I would agree with that .FIFA , should reallocate the tournament in England banning Russia.That would send the correct signal.Will never happen though.
USA didn't qualify - can't see a boycott being brewed up by Germany, Spain and England (via the Uk)
No chance.
Totally agree.However it would be the correct world wide response.
The conundrum, though, is that there is no practical outcome for the UK that doesn't involve the UK plugged into the EU on its terms. We can either be a member of that organisation helping to shape direction or we can be outside doing what we are told. The latter is unsustainable, as we have discussed. We could just sod off, but that isn't sustainable either we will need to come back to the EU.
There is a massive contradiction here, which is why Brexit isn't sensible at all.
It isn’t nearly as black and white as you make out, and you reveal your own biases in arguing it is so.
The EU need to show there is no better deal than full membership. The UK need to achieve a meaningful repatriation of powers. In that there is a lot of wiggle room.
Fair enough. It's not black and white. I expect BINO to be sustained, precisely because of the contradiction I outlined. People will, I suspect, accept the EU telling the UK what to do over not having a viable set of trade relationships or the embarrassment of returning to the EU. If all three available options are "unsustainable" something has to give.
It still isn't sensible however.
A FTA will not be BINO, that requires permanent single market membership and customs union membership
FTA isn't BINO. It's the "not having a viable set of trade relationships" option that I talked about. It's possible the UK government will aim to go down this route although it has done nothing to effect any of it so far. It's going to hit a lot of vested interests along the way and there will be some very undesirable consequences if it does. In my view if does attempt this route it will backtrack in time. I don't see we will end up there. The government needs to put this issue to bed without it being an outright disaster. Casino R would say my sense of realism is my "confirmation bias", I guess.
Can you give a single reason why a FTA is not viable that was not used as an argument for Remain when they lost the referendum?
What a load of utter bollocks. The privilege is not absolute if there is sufficient probable cause for a warrant.
Don't forget this raid was signed off by the US Attorney appointed by Sessions (after an interview by Trump himself) who replaced the US Attorney fired by Trump - and a warrant would have to have been obtained from a federal or magistrate judge, in a jurisdiction not known for its liberal bias.
Sweet baby Jesus, is there nobody in the Department for Exiting the European Union who can give David Davis a briefing on Irish politics? Not a full, in-depth, Donegal-to-Kerry briefing; just the basics will do. And if there isn’t anyone at DEXEU who could do this, perhaps some kind soul at the Northern Ireland office could pop over to give Davis a quick tutorial?
The Times reports this morning that this kind of briefing is urgently needed. Of course the paper doesn’t quite put it like that but this is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from Davis’s own remarks at a conference in London yesterday. According to our gallant bulldog, the question of Brexit and the Irish border is being complicated by the Irish government. You see:
“We had a change of government, south of the border, and with quite a strong influence from Sinn Féin, and that had an impact in terms of the approach”
This, an audience member pointed out helpfully, was not actually true. There has been no change of government, merely a change of Taoiseach. Undeterred by mere facts, Davis blustered on:
“Well you had a change of leader or a change in taoiseach. They’ve [Sinn Féin] been playing a strong political role which they haven’t done historically, that I hadn’t foreseen”
That's like saying we had no change of government only a change of Prime Minister when we went from Cameron to May. I think it's quite reasonable to view Cameron's period in charge and May's period in charge as distinct governments.
True. I don't think that will be sustainable in the long run but I think it is a sensible first step out the door.
I agree with your comment that it is unsustainable, which is why none of this is sensible. But there we go ....
Once
The
There is a massive contradiction here, which is why Brexit isn't sensible at all.
It isn’t nearly as black and white as you make out, and you reveal your own biases in arguing it is so.
The EU need to show there is no better deal than full membership. The UK need to achieve a meaningful repatriation of powers. In that there is a lot of wiggle room.
Fair enough. It's not black and white. I expect BINO to be sustained, precisely because of the contradiction I outlined. People will, I suspect, accept the EU telling the UK what to do over not having a viable set of trade relationships or the embarrassment of returning to the EU. If all three available options are "unsustainable" something has to give.
It still isn't sensible however.
You need to look at it from the other direction.
The U.K. is not in Schengen. Therefore, we don’t benefit from the ease that Chinese tourists have in getting one visa for the whole of continental Europe, or the 0.42% to 1.59% decrease in the cost of trade, and we have queues at the U.K. border. But, we do have better border controls over illegal immigration as a result, we do keep a bit more confidentiality and control over our data, and are able to mount our own checks for those from the rest of the EU. We do have access to aspects of the Schengen information database as well.
Similarly, the UK is not in the Euro. Therefore we do not benefit from having a single currency with our largest trading partner, and our businesses have to bear the currency risk and nor do we have any say in the decisions of the ECB or what interest rates they set. But, we do have our own currency, can set our own interest rates, can operate our own quantitative easing policy, do benefit from our currency being an automatic economic stabiliser and aren’t obliged to do eurozone bailouts. The BoE and ECB do discuss economic stability with one another.
Brexit will be similar but with a few more repatriated choices the other way. These will have advantages and disadvantages just as those do, but they won’t be either intrinsically futile nor will they be a nirvana.
The conundrum, though, is that there is no practical outcome for the UK that doesn't involve the UK plugged into the EU on its terms. We can either be a member of that organisation helping to shape direction or we can be outside doing what we are told. The latter is unsustainable, as we have discussed. We could just sod off, but that isn't sustainable either we will need to come back to the EU.
There is a massive contradiction here, which is why Brexit isn't sensible at all.
It isn’t nearly as black and white as you make out, and you reveal your own biases in arguing it is so.
The EU need to show there is no better deal than full membership. The UK need to achieve a meaningful repatriation of powers. In that there is a lot of wiggle room.
Fair enough. It's not black and white. I expect BINO to be sustained, precisely because of the contradiction I outlined. People will, I suspect, accept the EU telling the UK what to do over not having a viable set of trade relationships or the embarrassment of returning to the EU. If all three available options are "unsustainable" something has to give.
It still isn't sensible however.
A FTA will not be BINO, that requires permanent single market membership and customs union membership
FTA isn't BINO. It's the "not having a viable set of trade relationships" option that I talked about. It's possible the UK government will aim to go down this route although it has done nothing to effect any of it so far. It's going to hit a lot of vested interests along the way and there will be some very undesirable consequences if it does. In my view if does attempt this route it will backtrack in time. I don't see we will end up there. The government needs to put this issue to bed without it being an outright disaster. Casino R would say my sense of realism is my "confirmation bias", I guess.
