politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » November’s US midterms are looking a lot tighter than a month
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » November’s US midterms are looking a lot tighter than a month or so ago
>
Comments
-
We know that normal rules do not apply to theTrump presidency.0
-
It's certainly plausible that the Democrats gain 20 or so seats in the House, 100 or so seats in the Legislatures, and gain two and lose two or three in the Senate. Objectively, that's not bad, but they'd be gutted.0
-
This would bugger up my impeachment bets.
It looks like the GOP have learned their lesson from the Roy Moore debacle.0 -
Failure to retake the House is pretty bad IMO when you look at Trump approval ratings and the historical precedent of what happens when parties control all 3 branches of govt.Sean_F said:It's certainly plausible that the Democrats gain 20 or so seats in the House, 100 or so seats in the Legislatures, and gain two and lose two or three in the Senate. Objectively, that's not bad, but they'd be gutted.
0 -
I thought you were betting against impeachment?TheScreamingEagles said:This would bugger up my impeachment bets.
It looks like the GOP haven’t learned their lesson from the Roy Moore debacle.0 -
FPT
I said a few weeks ago that I thought we might ask for an extension of Article 50.Scott_P said:0 -
Interesting. I don't think I have any bets related to this. Strong general trend with a big spike/trough for the parties which, even when removed, still fits the basic pattern of rising red and declining blue.
I wonder if the constant loathing of Trump is having the dual effect of making it white noise, and also diluting the impact of real criticisms.0 -
I’m betting on impeachment in 2019/2020 but no conviction.rkrkrk said:
I thought you were betting against impeachment?TheScreamingEagles said:This would bugger up my impeachment bets.
It looks like the GOP haven’t learned their lesson from the Roy Moore debacle.0 -
Morning all
Being dogmatic about an election that's still five months away in one country while arguing about whether we might have another one in this country ?
Okay.
It does seem Trump and Corbyn share the ability to polarise both their opponents and supporters in equal measure.
That's all I've got at the moment.0 -
Actually, I think they have. They're unlikely to select such a loon again in a Senate race.TheScreamingEagles said:This would bugger up my impeachment bets.
It looks like the GOP haven’t learned their lesson from the Roy Moore debacle.0 -
The Democrats (including two independents who caucus with them) hold 25 of the 33 senate seats up for election in November with the Republicans defending only 8. The chances of the Dems making NET gains in the Senate therefore is not that high as they are defending several seats in what are generally solidly red states. I really can't see the Dems therefore taking the senate - certainly no chance on these recent polls.Sean_F said:It's certainly plausible that the Democrats gain 20 or so seats in the House, 100 or so seats in the Legislatures, and gain two and lose two or three in the Senate. Objectively, that's not bad, but they'd be gutted.
The House is another matter.0 -
Ah okay. I'm similar - except betting on Trump leaving in 2019/20 and then hoping to cash out nearer the time. I've been laying him going this year for a while, but tbh expected odds to have shifted more in my favour by now.TheScreamingEagles said:
I’m betting on impeachment in 2019/2020 but no conviction.rkrkrk said:
I thought you were betting against impeachment?TheScreamingEagles said:This would bugger up my impeachment bets.
It looks like the GOP haven’t learned their lesson from the Roy Moore debacle.0 -
Typo on my part. Meant to say they HAVE learned their lesson.Sean_F said:
Actually, I think they have. They're unlikely to select such a loon again in a Senate race.TheScreamingEagles said:This would bugger up my impeachment bets.
It looks like the GOP haven’t learned their lesson from the Roy Moore debacle.0 -
Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/9995659618282086420 -
The omens for the mid terms are still bad for the GOP and good for the Denocrats. Trump's approval rating of 43% approximately is still the lowest for any President at this stage of his Presidency since Bill Clinton in 1994 and that November the Democrats lost both the House and Senate to the Republicans in the 1994 midterms.
Indeed In Senate races the Democratic candidate still leads in most Democratic held seats bar Indiana and Montana with Florida tied while Republican candidates have been behind in Senate polls for Republican seats in Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee.0 -
Obviously it went wrong when Alain Juppé failed to win the nomination, foiling @rcs1000’s plan to sort it all out with him over a bottle of wine...AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted
0 -
In 1978 the Republicans made gains but failed to take Congress but in 1980 Reagan managed to beat President Carter nonetheless after just one term of a Democrat in the Oval Officerkrkrk said:
Failure to retake the House is pretty bad IMO when you look at Trump approval ratings and the historical precedent of what happens when parties control all 3 branches of govt.Sean_F said:It's certainly plausible that the Democrats gain 20 or so seats in the House, 100 or so seats in the Legislatures, and gain two and lose two or three in the Senate. Objectively, that's not bad, but they'd be gutted.
0 -
Liam Fox: EU trade deal after Brexit should be 'easiest in history' to getAlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
International trade secretary tells Today programme the government is not making contingency plans for leaving without deal
0 -
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.0 -
FPT
It's to do with freedom. To be able to travel freely without passports ID cards or needing to change money is surely Tory utopia? No Bureaucrats in sightSean_F said:
Life in the West is a paradise for anyone who is rich.Roger said:I was thinking yesterday as I travelled the thirty five minutes from Beaulieu through Monaco to Menton and accross the invisble border to the market at Ventimiglia what cultural vandalism the timidity of our politicians have wrought on us.
Different language different feel a currency that works everywhere and no bureaucrats demanding passports or identification. It's a paradise.
The next generation are not going to forgive us
0 -
Libertarian utopia maybe but most Tories also want secure bordersRoger said:FPT
It's to do with freedom. To be able to travel freely without passports ID cards or needing to change money is surely Tory utopia? No Bureaucrats in sightSean_F said:
Life in the West is a paradise for anyone who is rich.Roger said:I was thinking yesterday as I travelled the thirty five minutes from Beaulieu through Monaco to Menton and accross the invisble border to the market at Ventimiglia what cultural vandalism the timidity of our politicians have wrought on us.
