at.
I remember one guy who was recruited by a hardware dept who had never touched a BOM (Bill Of Materials). He was aware of the concept, but had no idea how to use or manipulate one. He was notable because another guy who started at roughly the same time had not only done BOMs at university; he had had to phone around suppliers trying to get free samples for a uni project, create a BOM and then fix it when problems arose.
From what I heard, he got up to speed much more quickly than the first guy, and was a better engineer.
I'd rather hire someone from a so-called 'poor' university that had been trained in such processes than an otherwise-equivalent person from a 'good' one who had not. Too often universities concentrate on the less-expensive academic side than the more expensive practical side.
This is particularly relevant for small companies where employees often have to have broad skills.
I agree with Mr. Eagles on this bet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN9tde-x2nw
Incidentally there is a theory that when Wilson offered an in out vote he meant via a general election because he never expected a proper majority in the second 1974 GE. A bit like Cameron if you think about it.
Now a large company might be able to keep a genius in their IT team who can't talk to people, but unless there's a load of others keeping between him and the business, it's not going to work out. Schools teaching Comp Sci and the like need to concentrate on employable skills as much as the technical ones, else their graduates are going to struggle in the real world.
But I agree recent events will have put parties off them.
It's my duty to tour the dungeons early in the morning to assess levels of live occupancy before any essential cull of yellow perilists straying onto the estate.
I also have to put new audio on the loop for these residents. Today it's "Speeches of Jeremy Corbyn on Cuba and Venezula" .... President Trump isn't the only one to believe in torture !!
In schools the subject is rarely, if ever, taught by teachers with industry experience. Why would an IT graduate want to work in a school (except to manage the network)?
Edited to add: I'm including sixth-form as part of school here. Sixth Form colleges may be different.
(Personally I thought being rude to hapless users seeking help was actually worse than being rude to directors.)
However my main complaint isn't about entrepreneurship: it's about people having the skills they need for the job. A software engineer leaving university not understanding source control is like a surgeon who has never held a scalpel: they might manage, but they're missing a fundamental and massively transferable skill.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4164486/Trump-president-history-not-wait-wife.html
I'm with you: this is bad amateur psychoanalysis.
Here's a post by a notable conservative security hawk who makes that case:
https://lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-trumps-horrifying-executive-order-refugees-and-visas
Put simply, I don’t believe that the stated purpose is the real purpose. This is the first policy the United States has adopted in the post-9/11 era about which I have ever said this. It’s a grave charge, I know, and I’m not making it lightly. But in the rational pursuit of security objectives, you don’t marginalize your expert security agencies and fail to vet your ideas through a normal interagency process. You don’t target the wrong people in nutty ways when you’re rationally pursuing real security objectives.
When do you do these things? You do these things when you’re elevating the symbolic politics of bashing Islam over any actual security interest. You do them when you’ve made a deliberate decision to burden human lives to make a public point. In other words, this is not a document that will cause hardship and misery because of regrettable incidental impacts on people injured in the pursuit of a public good. It will cause hardship and misery for tens or hundreds of thousands of people because that is precisely what it is intended to do....</>
@jimkillock: Why on earth would anyone sane trigger Article 50 in the midst of this emerging global diplomatic motorway pile up?
Cue outrage from the headbangers...
Because David Cameron thought it would be a good idea to put our EU membership to the public.
Next inane question please.
I agree that the fourth category, referenda that the Government thinks important but feels sure to win, has been killed for the forseeable future by Cameron's Doom.
The Swiss system allowing referenda every three months if a significant proportion of the electorate wants them works quite well most of the time and it does draw people into taking a more active interest in the pros and cons of proposals. But it carries a significant risk that the voters will sometimes decide something the Government thinks awkward...
Given developing software was my day job at that time, I endured endless cognitive dissonance between giving the right answer (per the course) and the right answer (as we did it in real life). In fairness to the OU, that's the only course where I felt they were really out of step with the zeitgeist.
You've piqued my interest; I shall have to have a look at some of the current degree courses and see what they purport to teach.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/825428234141581312
Snell and Jezza seem to have buried the hatchet, and seem to have quite a fired up ground game.
Shadsy's 8/1 on UKIP less than 20% looks much better value than TSE's tip.
Now that might really stir things up as regards the UK's Brexit plans.
I went to bed extremely exercised by Trump's idiocy. This morning, I'm more inclined to think he's already running up against the constitutional limits of government via XO.
On Thursday Theresa May talked of a new era of US and UK global leadership. Does anyone seriously think that what we have seen since indicates this will be the case?
https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/825633530730467334
"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
- Goebbels (see also: Remoaners)
it’s a very dangerous thing to have a White House that can’t with the remotest pretense of competence and governance put together a major policy document on a crucial set of national security issues without inducing an avalanche of litigation and wide diplomatic fallout. If the incompetence mitigates the malevolence in this case, that’ll be a blessing. But given the nature of the federal immigration powers, the mitigation may be small and the blessing short-lived; the implications of having an executive this inept are not small and won’t be short-lived.
And Trump just appointed self professed Leninist Steve Bannon to the NSC. Scary times.
The key point is that anti-Euro parties are now becoming mainstream in 'old' Europe. Five Star in Italy, Le Pen in France - even Fillon is saying that integration has gone as far as it should.
Throw in the batch of Eastern EU states who are doing the same as Trump and who are you left with in favour of free movement, closer integration, the reduction in autonomy in nation states and so on.
Germany (so long as no one actually makes them pay for their cheap currency), Brussels eurocrats and ???
Certainly not at a moments notice.
On the other hand, there's a steady drip-drip of him alienating a few of his supporters at a time. There will be thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people who voted for him and have a friend who falls under these categories, and think "whoahhh... that's a bit much".
The thing that may come back to haunt him on this, of course, is that the countries terrorists who have attacked the US come from are:
Saudi Arabia (2,369 US citizens killed)
UAE (314)
Egypt (162)
Lebanon (159)
While the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Iranians (0), Yemeni (0), Sudan (0) and Libya (0).
It looks awfully like the US ban is more about business interests than preventing actual terrorists from going to the US.
(On the other hand, in Toulouse they must be high-fiving. That $17bn order for Boeing planes is surely soon going to be going to Airbus instead.)