Given leaving free movement in place is politically impossible and would disrespect the Leave vote and WTO terms would be the most economically damaging, leaving the single market but getting a Canada style FTA with the EU remains the likeliest outcome
I spent the weekend visiting my 20 year old daughter in Groningen in Holland where she is having an Erasmus year. It was delightful. What surprised me was that she volunteered that having studied EU law in some detail from a continental perspective, having been taught how it is made and what its objectives are she would now vote Leave. She voted remain at the time of the referendum and really had very little time for her dad's views (nothing wrong in that of course). Her view was that if people knew more about it they would like it less.
Of course this is a classic PB anecdote and I don't doubt that many others could tell stories of fervent leavers who have now changed their mind. What I think is fairly clear is that there has been very little change in the overall position as found in both the referendum and the election where 43% voted for a party completely committed to delivering Brexit (even if they were seriously unclear as to how) and 41% to a party at least notionally committed to respecting the vote, even if many of the members were unhappy about it. 7% voted for a party wanting a second referendum. Its just not going to happen.
Remainers really need to accept this and focus on achieving as soft a Brexit as possible with continued regulatory alignment, a customs union that looks suspiciously like
But then, MRDA doesn't it?
Do you think that Mrs May would survive the uproar if her proposed deal amounts to a transparent BINO. It would sure then beg the question of what is the point in leaving at all?
Yes, easily. Look at what unpalatable compromises have been made so far - money being the biggest and now forgotten, but customs union NI border backstops, immigration registration in transition, fisheries etc. For Mrs May not to survive, there has to be a single point, and single concession where Jacob Rees Mogg decides to bring her down over it. And all that would risk is Corbyn in number 10 and Brexit totally derailed. So he can whinge about disappointment, modest deals all he likes, but the only way to secure Brexit is to vote for whatever deal the Government comes up with, however rubbish. And May knows it.
It's been an object lesson in salami-slicing epic backsliding.
Perhaps it was May's 'very cunning' plan to call a general election to lose her majority but keep enough seats to stay PM so that Mogg et al could not rebel too much over the Brexit deal without risking a Corbyn government and so she can blame her limitations on giving concessions to the Republic of Ireland on the DUP!
That would explain a lot about the Tory campaign last year
I spent the weekend visiting my 20 year old daughter in Groningen in Holland where she is having an Erasmus year. It was delightful. What surprised me was that she volunteered that having studied EU law in some detail from a continental perspective, having been taught how it is made and what its objectives are she would now vote Leave. She voted remain at the time of the referendum and really had very little time for her dad's views (nothing wrong in that of course). Her view was that if people knew more about it they would like it less.
Of course this is a classic PB anecdote and I don't doubt that many others could tell stories of fervent leavers who have now changed their mind. What I think is fairly clear is that there has been very little change in the overall position as found in both the referendum and the election where 43% voted for a party completely committed to delivering Brexit (even if they were seriously unclear as to how) and 41% to a party at least notionally committed to respecting the vote, even if many of the members were unhappy about it. 7% voted for a party wanting a second referendum. Its just not going to happen.
Remainers really need
But then, MRDA doesn't it?
Your daughter is a wise woman.
Though in practice, under @DavidL's scenario, we will be tied into EU Law in many aspects because of Pseudo CU and SM, while no longer having a say via Commission or EP in drafting those laws.
In goods, yes, but the Government is going for more detachment on services.
In goods and agriculture most likely. Services could be excluded from EU law if the FTA didnot include them.
In practice a FTA with regulatory alignment in goods and agriculture would be quite good at keeping out substandard US foodstuffs, so a major plus. It would rather stand in the way of other Trade deals, but as those are mostly a fiction then little to worry about.
Services being outside an FTA would of course exclude them from EU regulations, though the price of that is exclusion of our major exports from a major market.
I spent the weekend visiting my 20 year old daughter in Groningen in Holland where she is having an Erasmus year. It was delightful. What surprised me was that she volunteered that having studied EU law in some detail from a continental perspective, having been taught how it is made and what its objectives are she would now vote Leave. She voted remain at the time of the referendum and really had very little time for her dad's views (nothing wrong in that of course). Her view was that if people knew more about it they would like it less.
Of course this is a classic PB anecdote and I don't doubt that many others could tell stories of fervent leavers who have now changed their mind.
Remainers really need
But then, MRDA doesn't it?
Your daughter is a wise woman.
Though in practice, under @DavidL's scenario, we will be tied into EU Law in many aspects because of Pseudo CU and SM, while no longer having a say via Commission or EP in drafting those laws.
In goods, yes, but the Government is going for more detachment on services.
In goods and agriculture most likely. Services could be excluded from EU law if the FTA didnot include them.
In practice a FTA with regulatory alignment in goods and agriculture would be quite good at keeping out substandard US foodstuffs, so a major plus. It would rather stand in the way of other Trade deals, but as those are mostly a fiction then little to worry about.
Services being outside an FTA would of course exclude them from EU regulations, though the price of that is exclusion of our major exports from a major market.
I don’t really have a problem with that. But I do expect us to quit CAP and have our own way of managing agricultural domestically. It will just depend on what basis we trade with the continent where I expect our standards will continue to better or exceed.
The biggest political problems wjth goods regulation in the UK are on weights & measures and on environmental rules.
I expect us to have a degree of flexibility on the former and for HMG to manage public opinion on the latter, possibly with a bit more flexibility for how things are phased and transitioned on the latter.
The vast majority of our economy is on services so that’s the main prize for future trade deals.
Luke is on the anti-Corbyn-but-loyalist wing. He is being seriously objective here.
"Of course we now know, based on the defeat in 2015, that the electoral cycle means the Labour Party must do a lot better now than it was doing in the mid-term of the 2010-2015 parliament in order to win in 2022."
We really don't 'know' this at all.
We don't *know* it but the evidence from past local election rounds points strongly in that direction. Labour shouldn't rely on a campaign miracle in 2022 any more than the Tories should have done in 1997.
FPT: Does it really? Leaving aside the complete failure of that approach in 2017 GE, even in 2012 there was an average of 5% difference between local and national election scores.
And even when you control for factors like incumbency/3rd parties - local election results predicted the party with most votes 86% of the time.
That's not actually that great a track record even before Brexit upended politics.