Different language different feel a currency that works everywhere and no bureaucrats demanding passports or identification. It's a paradise.
The next generation are not going to forgive us0 -
Republican and Democratic voters tend to become increasingly partisan in Senate contests, as polling day approaches. A candidate has to be outstandingly good to win a State in which their party is the minority and/or their opponent outstandingly bad.HYUFD said:The omens for the mid terms are still bad for the GOP and good for the Denocrats. Trump's approval rating of 43% approximately is still the lowest for any President at this stage of his Presidency since Bill Clinton in 1994 and that November the Democrats lost both the House and Senate to the Republicans in the 1994 midterms.
Indeed In Senate races the Democratic candidate still leads in most Democratic held seats bar Indiana and Montana with Florida tied while Republican candidates have been behind in Senate polls for Republican seats in Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee.
Unless the Republican candidate turns out to be terrible, Tennessee will return a Republican.0 -
I don't know about you, but I use my debit card abroad. Don't worry. Your life will remain idyllic.Roger said:FPT
It's to do with freedom. To be able to travel freely without passports ID cards or needing to change money is surely Tory utopia? No Bureaucrats in sightSean_F said:
Life in the West is a paradise for anyone who is rich.Roger said:I was thinking yesterday as I travelled the thirty five minutes from Beaulieu through Monaco to Menton and accross the invisble border to the market at Ventimiglia what cultural vandalism the timidity of our politicians have wrought on us.
Different language different feel a currency that works everywhere and no bureaucrats demanding passports or identification. It's a paradise.
The next generation are not going to forgive us0 -
As Alabama showed last autumn at the moment there are no safe Republican Senate seats especially if it is a blue wave in November. Although it is unlikely the Democrats will win any more deep South seats the likes of Tennessee are not impossible, after all Clinton won the state twice in 1992 and 1996Sean_F said:
Republican and Democratic voters tend to become increasingly partisan in Senate contests, as polling day approaches. A candidate has to be outstandingly good to win a State in which their party is the minority and/or their opponent outstandingly bad.HYUFD said:The omens for the mid terms are still bad for the GOP and good for the Denocrats. Trump's approval rating of 43% approximately is still the lowest for any President at this stage of his Presidency since Bill Clinton in 1994 and that November the Democrats lost both the House and Senate to the Republicans in the 1994 midterms.
Indeed In Senate races the Democratic candidate still leads in most Democratic held seats bar Indiana and Montana with Florida tied while Republican candidates have been behind in Senate polls for Republican seats in Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee.
Unless the Republican candidate turns out to be terrible, Tennessee will return a Republican.0 -
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.0 -
I am sure the banks love taking their exchange rate cut from you. :-)Sean_F said:
I don't know about you, but I use my debit card abroad. Don't worry. Your life will remain idyllic.Roger said:FPT
It's to do with freedom. To be able to travel freely without passports ID cards or needing to change money is surely Tory utopia? No Bureaucrats in sightSean_F said:
Life in the West is a paradise for anyone who is rich.Roger said:I was thinking yesterday as I travelled the thirty five minutes from Beaulieu through Monaco to Menton and accross the invisble border to the market at Ventimiglia what cultural vandalism the timidity of our politicians have wrought on us.
Different language different feel a currency that works everywhere and no bureaucrats demanding passports or identification. It's a paradise.
The next generation are not going to forgive us
0 -
HYUFD said:
Libertarian utopia maybe but most Tories also want secure bordersRoger said:FPT
It's to do with freedom. To be able to travel freely without passports ID cards or needing to change money is surely Tory utopia? No Bureaucrats in sightSean_F said:
Life in the West is a paradise for anyone who is rich.Roger said:I was thinking yesterday as I travelled the thirty five minutes from Beaulieu through Monaco to Menton and accross the invisble border to the market at Ventimiglia what cultural vandalism the timidity of our politicians have wrought on us.
Different language different feel a currency that works everywhere and no bureaucrats demanding passports or identification. It's a paradise.
The next generation are not going to forgive us
Keeping Johnny Foreigner out is still firing up Tories? Most of whom live in the areas of lowest immigration - I find it incredible. EDIT: unfathomable is probably a better word.0 -
The tories can't countenance any plan that stretches beyond the 2022 GE (if they make it that far).AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/9995659618282086420 -
Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigrationBenpointer said:HYUFD said:
Libertarian utopia maybe but most Tories also want secure bordersRoger said:FPT
It's to do with freedom. To be able to travel freely without passports ID cards or needing to change money is surely Tory utopia? No Bureaucrats in sightSean_F said:
Life in the West is a paradise for anyone who is rich.Roger said:I was thinking yesterday as I travelled the thirty five minutes from Beaulieu through Monaco to Menton and accross the invisble border to the market at Ventimiglia what cultural vandalism the timidity of our politicians have wrought on us.
Different language different feel a currency that works everywhere and no bureaucrats demanding passports or identification. It's a paradise.
The next generation are not going to forgive us
Keeping Johnny Foreigner out is still firing up Tories? Most of whom live in the areas of lowest immigration - I find it incredible. EDIT: unfathomable is probably a better word.0 -
Ask Liam:Bromptonaut said:
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/20/liam-fox-uk-eu-trade-deal-after-brexit-easiest-human-history0 -
Put in place border controls, like every other country in the World.Bromptonaut said:
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.
Then develop an interim version of maxfac for the NI border and simply advise the EU that if they want to co-operate with that, we are more than happy to discuss it. Could be improved later - it doesn't matter particularly to the UK if the NI border is secure or not from a customs point of view.0 -
There is simply no point is blaming Brexiteers for how the process of Brexit has been carried out when it has been under the control of Remainers. Fox, DD, Johnson and all the others have made it as clear as they can that they don't agree with how it is being done. The only valid criticism is that they should have resigned by now.Benpointer said:
Ask Liam:Bromptonaut said:
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/20/liam-fox-uk-eu-trade-deal-after-brexit-easiest-human-history0 -
williamglenn said:
Obviously it went wrong when Alain Juppé failed to win the nomination, foiling @rcs1000’s plan to sort it all out with him over a bottle of wine...AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted
0 -
...as long as the NI/GB border is secure? And securing it means big political problems for the UK.archer101au said:
Put in place border controls, like every other country in the World.Bromptonaut said:
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.
Then develop an interim version of maxfac for the NI border and simply advise the EU that if they want to co-operate with that, we are more than happy to discuss it. Could be improved later - it doesn't matter particularly to the UK if the NI border is secure or not from a customs point of view.0 -
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?HYUFD said:Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
0 -
The Republicans lost Alabama because Roy Moore was appalling. Any other Republican would have held it.HYUFD said:
As Alabama showed last autumn at the moment there are no safe Republican Senate seats especially if it is a blue wave in November. Although it is unlikely the Democrats will win any more deep South seats the likes of Tennessee are not impossible, after all Clinton won the state twice in 1992 and 1996Sean_F said:
Republican and Democratic voters tend to become increasingly partisan in Senate contests, as polling day approaches. A candidate has to be outstandingly good to win a State in which their party is the minority and/or their opponent outstandingly bad.HYUFD said:The omens for the mid terms are still bad for the GOP and good for the Denocrats. Trump's approval rating of 43% approximately is still the lowest for any President at this stage of his Presidency since Bill Clinton in 1994 and that November the Democrats lost both the House and Senate to the Republicans in the 1994 midterms.
Indeed In Senate races the Democratic candidate still leads in most Democratic held seats bar Indiana and Montana with Florida tied while Republican candidates have been behind in Senate polls for Republican seats in Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee.
Unless the Republican candidate turns out to be terrible, Tennessee will return a Republican.0 -
Why does the UK, in your view, care if the NI/GB border is secure? Once goods have arrived in NI then why do we care where they end up?williamglenn said:
...as long as the NI/GB border is secure? And securing it means big political problems for the UK.archer101au said:
Put in place border controls, like every other country in the World.Bromptonaut said:
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.
Then develop an interim version of maxfac for the NI border and simply advise the EU that if they want to co-operate with that, we are more than happy to discuss it. Could be improved later - it doesn't matter particularly to the UK if the NI border is secure or not from a customs point of view.
0 -
Yes actually, true. Take a look at this report if you don't believe me.HYUFD said:
Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigrationBenpointer said:HYUFD said:
Libertarian utopia maybe but most Tories also want secure bordersRoger said:FPT
It's to do with freedom. To be able to travel freely without passports ID cards or needing to change money is surely Tory utopia? No Bureaucrats in sightSean_F said:
Life in the West is a paradise for anyone who is rich.Roger said:I was thinking yesterday as I travelled the thirty five minutes from Beaulieu through Monaco to Menton and accross the invisble border to the market at Ventimiglia what cultural vandalism the timidity of our politicians have wrought on us.
Different language different feel a currency that works everywhere and no bureaucrats demanding passports or identification. It's a paradise.
The next generation are not going to forgive us
Keeping Johnny Foreigner out is still firing up Tories? Most of whom live in the areas of lowest immigration - I find it incredible. EDIT: unfathomable is probably a better word.
https://www.barrowcadbury.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Migrant_Voters_2015_paper.pdf0 -
Move to AustraliaBromptonaut said:
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.0 -
FFS! Who is running the Department for Exiting the European Union?archer101au said:
There is simply no point is blaming Brexiteers for how the process of Brexit has been carried out when it has been under the control of Remainers. Fox, DD, Johnson and all the others have made it as clear as they can that they don't agree with how it is being done. The only valid criticism is that they should have resigned by now.Benpointer said:
Ask Liam:Bromptonaut said:
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/20/liam-fox-uk-eu-trade-deal-after-brexit-easiest-human-history0 -
It would be surprising if such a polarising President were able to retain the House. The Senate is a different story. Republican gains there are a real possibility.0
-
You mean the wrong sort that aren't going to add net value and end up on welfare as opposed to those with skills and qualifications we need who will either be net contributors financially or economically or socially. Importing poor people with no skills who end up reliant on the state just means less money for the poor already here and is of no benefit to wider society.Beverley_C said:
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?HYUFD said:Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Most countries outside the EU design their immigration system so it's of more benefit to their country's citizens than of that of arrivals - albeit welcoming genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution. Is that so wrong - putting your own citizens first?!0 -
If it doens't care about Ire/NI then it needs to care as much about NI/GB as GB/France.archer101au said:
Why does the UK, in your view, care if the NI/GB border is secure? Once goods have arrived in NI then why do we care where they end up?williamglenn said:
...as long as the NI/GB border is secure? And securing it means big political problems for the UK.archer101au said:
Put in place border controls, like every other country in the World.Bromptonaut said:
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.
Then develop an interim version of maxfac for the NI border and simply advise the EU that if they want to co-operate with that, we are more than happy to discuss it. Could be improved later - it doesn't matter particularly to the UK if the NI border is secure or not from a customs point of view.0 -
Most of the EU immigrants are (were?) considerably better qualified than many of the non-EU immigrants from Bangladesh or Sub-Saharan Africa simply because one lot had First World education and the other lot did not.brendan16 said:
You mean the wrong sort that aren't going to add net value and end up on welfare as opposed to those with skills and qualifications we need who will either be net contributors financially or economically or socially. Importing poor people with no skills who end up reliant on the state just means less money for the poor already here and is of no benefit to wider society.Beverley_C said:
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?HYUFD said:Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Most countries outside the EU design their immigration system so it's of more benefit to their country's citizens than of that of arrivals - albeit welcoming genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution. Is that so wrong - putting your own citizens first?!