The conundrum, though, is that there is no practical outcome for the UK that doesn't involve the UK plugged into the EU on its terms. We can either be a member of that organisation helping to shape direction or we can be outside doing what we are told. The latter is unsustainable, as we have discussed. We could just sod off, but that isn't sustainable either we will need to come back to the EU.
There is a massive contradiction here, which is why Brexit isn't sensible at all.
It isn’t nearly as black and white as you make out, and you reveal your own biases in arguing it is so.
The EU need to show there is no better deal than full membership. The UK need to achieve a meaningful repatriation of powers. In that there is a lot of wiggle room.
Fair enough. It's not black and white. I expect BINO to be sustained, precisely because of the contradiction I outlined. People will, I suspect, accept the EU telling the UK what to do over not having a viable set of trade relationships or the embarrassment of returning to the EU. If all three available options are "unsustainable" something has to give.
It still isn't sensible however.
A FTA will not be BINO, that requires permanent single market membership and customs union membership
FTA isn't BINO. It's the "not having a viable set of trade relationships" option that I talked about. It's possible the UK government will aim to go down this route although it has done nothing to effect any of it so far. It's going to hit a lot of vested interests along the way and there will be some very undesirable consequences if it does. In my view if does attempt this route it will backtrack in time. I don't see we will end up there. The government needs to put this issue to bed without it being an outright disaster. Casino R would say my sense of realism is my "confirmation bias", I guess.
Can you give a single reason why a FTA is not viable that was not used as an argument for Remain when they lost the referendum?
Yes. The Leave vote was premised on the UK having an independent trade policy after Brexit, that the EU would give us what we wanted because it was in their interests to do so and in any case we don't really need the EU because we can cut advantageous deals with third parties that are better than anything we had with the EU. All those premises are false.
Sweet baby Jesus, is there nobody in the Department for Exiting the European Union who can give David Davis a briefing on Irish politics? Not a full, in-depth, Donegal-to-Kerry briefing; just the basics will do. And if there isn’t anyone at DEXEU who could do this, perhaps some kind soul at the Northern Ireland office could pop over to give Davis a quick tutorial?
The Times reports this morning that this kind of briefing is urgently needed. Of course the paper doesn’t quite put it like that but this is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from Davis’s own remarks at a conference in London yesterday. According to our gallant bulldog, the question of Brexit and the Irish border is being complicated by the Irish government. You see:
“We had a change of government, south of the border, and with quite a strong influence from Sinn Féin, and that had an impact in terms of the approach”
This, an audience member pointed out helpfully, was not actually true. There has been no change of government, merely a change of Taoiseach. Undeterred by mere facts, Davis blustered on:
“Well you had a change of leader or a change in taoiseach. They’ve [Sinn Féin] been playing a strong political role which they haven’t done historically, that I hadn’t foreseen”
Apart from the ridiculousness of a Fine Gael politician ever taking instructions from Sinn Féin, I have yet to find an Irish person who chooses the UK line on the Irish border to that of their own government.The real question is why David Davis feels a political need to blame the Irish for the contradictions of their own policy. It's very similar to Tony Blair blaming the French for his decision to invade Iraq.
It's not the Uk's fault that Ireland is continuing in a trade cartel - the ROI either need to find a solution or build a wall.
Shouldn't the UK also be interested in finding a solution, even if only because the DUP may pull the plug if a wall is built?
British and US lawyers have launched a joint class action against Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and two other companies for allegedly misusing the personal data of more than 71 million people.
The lawsuit claims the firms obtained users’ private information from the social media network to develop “political propaganda campaigns” in the UK and the US.
Facebook, it is said, may initially have been misled, but failed to act responsibly to protect the data of 1 million British users and 70.6 million people in America. The data, it is suggested, was first used in the British EU referendum and then in the US during the 2016 presidential election.
British and US lawyers have launched a joint class action against Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and two other companies for allegedly misusing the personal data of more than 71 million people.
The lawsuit claims the firms obtained users’ private information from the social media network to develop “political propaganda campaigns” in the UK and the US.
Facebook, it is said, may initially have been misled, but failed to act responsibly to protect the data of 1 million British users and 70.6 million people in America. The data, it is suggested, was first used in the British EU referendum and then in the US during the 2016 presidential election.
…“When it comes to Michael Cohen, anything is possible,” said Louise Sunshine, a former Trump Organization executive who knows Cohen. “Anything and everything is possible.”
Trump essentially has only a thug and/or possible criminal suspect as his attorney...
I can't see too many credible lawyers lining up for the gig.
I couldn't find the Wikipedia page for it, but he should also note that being President does not entirely grant immunity from the consequences of being an enormous horse's arse...
British and US lawyers have launched a joint class action against Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and two other companies for allegedly misusing the personal data of more than 71 million people.
The lawsuit claims the firms obtained users’ private information from the social media network to develop “political propaganda campaigns” in the UK and the US.
Facebook, it is said, may initially have been misled, but failed to act responsibly to protect the data of 1 million British users and 70.6 million people in America. The data, it is suggested, was first used in the British EU referendum and then in the US during the 2016 presidential election.
Just think of the GDPR implications (shudders) of having that many clients.
Is this GDPR for solicitors/barristers like the regs for accountants where the big 4 get up to all sorts (With barely a penalty) then SMEs have to comply with all sorts of nonsense regs at audit with their local firm ?
Anyone getting excited about the raid on Donald Trump's lawyer's office should be aware that you can currently get 3 on Betfair (2/1) that he will leave office before the end of his first term.
No more referenda for me ever again.I voted No in 1975 and Remain in 2016 so I lost both times.Referenda are not the "will of the people" but a tool of tyrants,which is why Goebbels loved them so much,not difficult to press the buttons of racism and xenophobia in those who have been let down by the education system and some who ought to know better. A final say in a GE-Yes,I would support that and then apply good old Burke and leave it to our elected MPs to sort out and stop asking the general public,who have real lives to be getting on with,for answers we pay the MPs to have.
Anyone getting excited about the raid on Donald Trump's lawyer's office should be aware that you can currently get 3 on Betfair (2/1) that he will leave office before the end of his first term.
I'm not racing to put my money down on that.
I think that's a good price actually. I'd expect it to be quite a bit shorter next year if the Dems retake the House and get going on impeachment.
British and US lawyers have launched a joint class action against Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and two other companies for allegedly misusing the personal data of more than 71 million people.
The lawsuit claims the firms obtained users’ private information from the social media network to develop “political propaganda campaigns” in the UK and the US.
Facebook, it is said, may initially have been misled, but failed to act responsibly to protect the data of 1 million British users and 70.6 million people in America. The data, it is suggested, was first used in the British EU referendum and then in the US during the 2016 presidential election.
Just think of the GDPR implications (shudders) of having that many clients.
Is this GDPR for solicitors/barristers like the regs for accountants where the big 4 get up to all sorts (With barely a penalty) then SMEs have to comply with all sorts of nonsense regs at audit with their local firm ?
The biggest problem for the bar is that as sole practitioners keeping the records required in the event of audit is going to be a total nightmare. We can no longer presume that a solicitor who sends us instructions has the authority of the client to do so so the client will need to give express, written authorisation each time and authorise us to pass the information to other relevant parties. There is almost no end of cases where this is going to be extremely problematic.
As you point out the stupidity and ignorance of those who write this stuff means major issues and costs for SMEs. The big boys are pleased because barriers to entry are increased. The rest, including our economy, suffers with pointless idiotic paperwork (he says impartially).
Mr. Pete, in general terms I agree with you but I think certain very significant changes (I'd add to the system of voting in elections) do require the electorate's consent.
I would agree with that .FIFA , should reallocate the tournament in England banning Russia.That would send the correct signal.Will never happen though.
Some very heavy heavies would be round FIFA, wanting their money back for starters....
Anyone getting excited about the raid on Donald Trump's lawyer's office should be aware that you can currently get 3 on Betfair (2/1) that he will leave office before the end of his first term.
I'm not racing to put my money down on that.
I think that's a good price actually. I'd expect it to be quite a bit shorter next year if the Dems retake the House and get going on impeachment.
Even if they 'get going' on impeachment, as you put it, where are they going to get a two-thirds majority from in the Senate? Unless there is cast iron evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the chances of GOP senators voting to convict is surely minimal. Even if there is that evidence, I wouldn't bank on it - partisan division is deep.
I would agree with that .FIFA , should reallocate the tournament in England banning Russia.That would send the correct signal.Will never happen though.
Does Putin really care about the World Cup? I doubt it. it's a nice to have but brings no lasting benefit. A boycott of it would just result in FIFA inviting other countries to fill the places of those who withdrew. That might have an impact on sponsorship but it'd be minimal.
In any case, a boycott would (1) politicise the national football associations, which itself would be problematic given FIFAs stance (2) conflate the issues of FIFA corruption and Russian misdeeds, which are best kept separate. If there is to be a boycott, it should be on internal footballing matters and be from *all* the major footballing powers, using the one lever they have - money-making potential - to override FIFA's leadership's ability to buy re-election votes from small FAs with the money generated from world cups. If England, Italy, Spain etc banned any player registered with one of their clubs from playing in the world cup, that might force change in FIFA.
But on a wider scale, sporting boycotts are almost always ineffective and self-defeating; masochistic gestures made to please a domestic audience rather than effect an outcome.
It would be better, all things considered, for both the Russia and Qatar competitions to go ahead so the world can see just how bad the decisions were to award them there. It might be an idea for the FCO to advise against all travel to the World Cup by English fans though.
What a load of utter bollocks. The privilege is not absolute if there is sufficient probable cause for a warrant.
Don't forget this raid was signed off by the US Attorney appointed by Sessions (after an interview by Trump himself) who replaced the US Attorney fired by Trump - and a warrant would have to have been obtained from a federal or magistrate judge, in a jurisdiction not known for its liberal bias.
The morons in the Republican party thought they had played a blinder by appointing Mueller, after all he's "one of us", and they expected him to white wash his investigation. Unfortunately for them he's intent on doing his job properly, he has hired an extremely competent team, and they are cooperating with legal officials in various states in case the executive gets any funny ideas about halting the investigation. Every time they lift another stone more bugs come crawling out.
It's too early to say Trump's goose is cooked, but the oven is warming.
British and US lawyers have launched a joint class action against Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and two other companies for allegedly misusing the personal data of more than 71 million people.
The lawsuit claims the firms obtained users’ private information from the social media network to develop “political propaganda campaigns” in the UK and the US.
Facebook, it is said, may initially have been misled, but failed to act responsibly to protect the data of 1 million British users and 70.6 million people in America. The data, it is suggested, was first used in the British EU referendum and then in the US during the 2016 presidential election.
If you tell a tech company your life story and tick a box saying "do what you like with it," the tech co knows your life story and does what it likes with it. Who could have foreseen such a thing?
Time to be very frightened, though. Facebook is comparatively unworrying because you use it to disseminate information which you want [at least some subset of] other people to know. Whereas which of us has not conducted google searches which we wouldn't want anyone at all seeing, unless we were on hand to explain the entirely innocent backstory behind the search?
I haven’t felt this nervous about a match since Chelsea in April 2014.
Ugh on so many levels.
At least I’ve bet on City to qualify tonight.
It's been a weekus horribilis for us blues comrade......
It couldn't turn around could it?
Wait till Spurs thrash you on Saturday. After you are put out of the CL. That will be a week to remember.
It would indeed. Quite possible too.
The 1.2 on Liverpool to go through tonight looks like good value. Man City are choking.
Agreed (about the good value). Anything odds against for a team with a 3 goal start and no away goal surely has to be generous. Barca rewrote the record books last year but historically this would be thought very, very unlikely for Man C to progress.
I haven’t felt this nervous about a match since Chelsea in April 2014.
Ugh on so many levels.
At least I’ve bet on City to qualify tonight.
It's been a weekus horribilis for us blues comrade......
It couldn't turn around could it?
Wait till Spurs thrash you on Saturday. After you are put out of the CL. That will be a week to remember.
It would indeed. Quite possible too.
The 1.2 on Liverpool to go through tonight looks like good value. Man City are choking.
I'd be curious to know the odds if any bookies has them on the Premier League 2018/19 season.
I don't think City will perform anywhere near as well as they did before Christmas this season. In fact I think they could be like Mourinho's final season at Chelsea when they went from runaway Champions to struggling to qualify for Europe.
Mr. 86, some say FIFA exists to make the FIA look good.
The FIA are generally a good organisation IMO, and FIFA are unworthy even to be mentioned in the same breath. Yes, they get things wrong, but you should never forget some of the campaigns they've run, and the number of lives that have been saved as a result.
Anyone getting excited about the raid on Donald Trump's lawyer's office should be aware that you can currently get 3 on Betfair (2/1) that he will leave office before the end of his first term.
I'm not racing to put my money down on that.
I think that's a good price actually. I'd expect it to be quite a bit shorter next year if the Dems retake the House and get going on impeachment.