Brexit will simply mean "Importing poor people with no skills who end up reliant on the state ..."instead of skilled Europeans who will contribute, and "... just means less money for the poor already here and is of no benefit to wider society"0 -
That was of course always the problem. Two thirds of MPs including most Tories backed remain - unlike following a general election there was not a majority backing the course of action the people had voted for. No serious pre planning was done either by the civil service as no one expected leave to win.archer101au said:
There is simply no point is blaming Brexiteers for how the process of Brexit has been carried out when it has been under the control of Remainers. Fox, DD, Johnson and all the others have made it as clear as they can that they don't agree with how it is being done. The only valid criticism is that they should have resigned by now.Benpointer said:
Ask Liam:Bromptonaut said:
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/20/liam-fox-uk-eu-trade-deal-after-brexit-easiest-human-history
Post the 2015 election debacle May took things back into no 10 and she has been driving the agenda not Boris or Davis or even Fox. She is weak and her negotiating has been weak - setting red lines and then conceding on almost all of them.
0 -
"We"? What is this "we" business? You live on the other side of the world. "We" live here in the UK.archer101au said:... why do we care where they end up?
0 -
How can May be simultaneously be so weak to concede everything yet strong enough to drive the agenda against the complaints of the great Brexiting brains of Fox, Davis and Johnson?brendan16 said:
That was of course always the problem. Two thirds of MPs including most Tories backed remain - unlike following a general election there was not a majority backing the course of action the people had voted for. No serious pre planning was done either by the civil service as no one expected leave to win.archer101au said:
There is simply no point is blaming Brexiteers for how the process of Brexit has been carried out when it has been under the control of Remainers. Fox, DD, Johnson and all the others have made it as clear as they can that they don't agree with how it is being done. The only valid criticism is that they should have resigned by now.Benpointer said:
Ask Liam:Bromptonaut said:
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/20/liam-fox-uk-eu-trade-deal-after-brexit-easiest-human-history
Post the 2015 election debacle May took things back into no 10 and she has been driving the agenda not Boris or Davis or even Fox. She is weak and her negotiating has been weak - setting red lines and then conceding on almost all of them.
The reality is that Brexiters promise a unicorn, but deliver a donkey with an icecream cone sellotaped to its crown.0 -
Probably but the Democrats have also won special elections in districts Trump carried in 2016 by 20%+Sean_F said:
The Republicans lost Alabama because Roy Moore was appalling. Any other Republican would have held it.HYUFD said:
As Alabama showed last autumn at the moment there are no safe Republican Senate seats especially if it is a blue wave in November. Although it is unlikely the Democrats will win any more deep South seats the likes of Tennessee are not impossible, after all Clinton won the state twice in 1992 and 1996Sean_F said:
Republican and Democratic voters tend to become increasingly partisan in Senate contests, as polling day approaches. A candidate has to be outstandingly good to win a State in which their party is the minority and/or their opponent outstandingly bad.HYUFD said:The omens for the mid terms are still bad for the GOP and good for the Denocrats. Trump's approval rating of 43% approximately is still the lowest for any President at this stage of his Presidency since Bill Clinton in 1994 and that November the Democrats lost both the House and Senate to the Republicans in the 1994 midterms.
Indeed In Senate races the Democratic candidate still leads in most Democratic held seats bar Indiana and Montana with Florida tied while Republican candidates have been behind in Senate polls for Republican seats in Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee.
Unless the Republican candidate turns out to be terrible, Tennessee will return a Republican.0 -
Or alternatively we get to pick the best and most qualified from wherever they come - ideally with a system whereby they are not entitled to welfare such as housing benefit and tax credits for two years until they have paid in.Beverley_C said:
Most of the EU immigrants are (were?) considerably better qualified than many of the non-EU immigrants from Bangladesh or Sub-Saharan Africa simply because one lot had First World education and the other lot did not.brendan16 said:
You mean the wrong sort that aren't going to add net value and end up on welfare as opposed to those with skills and qualifications we need who will either be net contributors financially or economically or socially. Importing poor people with no skills who end up reliant on the state just means less money for the poor already here and is of no benefit to wider society.Beverley_C said:
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?HYUFD said:Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Most countries outside the EU design their immigration system so it's of more benefit to their country's citizens than of that of arrivals - albeit welcoming genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution. Is that so wrong - putting your own citizens first?!
Brexit will simply mean "Importing poor people with no skills who end up reliant on the state ..."instead of skilled Europeans who will contribute, and "... just means less money for the poor already here and is of no benefit to wider society"
Not all Eastern Europeans here are net contributors - and many people from developing nations are skilled and add value. A free for all from Eastern Europe while denying visas to Doctors from sub Saharan Africa and the Indian sub continent - as we have now - does not seem sensible.0 -
I would also remind you over a third of Labour voters and a majority of Labour seats voted Leave, in large part because of immigration concernsBeverley_C said:
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?HYUFD said:Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
0 -
Meanwhile, in news of Corbyn's favourite country:
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/9995807388812861440 -
As Ireland is proving once you get used to moving freely you don't want to go back to being shackled.HYUFD said:
Libertarian utopia maybe but most Tories also want secure bordersRoger said:FPT
It's to do with freedom. To be able to travel freely without passports ID cards or needing to change money is surely Tory utopia? No Bureaucrats in sightSean_F said:
Life in the West is a paradise for anyone who is rich.Roger said:I was thinking yesterday as I travelled the thirty five minutes from Beaulieu through Monaco to Menton and accross the invisble border to the market at Ventimiglia what cultural vandalism the timidity of our politicians have wrought on us.