Even if they 'get going' on impeachment, as you put it, where are they going to get a two-thirds majority from in the Senate? Unless there is cast iron evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the chances of GOP senators voting to convict is surely minimal. Even if there is that evidence, I wouldn't bank on it - partisan division is deep.
I'd be interested to know what the comparable odds were for Bill Clinton. If impeachment passes the HoRepresentatives I think I'll be able to trade out for much less than 2/1.
Last time 5 Republican Senators voted not guilty on both charges, and five more voted not guilty on one count. Now arguably turning against your own party is trickier than standing by an opponent - but it's not as if Trump is popular with Republican Senators.
I haven’t felt this nervous about a match since Chelsea in April 2014.
Ugh on so many levels.
At least I’ve bet on City to qualify tonight.
It's been a weekus horribilis for us blues comrade......
It couldn't turn around could it?
Wait till Spurs thrash you on Saturday. After you are put out of the CL. That will be a week to remember.
It would indeed. Quite possible too.
The 1.2 on Liverpool to go through tonight looks like good value. Man City are choking.
I'd be curious to know the odds if any bookies has them on the Premier League 2018/19 season.
I don't think City will perform anywhere near as well as they did before Christmas this season. In fact I think they could be like Mourinho's final season at Chelsea when they went from runaway Champions to struggling to qualify for Europe.
Betway:
City - 8/11 Liverpool - 9/2 Man Utd - 6/1 Chelsea - 12/1 Tottenham - 12/1 Arsenal - 25-1
What a load of utter bollocks. The privilege is not absolute if there is sufficient probable cause for a warrant.
Don't forget this raid was signed off by the US Attorney appointed by Sessions (after an interview by Trump himself) who replaced the US Attorney fired by Trump - and a warrant would have to have been obtained from a federal or magistrate judge, in a jurisdiction not known for its liberal bias.
We have three Democrats and Veterans Party candidates in the local elections in my area. I assumed this was another name used by the BNP but it turns out it is led by our old friend John Rees-Evans - the UKIP donkey man.
I haven’t felt this nervous about a match since Chelsea in April 2014.
Ugh on so many levels.
At least I’ve bet on City to qualify tonight.
It's been a weekus horribilis for us blues comrade......
It couldn't turn around could it?
Wait till Spurs thrash you on Saturday. After you are put out of the CL. That will be a week to remember.
It would indeed. Quite possible too.
The 1.2 on Liverpool to go through tonight looks like good value. Man City are choking.
I'd be curious to know the odds if any bookies has them on the Premier League 2018/19 season.
I don't think City will perform anywhere near as well as they did before Christmas this season. In fact I think they could be like Mourinho's final season at Chelsea when they went from runaway Champions to struggling to qualify for Europe.
Betway:
City - 8/11 Liverpool - 9/2 Man Utd - 6/1 Chelsea - 12/1 Tottenham - 12/1 Arsenal - 25-1
200-1 bar
Interesting that Liverpool are second-favourites.
I don't think City should be odds-on but I'm not sure who I would say is value there to be fair. Maybe the bar.
What a load of utter bollocks. The privilege is not absolute if there is sufficient probable cause for a warrant.
Don't forget this raid was signed off by the US Attorney appointed by Sessions (after an interview by Trump himself) who replaced the US Attorney fired by Trump - and a warrant would have to have been obtained from a federal or magistrate judge, in a jurisdiction not known for its liberal bias.
Putin's had the Winter Olympics *and* took F1 to Russia. He appears to care about global sporting events as an indicator of national prestige.
Yes Putin cares but a boycott is a double-edged sword. The more teams stay away, the better Russia's chances of actually winning the thing. Look at the 1980 and 1984 Olympics. Ask Seb Coe if his gold medals don't count because some opponents never started. Ask Ronald Reagan if America winning everything in 1984 (when the Soviets boycotted the games) harmed or guaranteed his reelection. (USA 80 gold medals; next best was Romania's 20). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Summer_Olympics#Medal_count
Putin's had the Winter Olympics *and* took F1 to Russia. He appears to care about global sporting events as an indicator of national prestige.
Yes Putin cares but a boycott is a double-edged sword. The more teams stay away, the better Russia's chances of actually winning the thing. Look at the 1980 and 1984 Olympics. Ask Seb Coe if his gold medals don't count because some opponents never started. Ask Ronald Reagan if America winning everything in 1984 (when the Soviets boycotted the games) harmed or guaranteed his reelection. (USA 80 gold medals; next best was Romania's 20). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Summer_Olympics#Medal_count
The best thing to do with a bully like Putin is to laugh at him. Seeing Russia strut about as 'winners' of a World Cup without major teams in it would be like praising Ferrari for winning the 2005 US Grand Prix.
Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Russian squad were dq'ed for drugs offences given the number of athletes caught from over there. That too would be hilarious.
But a boycott is pointless unless major tams take part. And we're not there.
Putin's had the Winter Olympics *and* took F1 to Russia. He appears to care about global sporting events as an indicator of national prestige.
Yes, I'd agree with that - and a boycott of the World Cup would be disagreeable to him but ultimately, it probably comes down to a simple question: does Putin care enough about the World Cup for the threat of it to be disrupted by boycotts - or even reallocated - to prompt a meaningful and lasting change in foreign policy? I don't think there's any likelihood of that.
What a load of utter bollocks. The privilege is not absolute if there is sufficient probable cause for a warrant.
Don't forget this raid was signed off by the US Attorney appointed by Sessions (after an interview by Trump himself) who replaced the US Attorney fired by Trump - and a warrant would have to have been obtained from a federal or magistrate judge, in a jurisdiction not known for its liberal bias.
MAGA - My Attorney Got Arrested
"and a warrant would have to have been obtained from a federal or magistrate judge, in a jurisdiction" a Trump appointee, as it turns out.
Privilege is a question of what evidence is used *for*, for example, if it could be used in a trial.
As yet the FBI haven't *used* it for anything as far as I'm aware.
I haven’t felt this nervous about a match since Chelsea in April 2014.
Ugh on so many levels.
At least I’ve bet on City to qualify tonight.
It's been a weekus horribilis for us blues comrade......
It couldn't turn around could it?
Wait till Spurs thrash you on Saturday. After you are put out of the CL. That will be a week to remember.
It would indeed. Quite possible too.
The 1.2 on Liverpool to go through tonight looks like good value. Man City are choking.
I'd be curious to know the odds if any bookies has them on the Premier League 2018/19 season.
I don't think City will perform anywhere near as well as they did before Christmas this season. In fact I think they could be like Mourinho's final season at Chelsea when they went from runaway Champions to struggling to qualify for Europe.
Betway:
City - 8/11 Liverpool - 9/2 Man Utd - 6/1 Chelsea - 12/1 Tottenham - 12/1 Arsenal - 25-1
200-1 bar
Interesting that Liverpool are second-favourites.
I don't think City should be odds-on but I'm not sure who I would say is value there to be fair. Maybe the bar.
I haven’t felt this nervous about a match since Chelsea in April 2014.
Ugh on so many levels.
At least I’ve bet on City to qualify tonight.
It's been a weekus horribilis for us blues comrade......
It couldn't turn around could it?
Wait till Spurs thrash you on Saturday. After you are put out of the CL. That will be a week to remember.
It would indeed. Quite possible too.
The 1.2 on Liverpool to go through tonight looks like good value. Man City are choking.
I'd be curious to know the odds if any bookies has them on the Premier League 2018/19 season.
I don't think City will perform anywhere near as well as they did before Christmas this season. In fact I think they could be like Mourinho's final season at Chelsea when they went from runaway Champions to struggling to qualify for Europe.
Betway:
City - 8/11 Liverpool - 9/2 Man Utd - 6/1 Chelsea - 12/1 Tottenham - 12/1 Arsenal - 25-1
I haven’t felt this nervous about a match since Chelsea in April 2014.
Ugh on so many levels.
At least I’ve bet on City to qualify tonight.
It's been a weekus horribilis for us blues comrade......
It couldn't turn around could it?
Wait till Spurs thrash you on Saturday. After you are put out of the CL. That will be a week to remember.
It would indeed. Quite possible too.
The 1.2 on Liverpool to go through tonight looks like good value. Man City are choking.
I'd be curious to know the odds if any bookies has them on the Premier League 2018/19 season.
I don't think City will perform anywhere near as well as they did before Christmas this season. In fact I think they could be like Mourinho's final season at Chelsea when they went from runaway Champions to struggling to qualify for Europe.
Betway:
City - 8/11 Liverpool - 9/2 Man Utd - 6/1 Chelsea - 12/1 Tottenham - 12/1 Arsenal - 25-1
If there was a second referendum then two questions arise. What would the government's recommended position be? Would Theresa allow ministers to campaign against that recommended position? (If Theresa recommended staying in, then watching the Tory neo-Leavers turn on a sixpence would be a hoot.)
She wouldn't recommend staying in - or if she did, she'd be No Confidenced.
But it's all hypothetical: there won't be a second referendum.
The interesting question politically is not what would happen if one is granted; it's what will the fallout be when one isn't.
Why are you so sure May would lose a confidence vote? The ERG are not a majority of the Tory parliamentary party, and most of them wouldn't risk bringing down the government.
May could deliver a similar speech to April 2016 and argue both sides.
Putin's had the Winter Olympics *and* took F1 to Russia. He appears to care about global sporting events as an indicator of national prestige.
Yes Putin cares but a boycott is a double-edged sword. The more teams stay away, the better Russia's chances of actually winning the thing. Look at the 1980 and 1984 Olympics. Ask Seb Coe if his gold medals don't count because some opponents never started. Ask Ronald Reagan if America winning everything in 1984 (when the Soviets boycotted the games) harmed or guaranteed his reelection. (USA 80 gold medals; next best was Romania's 20). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Summer_Olympics#Medal_count
Tuesday afternoon pop quiz: Which were the only two nations to boycott both 1980 and 1984 Olympics?
If there was a second referendum then two questions arise. What would the government's recommended position be? Would Theresa allow ministers to campaign against that recommended position? (If Theresa recommended staying in, then watching the Tory neo-Leavers turn on a sixpence would be a hoot.)
She wouldn't recommend staying in - or if she did, she'd be No Confidenced.
But it's all hypothetical: there won't be a second referendum.
The interesting question politically is not what would happen if one is granted; it's what will the fallout be when one isn't.
Why are you so sure May would lose a confidence vote? The ERG are not a majority of the Tory parliamentary party, and most of them wouldn't risk bringing down the government.
May could deliver a similar speech to April 2016 and argue both sides.
There would not be a confidence vote. Just an internal Conservative party leadership challenge to May.
I haven’t felt this nervous about a match since Chelsea in April 2014.
Ugh on so many levels.
At least I’ve bet on City to qualify tonight.
It's been a weekus horribilis for us blues comrade......
It couldn't turn around could it?
Wait till Spurs thrash you on Saturday. After you are put out of the CL. That will be a week to remember.
It would indeed. Quite possible too.
The 1.2 on Liverpool to go through tonight looks like good value. Man City are choking.
I'd be curious to know the odds if any bookies has them on the Premier League 2018/19 season.
I don't think City will perform anywhere near as well as they did before Christmas this season. In fact I think they could be like Mourinho's final season at Chelsea when they went from runaway Champions to struggling to qualify for Europe.
Betway:
City - 8/11 Liverpool - 9/2 Man Utd - 6/1 Chelsea - 12/1 Tottenham - 12/1 Arsenal - 25-1
200-1 bar
Interesting that Liverpool are second-favourites.
I don't think City should be odds-on but I'm not sure who I would say is value there to be fair. Maybe the bar.
Putin's had the Winter Olympics *and* took F1 to Russia. He appears to care about global sporting events as an indicator of national prestige.
Yes Putin cares but a boycott is a double-edged sword. The more teams stay away, the better Russia's chances of actually winning the thing. Look at the 1980 and 1984 Olympics. Ask Seb Coe if his gold medals don't count because some opponents never started. Ask Ronald Reagan if America winning everything in 1984 (when the Soviets boycotted the games) harmed or guaranteed his reelection. (USA 80 gold medals; next best was Romania's 20). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Summer_Olympics#Medal_count
Tuesday afternoon pop quiz: Which were the only two nations to boycott both 1980 and 1984 Olympics?
British and US lawyers have launched a joint class action against Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and two other companies for allegedly misusing the personal data of more than 71 million people.
The lawsuit claims the firms obtained users’ private information from the social media network to develop “political propaganda campaigns” in the UK and the US.
Facebook, it is said, may initially have been misled, but failed to act responsibly to protect the data of 1 million British users and 70.6 million people in America. The data, it is suggested, was first used in the British EU referendum and then in the US during the 2016 presidential election.