Different language different feel a currency that works everywhere and no bureaucrats demanding passports or identification. It's a paradise.
The next generation are not going to forgive us0 -
Do they mean the missile launcher was fired by members of the Russian armed forces? A weapon can be used by anyone who knows how to use it - people are members of armed forces not objects.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in news of Corbyn's favourite country:
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/999580738881286144
Perhaps that's the problem with tweets!0 -
The blame game has started. The Leavers are already lining some poor blighters up for crimes against Brexit. So far we have May, Hammond, Grieve and Olly Robbins. Who will be next for the late night knock upon the door?0
-
Most of our immigration has always been from non-EU countries. IIRC, in recent times about 1/3rd of immigrants were EU citizens.brendan16 said:
Or alternatively we get to pick the best and most qualified from wherever they come - ideally with a system whereby they are not entitled to welfare such as housing benefit and tax credits for two years until they have paid in.Beverley_C said:
Most of the EU immigrants are (were?) considerably better qualified than many of the non-EU immigrants from Bangladesh or Sub-Saharan Africa simply because one lot had First World education and the other lot did not.brendan16 said:
You mean the wrong sort that aren't going to add net value and end up on welfare as opposed to those with skills and qualifications we need who will either be net contributors financially or economically or socially. Importing poor people with no skills who end up reliant on the state just means less money for the poor already here and is of no benefit to wider society.Beverley_C said:
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?HYUFD said:Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Most countries outside the EU design their immigration system so it's of more benefit to their country's citizens than of that of arrivals - albeit welcoming genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution. Is that so wrong - putting your own citizens first?!
Brexit will simply mean "Importing poor people with no skills who end up reliant on the state ..."instead of skilled Europeans who will contribute, and "... just means less money for the poor already here and is of no benefit to wider society"
Not all Eastern Europeans here are net contributors - and many people from developing nations are skilled and add value. A free for all from Eastern Europe while denying visas to Doctors from sub Saharan Africa and the Indian sub continent - as we have now - does not seem sensible.
Post-Brexit, most of our immigration problem will still be there. The non-EU people have always been subject to us picking "... the best and most qualified from wherever they come ..."0 -
Indeed. Thanks goodness that "they need us more than we need them" eh?Gardenwalker said:
How can May be simultaneously be so weak to concede everything yet strong enough to drive the agenda against the complaints of the great Brexiting brains of Fox, Davis and Johnson?brendan16 said:
That was of course always the problem. Two thirds of MPs including most Tories backed remain - unlike following a general election there was not a majority backing the course of action the people had voted for. No serious pre planning was done either by the civil service as no one expected leave to win.archer101au said:
There is simply no point is blaming Brexiteers for how the process of Brexit has been carried out when it has been under the control of Remainers. Fox, DD, Johnson and all the others have made it as clear as they can that they don't agree with how it is being done. The only valid criticism is that they should have resigned by now.Benpointer said:
Ask Liam:Bromptonaut said:
How?archer101au said:
There is only a need for it to be protracted if you don't want to do it.AlastairMeeks said:Oh the howling and ululation there was from the site's Leavers when I suggested before the referendum that any exit negotiation would be protracted:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/999565961828208642
What is the point of talking about an extension when May can't even decide what outcome she wants?
The objective is obvious - delay delay delay. And then hopefully find a way to never do it at all.
Nothing to do with the complexities, which could quite easily have been resolved without even having a transition period.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/20/liam-fox-uk-eu-trade-deal-after-brexit-easiest-human-history
Post the 2015 election debacle May took things back into no 10 and she has been driving the agenda not Boris or Davis or even Fox. She is weak and her negotiating has been weak - setting red lines and then conceding on almost all of them.
The reality is that Brexiters promise a unicorn, but deliver a donkey with an icecream cone sellotaped to its crown.0 -
https://tinyurl.com/yblqpywfBeverley_C said:
Most of our immigration has always been from non-EU countries. IIRC, in recent times about 1/3rd of immigrants were EU citizens.brendan16 said:
Or alternatively we get to pick the best and most qualified from wherever they come - ideally with a system whereby they are not entitled to welfare such as housing benefit and tax credits for two years until they have paid in.Beverley_C said:
Most of the EU immigrants are (were?) considerably better qualified than many of the non-EU immigrants from Bangladesh or Sub-Saharan Africa simply because one lot had First World education and the other lot did not.brendan16 said:
You mean the wrong sort that aren't going to add net value and end up on welfare as opposed to those with skills and qualifications we need who will either be net contributors financially or economically or socially. Importing poor people with no skills who end up reliant on the state just means less money for the poor already here and is of no benefit to wider society.Beverley_C said:
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?HYUFD said:Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Most countries outside the EU design their immigration system so it's of more benefit to their country's citizens than of that of arrivals - albeit welcoming genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution. Is that so wrong - putting your own citizens first?!
Brexit will simply mean "Importing poor people with no skills who end up reliant on the state ..."instead of skilled Europeans who will contribute, and "... just means less money for the poor already here and is of no benefit to wider society"
Not all Eastern Europeans here are net contributors - and many people from developing nations are skilled and add value. A free for all from Eastern Europe while denying visas to Doctors from sub Saharan Africa and the Indian sub continent - as we have now - does not seem sensible.
Post-Brexit, most of our immigration problem will still be there. The non-EU people have always been subject to us picking "... the best and most qualified from wherever they come ..."0 -
I hope May gets to publish her memoirs.Gardenwalker said:How can May be simultaneously be so weak to concede everything yet strong enough to drive the agenda against the complaints of the great Brexiting brains of Fox, Davis and Johnson?
0 -
And since Theresa May as Home Secretary and the rest of the government(s) did not reduce non-EU immigration which had nothing to do with EU FOM, I am sceptical of any sudden conversion to the need for "control". What we have seen is moves to deport the Windrush generation and block Indian doctors but there is no sign of a strategy there, just ill-conceived and badly executed headline-grabbing.Beverley_C said:
Most of our immigration has always been from non-EU countries. IIRC, in recent times about 1/3rd of immigrants were EU citizens.brendan16 said:
Or alternatively we get to pick the best and most qualified from wherever they come - ideally with a system whereby they are not entitled to welfare such as housing benefit and tax credits for two years until they have paid in.Beverley_C said:
Most of the EU immigrants are (were?) considerably better qualified than many of the non-EU immigrants from Bangladesh or Sub-Saharan Africa simply because one lot had First World education and the other lot did not.brendan16 said:
You mean the wrong sort that aren't going to add net value and end up on welfare as opposed to those with skills and qualifications we need who will either be net contributors financially or economically or socially. Importing poor people with no skills who end up reliant on the state just means less money for the poor already here and is of no benefit to wider society.Beverley_C said:
Absolutely old boy! Can't let the wrong sort in! Eh, what?HYUFD said:Not actually true, plenty of immigrants to Chelsea, Putney, Bromley and the Home Counties and plenty of Poles in Lincolnshire. Though what most Tories want is greater control of immigration, not an end to immigration
Most countries outside the EU design their immigration system so it's of more benefit to their country's citizens than of that of arrivals - albeit welcoming genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution. Is that so wrong - putting your own citizens first?!
Brexit will simply mean "Importing poor people with no skills who end up reliant on the state ..."instead of skilled Europeans who will contribute, and "... just means less money for the poor already here and is of no benefit to wider society"
Not all Eastern Europeans here are net contributors - and many people from developing nations are skilled and add value. A free for all from Eastern Europe while denying visas to Doctors from sub Saharan Africa and the Indian sub continent - as we have now - does not seem sensible.
Post-Brexit, most of our immigration problem will still be there. The non-EU people have always been subject to us picking "... the best and most qualified from wherever they come ..."0 -
Mrs C, mostly agree on migration but there is a significant and unaddressed problem.
More people require more infrastructure. Migration is instant but infrastructure takes a lot longer to put in place. House prices also rise significantly.
And then we get into culture, which has led to the less than splendid situation of a higher prosecution rate for 'bacon hate crime' than female genital mutilation, and to the scandal of authorities utterly failing the children of Rotherham for years and years because they were so drunk on 'cultural sensitivity' they failed to protect children from rape.
The scale of migration and, perhaps more importantly, the failure to defend basic tenets of British culture (and I'm talking very basic stuff here, like don't rape children) is a problem that must be addressed.
If it had been pre-referendum, I think it very likely we would've voted Remain. [And yes, I know that leaving the EU will have a limited impact upon migration. If we leave].
Edited extra bit: Mr. L, precisely. They went for low-hanging fruit (as they saw it) rather than tackling more serious problems. The UK doesn't suffer from Caribbean migrants contributing taxes, the UK suffers from Islamic extremists, rampant inbreeding, and illegal immigrants who aren't deported.
As an aside, the Lee Rigby anniversary was scarcely mentioned by the media, and the Manchester anniversary coverage (that I saw, Sky and BBC) barely mentioned the bomb and didn't mention the insane Jihadist ideology behind it. We can't fight a problem if we refuse to acknowledge it exists..0 -
Interesting report this morning about this country’s longstanding productivity issue, ie our the number 1 economic problem.
Just why are we behind our OECD peers - an issue which basically means we have less money for private consumption and public services?
http://www.centreforcities.org/publication/the-wrong-tail/
Grossly simplifying, it is the “two nations” issue.
Overall productivity largely depends on how productive our export industries are.
Exporters in London/SE, concentrating on Finance, AI, Biotech etc are world beating.
But that’s only 1/3 of the population.
Exporters in the rest of the country - where 2/3 of the population live - are still focused in low value-add metal bashing (as I say, grossly simplistic). For whatever reason, they are not moving up the value chain. And the gap between the “engine” and the “rest” is getting larger.
If we could somehow fix this issue we’d be as wealthy as the Germans or the Scandis. (Incidentally, the report is issued the same day we learn we need another £2,000 per head on the NHS.)
Needless to say, Brexit makes it even more complicated to address the above by drastically reducing the size of our home market...0 -
Indeed. Non-EU immigration has always been higher than EU immigration and often very significantly higher and it seems that the gap is widening again.tlg86 said:0 -
Well, according to today's posts - David Davis.Stark_Dawning said:The blame game has started. The Leavers are already lining some poor blighters up for crimes against Brexit. So far we have May, Hammond, Grieve and Olly Robbins. Who will be next for the late night knock upon the door?
I am unsure whether he is supposed to be weak, a traitor or a remainer but apparently he is not a Brexiteer. Or least a proper one.0 -
Mr. Walker, might that not be a vicious circle, though?
Businesses that boom locate to London because the market's bigger (more people locally and it's on the international stage). Public investment in transport etc in London dwarfs that of elsewhere, maintaining a higher standard than you get in Manchester or Leeds.
The Northern Powerhouse isn't a bad idea, though the focus should be Manchester and Leeds (two large cities very close together). Trying to make Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield etc into a northern equivalent of London, though, is optimistic at best. Of course, it'd help if work on transport weren't cancelled when funds were suddenly withdrawn (Leeds by itself has blown tens if not hundreds of millions on plans for a tram system which has been proposed and then axed by multiple governments).0 -
Well he was Europe Minister back in the day. His card should have been marked by the true Brexiteers.Beverley_C said:
Well, according to today's posts - David Davis.Stark_Dawning said:The blame game has started. The Leavers are already lining some poor blighters up for crimes against Brexit. So far we have May, Hammond, Grieve and Olly Robbins. Who will be next for the late night knock upon the door?