If you tell a tech company your life story and tick a box saying "do what you like with it," the tech co knows your life story and does what it likes with it. Who could have foreseen such a thing?
Time to be very frightened, though. Facebook is comparatively unworrying because you use it to disseminate information which you want [at least some subset of] other people to know. Whereas which of us has not conducted google searches which we wouldn't want anyone at all seeing, unless we were on hand to explain the entirely innocent backstory behind the search?
Google certainly does store a lot of data about you but I would say it is in less trouble than Facebook. Google's core business is to sell your attention to advertisers as you search for things. The starting point is what you are searching on and Google's knowledge of how you might respond to prompts. To a considerable degree that knowledge can anonymised. Facebook monetises your personal connections and only does that. Which may explain why FB has sailed so close to the DP wind. I can't see its business model surviving the GDPR. Google, I think, can.
If there was a second referendum then two questions arise. What would the government's recommended position be? Would Theresa allow ministers to campaign against that recommended position? (If Theresa recommended staying in, then watching the Tory neo-Leavers turn on a sixpence would be a hoot.)
She wouldn't recommend staying in - or if she did, she'd be No Confidenced.
But it's all hypothetical: there won't be a second referendum.
The interesting question politically is not what would happen if one is granted; it's what will the fallout be when one isn't.
Why are you so sure May would lose a confidence vote? The ERG are not a majority of the Tory parliamentary party, and most of them wouldn't risk bringing down the government.
May could deliver a similar speech to April 2016 and argue both sides.
There would not be a confidence vote. Just an internal Conservative party leadership challenge to May.
The process requires a confidence vote in May if enough letters are sent to Graham Brady.
we can be confident that a majority of Britons do indeed feel that the EU is behaving in a way that could be considered ‘bullying’ or ‘unfair’ when it comes to the Brexit negotiations. The finding is consistent no matter how you ask the question and across most sub-groups.
we can be confident that a majority of Britons do indeed feel that the EU is behaving in a way that could be considered ‘bullying’ or ‘unfair’ when it comes to the Brexit negotiations. The finding is consistent no matter how you ask the question and across most sub-groups.
If there was a second referendum then two questions arise. What would the government's recommended position be? Would Theresa allow ministers to campaign against that recommended position? (If Theresa recommended staying in, then watching the Tory neo-Leavers turn on a sixpence would be a hoot.)
She wouldn't recommend staying in - or if she did, she'd be No Confidenced.
But it's all hypothetical: there won't be a second referendum.
The interesting question politically is not what would happen if one is granted; it's what will the fallout be when one isn't.
Why are you so sure May would lose a confidence vote? The ERG are not a majority of the Tory parliamentary party, and most of them wouldn't risk bringing down the government.
May could deliver a similar speech to April 2016 and argue both sides.
1. Because she's a useless campaigner and will need replacing at some point before 2022. That becomes extremely difficult to do if she has already received a renewed mandate from MPs earlier in the same parliament. My expectation is that once there's a VoNC called, she loses it.
2. Because recommending staying in would be admitting that she was a useless negotiator, or
3. Because it'd look like she'd been negotiating in bad faith and with a secret agenda to stay in.
There is no risk of bringing the government down providing the new leader doesn't do anything stupid with respect to the DUP.
If there was a second referendum then two questions arise. What would the government's recommended position be? Would Theresa allow ministers to campaign against that recommended position? (If Theresa recommended staying in, then watching the Tory neo-Leavers turn on a sixpence would be a hoot.)
She wouldn't recommend staying in - or if she did, she'd be No Confidenced.
But it's all hypothetical: there won't be a second referendum.
The interesting question politically is not what would happen if one is granted; it's what will the fallout be when one isn't.
Why are you so sure May would lose a confidence vote? The ERG are not a majority of the Tory parliamentary party, and most of them wouldn't risk bringing down the government.
May could deliver a similar speech to April 2016 and argue both sides.
1. Because she's a useless campaigner and will need replacing at some point before 2022. That becomes extremely difficult to do if she has already received a renewed mandate from MPs earlier in the same parliament. My expectation is that once there's a VoNC called, she loses it.
2. Because recommending staying in would be admitting that she was a useless negotiator, or
3. Because it'd look like she'd been negotiating in bad faith and with a secret agenda to stay in.
There is no risk of bringing the government down providing the new leader doesn't do anything stupid with respect to the DUP.
"She'll need replacing at some point" is a very poor argument for why any Tory MP would decide that the time to do that is during the ratification process of the deal. You are not considering the optics which would be a gift to the Labour party. Bringing down a PM because she thought the people deserved the final say? It would be political suicide for the Tories.
Comments
The privilege is not absolute if there is sufficient probable cause for a warrant.
Don't forget this raid was signed off by the US Attorney appointed by Sessions (after an interview by Trump himself) who replaced the US Attorney fired by Trump - and a warrant would have to have been obtained from a federal or magistrate judge, in a jurisdiction not known for its liberal bias.
That's like saying we had no change of government only a change of Prime Minister when we went from Cameron to May. I think it's quite reasonable to view Cameron's period in charge and May's period in charge as distinct governments.
The U.K. is not in Schengen. Therefore, we don’t benefit from the ease that Chinese tourists have in getting one visa for the whole of continental Europe, or the 0.42% to 1.59% decrease in the cost of trade, and we have queues at the U.K. border. But, we do have better border controls over illegal immigration as a result, we do keep a bit more confidentiality and control over our data, and are able to mount our own checks for those from the rest of the EU. We do have access to aspects of the Schengen information database as well.
Similarly, the UK is not in the Euro. Therefore we do not benefit from having a single currency with our largest trading partner, and our businesses have to bear the currency risk and nor do we have any say in the decisions of the ECB or what interest rates they set. But, we do have our own currency, can set our own interest rates, can operate our own quantitative easing policy, do benefit from our currency being an automatic economic stabiliser and aren’t obliged to do eurozone bailouts. The BoE and ECB do discuss economic stability with one another.
Brexit will be similar but with a few more repatriated choices the other way. These will have advantages and disadvantages just as those do, but they won’t be either intrinsically futile nor will they be a nirvana.
Choices.
https://twitter.com/makevotesmatter/status/983681028563853312?s=21
In practice a FTA with regulatory alignment in goods and agriculture would be quite good at keeping out substandard US foodstuffs, so a major plus. It would rather stand in the way of other Trade deals, but as those are mostly a fiction then little to worry about.
Services being outside an FTA would of course exclude them from EU regulations, though the price of that is exclusion of our major exports from a major market.