I am unsure whether he is supposed to be weak, a traitor or a remainer but apparently he is not a Brexiteer. Or least a proper one.0 -
Mr Dancer, "cultural sensitivity" is no excuse for not enforcing the law. Those who failed to do so should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice or failure in public office.Morris_Dancer said:Mrs C, mostly agree on migration but there is a significant and unaddressed problem.
More people require more infrastructure. Migration is instant but infrastructure takes a lot longer to put in place. House prices also rise significantly.
And then we get into culture, which has led to the less than splendid situation of a higher prosecution rate for 'bacon hate crime' than female genital mutilation, and to the scandal of authorities utterly failing the children of Rotherham for years and years because they were so drunk on 'cultural sensitivity' they failed to protect children from rape.
The scale of migration and, perhaps more importantly, the failure to defend basic tenets of British culture (and I'm talking very basic stuff here, like don't rape children) is a problem that must be addressed.
People who come here and believe that our laws should not apply to them are no different from native born who believe the same thing. We have always had names for such people - criminals (or if very wealthy and with the correct school tie, "aristocrats")0 -
What a massively uninspiring test team selection...0
-
Out of interest, what does the GFA say in relation to the Irish border. The RoI position seems to be extremely hard line in saying what physical infrastructure means - not a mounting pole, not an ANPR camera, not a sign giving a number to ring for customs queries should be raised. A Kent/Essex style border would be unacceptable to them (even if you consider bits that Greater London absorbed).
Tbh, whatever the GFA says, the Irish position seems to be one that we should try to finagle round the edges, whether or not that is in aid of an eventual MaxFac solution, or how long we have to have a transitional CRAP.0 -
I think the main issue is when you look at the Three Brexiteers - those who are supposed to be leading the Charge to Freedom but who, somehow, seem to give the impression that they might have difficulty getting their underpants on the correct way round or have difficulty tying their shoelaces.williamglenn said:
Well he was Europe Minister back in the day. His card should have been marked by the true Brexiteers.Beverley_C said:
Well, according to today's posts - David Davis.Stark_Dawning said:The blame game has started. The Leavers are already lining some poor blighters up for crimes against Brexit. So far we have May, Hammond, Grieve and Olly Robbins. Who will be next for the late night knock upon the door?
I am unsure whether he is supposed to be weak, a traitor or a remainer but apparently he is not a Brexiteer. Or least a proper one.0 -
I agree with this assessment by Ivan Rodgers of our options post-Brexit, although he is a lot more Eurosceptic than I am. A "pragmatist" outcome is unlikely because the EU is unlikely to make special concessions for a country that very unpragmatically chose to reject membership. At the same time there isn't a realistic outcome for the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU on the EU's terms. The most likely outcome is full alignment with the EU on a rule-taking basis with - maybe - a concession on freedom of movement.
Worth the long read if you are interested in this subject
https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/9993627491793182730 -
Yes, it is a vicious circle. But London’s success is not at the expense of the rest. Rather, the whole system structurally discriminates against the regions.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Walker, might that not be a vicious circle, though?
Businesses that boom locate to London because the market's bigger (more people locally and it's on the international stage). Public investment in transport etc in London dwarfs that of elsewhere, maintaining a higher standard than you get in Manchester or Leeds.
The Northern Powerhouse isn't a bad idea, though the focus should be Manchester and Leeds (two large cities very close together). Trying to make Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield etc into a northern equivalent of London, though, is optimistic at best. Of course, it'd help if work on transport weren't cancelled when funds were suddenly withdrawn (Leeds by itself has blown tens if not hundreds of millions on plans for a tram system which has been proposed and then axed by multiple governments).
The Northern Powerhouse is based on the idea that “urban agglomeration” drives productivity (hence, let’s connect the Northern Cities) because firms are able to access a larger pool of skills.
Yet almost uniquely, in Britain the reverse can be true. Birmingham, for example, actually has *lower* productivity than the surrounding countryside. Birmingham seems to *destroy* value! Whereas Cambridge - quite small compared to the big metros - is the outstanding success story of the last twenty years.
Policy remedies are still highly debated. But my read is that it comes down to:
1. Devolution - allowing public and private regional actors control over their own economic strategy.
2. Transport - enabling effective transport *inside* metro areas (ie replicating TfL and supporting infrustructure in our Northern Cities makes more sense than HS2).
3. A concerted effort to encourage academic/private partnerships in the regions.
4. A great push to create high value add industrial/knowledge clusters in the regions.
Obviously all of these, bar 3, have been considered verboten by the Treasury, and policy to date has been very half-hearted.0 -
Well this was entirely predictable:
https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.0 -
Funnily enough, reading that I started to wonder if May fired him because he was too much of a Eurosceptic and would have been too committed to making Brexit work.FF43 said:I agree with this assessment by Ivan Rodgers of our options post-Brexit, although he is a lot more Eurosceptic than I am.
0 -
I love how this country’s grand strategy is being determined by misery over immigration in Hartlepool.AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.0 -
The interesting thing about that article is that he refers to "trade off between sovereignty and maximising market access" whereas it for all the world appears that the current administration doesn't want to make any trade offs whatsoever.williamglenn said:
Funnily enough, reading that I started to wonder if May fired him because he was too much of a Eurosceptic and would have been too committed to making Brexit work.FF43 said:I agree with this assessment by Ivan Rodgers of our options post-Brexit, although he is a lot more Eurosceptic than I am.
Well I know @archer101au doesn't! 0 -
He does not seem to like any solutionswilliamglenn said:
Funnily enough, reading that I started to wonder if May fired him because he was too much of a Eurosceptic and would have been too committed to making Brexit work.FF43 said:I agree with this assessment by Ivan Rodgers of our options post-Brexit, although he is a lot more Eurosceptic than I am.