The biggest political problems wjth goods regulation in the UK are on weights & measures and on environmental rules.
I expect us to have a degree of flexibility on the former and for HMG to manage public opinion on the latter, possibly with a bit more flexibility for how things are phased and transitioned on the latter.
The vast majority of our economy is on services so that’s the main prize for future trade deals.
He'll be forced to be avanka.
Does it really?
Leaving aside the complete failure of that approach in 2017 GE, even in 2012 there was an average of 5% difference between local and national election scores.
And even when you control for factors like incumbency/3rd parties - local election results predicted the party with most votes 86% of the time.
That's not actually that great a track record even before Brexit upended politics.
https://blog.politics.ox.ac.uk/do-local-elections-predict-general-elections/
I suspect 'Jesus loves you' is going to take on a whole new meaning for him in prison
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43711617
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/10/china-eyes-tiny-pacific-island-nation-vanuatu-second-military/
I would particularly enjoy the moment she told the jury to 'lock him up' in her closing speech for the defence...
The lawsuit claims the firms obtained users’ private information from the social media network to develop “political propaganda campaigns” in the UK and the US.
Facebook, it is said, may initially have been misled, but failed to act responsibly to protect the data of 1 million British users and 70.6 million people in America. The data, it is suggested, was first used in the British EU referendum and then in the US during the 2016 presidential election.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/10/cambridge-analytica-and-facebook-face-class-action-lawsuit?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Ugh on so many levels.
At least I’ve bet on City to qualify tonight.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-bomb-on-trumps-front-porch-fbis-cohen-raids-hit-home-for-the-president/2018/04/09/6abb816e-3c37-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html
Trump also navigated Monday’s turn without a full slate of legal advisers. He has yet to replace John Dowd, who resigned last month as his personal attorney in the Russia matter…
…“When it comes to Michael Cohen, anything is possible,” said Louise Sunshine, a former Trump Organization executive who knows Cohen. “Anything and everything is possible.”
Trump essentially has only a thug and/or possible criminal suspect as his attorney...
I can't see too many credible lawyers lining up for the gig.
https://order-order.com/2018/04/10/long-day-for-evolve-politics/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_client_privilege#Disclosure_in_case_of_a_crime,_tort,_or_fraud
I couldn't find the Wikipedia page for it, but he should also note that being President does not entirely grant immunity from the consequences of being an enormous horse's arse...
I'm not racing to put my money down on that.
A final say in a GE-Yes,I would support that and then apply good old Burke and leave it to our elected MPs to sort out and stop asking the general public,who have real lives to be getting on with,for answers we pay the MPs to have.
I'd expect it to be quite a bit shorter next year if the Dems retake the House and get going on impeachment.
As you point out the stupidity and ignorance of those who write this stuff means major issues and costs for SMEs. The big boys are pleased because barriers to entry are increased. The rest, including our economy, suffers with pointless idiotic paperwork (he says impartially).
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/referendums-or-referenda.292946/
It couldn't turn around could it?
What a great day for Labour. Endorsed by Nick Griffin, Barry Gardiner, this. What a cesspit
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/trumps-lawyer-is-in-big-trouble/557606/
In any case, a boycott would (1) politicise the national football associations, which itself would be problematic given FIFAs stance (2) conflate the issues of FIFA corruption and Russian misdeeds, which are best kept separate. If there is to be a boycott, it should be on internal footballing matters and be from *all* the major footballing powers, using the one lever they have - money-making potential - to override FIFA's leadership's ability to buy re-election votes from small FAs with the money generated from world cups. If England, Italy, Spain etc banned any player registered with one of their clubs from playing in the world cup, that might force change in FIFA.
But on a wider scale, sporting boycotts are almost always ineffective and self-defeating; masochistic gestures made to please a domestic audience rather than effect an outcome.
It would be better, all things considered, for both the Russia and Qatar competitions to go ahead so the world can see just how bad the decisions were to award them there. It might be an idea for the FCO to advise against all travel to the World Cup by English fans though.
Putin's had the Winter Olympics *and* took F1 to Russia. He appears to care about global sporting events as an indicator of national prestige.
It's too early to say Trump's goose is cooked, but the oven is warming.
Time to be very frightened, though. Facebook is comparatively unworrying because you use it to disseminate information which you want [at least some subset of] other people to know. Whereas which of us has not conducted google searches which we wouldn't want anyone at all seeing, unless we were on hand to explain the entirely innocent backstory behind the search?
The 1.2 on Liverpool to go through tonight looks like good value. Man City are choking.
I don't think City will perform anywhere near as well as they did before Christmas this season. In fact I think they could be like Mourinho's final season at Chelsea when they went from runaway Champions to struggling to qualify for Europe.
https://www.fia.com/fia-action-road-safety
or
https://www.fia.com/3500lives
As two examples.
If impeachment passes the HoRepresentatives I think I'll be able to trade out for much less than 2/1.
Last time 5 Republican Senators voted not guilty on both charges, and five more voted not guilty on one count. Now arguably turning against your own party is trickier than standing by an opponent - but it's not as if Trump is popular with Republican Senators.
City - 8/11
Liverpool - 9/2
Man Utd - 6/1
Chelsea - 12/1
Tottenham - 12/1
Arsenal - 25-1
200-1 bar
I don't think City should be odds-on but I'm not sure who I would say is value there to be fair. Maybe the bar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Summer_Olympics#Medal_count
Is it time for Trump to get the Nobel Peace Prize?
Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Russian squad were dq'ed for drugs offences given the number of athletes caught from over there. That too would be hilarious.
But a boycott is pointless unless major tams take part. And we're not there.
Privilege is a question of what evidence is used *for*, for example, if it could be used in a trial.
As yet the FBI haven't *used* it for anything as far as I'm aware.
200-1
May could deliver a similar speech to April 2016 and argue both sides.
#fantasyfootie
https://twitter.com/TommySandhu/status/983046856551878656
Was it the Everly Brothers?
Second Referendum?"Final Say?https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/983658979313188865
we can be confident that a majority of Britons do indeed feel that the EU is behaving in a way that could be considered ‘bullying’ or ‘unfair’ when it comes to the Brexit negotiations. The finding is consistent no matter how you ask the question and across most sub-groups.
https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/970341843425775619
2. Because recommending staying in would be admitting that she was a useless negotiator, or
3. Because it'd look like she'd been negotiating in bad faith and with a secret agenda to stay in.
There is no risk of bringing the government down providing the new leader doesn't do anything stupid with respect to the DUP.