Nonetheless, he is right in one respect - Brexit means Brexit and we will suffer because of it.0 -
Mrs C, I agree absolutely it shouldn't be. But there's a pattern of it, with the gangs in Rotherham, Newcastle, Rochdale, Oxford, and presumably elsewhere.
Trust in and respect for almost all the institutions of the state are at a low ebb and declining further, with the exception of the monarchy.0 -
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."0 -
Not really surprising when you consider areas like Handsworth compared to Meriden..Gardenwalker said:
Yet almost uniquely, in Britain the reverse can be true. Birmingham, for example, actually has *lower* productivity than the surrounding countryside. Birmingham seems to *destroy* value! Whereas Cambridge - quite small compared to the big metros - is the outstanding success story of the last twenty years.
Are the more up and coming areas of London like Elephant and Castle relatively productive these days or does the City/Canary Wharf/Knightsbridge generate enough income to pay for the Tottenhams ?0 -
It seems unclear: the vehicles and missiles are part of the Russian armed forces; it may not be that the operations crew were. (Or more likely given history, that there was a mixed crew of Ukranian rebels and Russian 'advisers').brendan16 said:
Do they mean the missile launcher was fired by members of the Russian armed forces? A weapon can be used by anyone who knows how to use it - people are members of armed forces not objects.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in news of Corbyn's favourite country:
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/999580738881286144
Perhaps that's the problem with tweets!
"But on Thursday Wilbert Paulissen, a Dutch official from the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), told reporters: "All the vehicles in a convoy carrying the missile were part of the Russian armed forces."
He said investigators had traced the convoy to Russia's 53rd brigade."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44235402
The Putin regime is up to it's evil little necks in it.
Where's LuckyGuy to post the latest Russian line?0 -
Out of defence and intelligence collaboration is is too then.Beverley_C said:
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."0 -
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.Beverley_C said:
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."0 -
I really don't get it either. The Mail have said the French are not happy with the EU over this either and given they are the only other major military power in Europe it does show the flaws of letting Germany decide that they want German companies to get the plum contracts by excluding the UK from a defence programme.AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Germany are, again, the problem country. They are an incredibly unreliable partner.0 -
Underlines what a mad idea Brexit is.AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
And no, I’m not denigrating those who voted for it. Too many people were the victims of serial liars.0 -
Aside from France, Greece and the small Baltic states the EU's attitude & spending towards defence is a complete joke. We have strong cards to play w.r.t Galileo.0
-
Another Brexit victory for Putin.Pulpstar said:
Out of defence and intelligence collaboration is is too then.Beverley_C said:
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."0 -
Thank goodness we are leaving and want nothing more to do with the whole damn project.MaxPB said:
I really don't get it either. The Mail have said the French are not happy with the EU over this either and given they are the only other major military power in Europe it does show the flaws of letting Germany decide that they want German companies to get the plum contracts by excluding the UK from a defence programme.AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Germany are, again, the problem country. They are an incredibly unreliable partner.0 -
No Alastair - it makes complete sense. The EU is largely driven by enforcing it legal frameworks and, as we all know it sometimes seems to do it with a sense of bloodymindedness that is breathtaking.AlastairMeeks said:
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.Beverley_C said:
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
The EU bureaucrats will enforce the legal agreements. That is their job. The politicians are constrained by EU law.
It will frustrate them too, but if you start trying to ignore the law and have tantrums about it, then you might as well call yourself "Donald"0 -
Absolutely. Playing silly buggers over Ireland makes sense for the EU as they want us in the customs union because of their massive trade surplus with us.AlastairMeeks said:
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.Beverley_C said:
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
Playing silly buggers over defense makes no sense whatsoever for the EU. We are the pinacle of defense, intelligence and security within Europe and they want that. If defense becomes a negotiating point that will do them no favours at all, somebody has gotten badly carried away.0 -
No cherry picking as Beverley points out.logical_song said:
Another Brexit victory for Putin.Pulpstar said:
Out of defence and intelligence collaboration is is too then.Beverley_C said:
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."0 -
Yes.Pulpstar said:
Out of defence and intelligence collaboration is is too then.Beverley_C said:
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
Brexit means Brexit.
We wanted out.0 -
You refer to a slightly different issue which is income inequality. London, despite being very wealthy and productive, continues to have areas like Tottenham because our tax system is not particularly redistributive.Pulpstar said:
Not really surprising when you consider areas like Handsworth compared to Meriden..Gardenwalker said:
Yet almost uniquely, in Britain the reverse can be true. Birmingham, for example, actually has *lower* productivity than the surrounding countryside. Birmingham seems to *destroy* value! Whereas Cambridge - quite small compared to the big metros - is the outstanding success story of the last twenty years.
Are the more up and coming areas of London like Elephant and Castle relatively productive these days or does the City/Canary Wharf/Knightsbridge generate enough income to pay for the Tottenhams ?
Poor people in London have to live somewhere, and thus Tottenham exists (although it is gentrifying).
Birmingham has the same issue, but more fundamentally even the squires of Edgbaston are focused on low-productivity industries.0 -
I agree wrt Newcastle being too distant here, but to reduce Northern Powerhouse to a Manchester-Leeds thing is too reductionist. It should focus on the central core of Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds/Sheffield, and in particular excluding Manchester-Sheffield from major consideration ignores the most glaring connectivity black hole in the north, if not the whole UK.Gardenwalker said:
Yes, it is a vicious circle. But London’s success is not at the expense of the rest. Rather, the whole system structurally discriminates against the regions.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Walker, might that not be a vicious circle, though?
......
The Northern Powerhouse isn't a bad idea, though the focus should be Manchester and Leeds (two large cities very close together). Trying to make Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield etc into a northern equivalent of London, though, is optimistic at best. Of course, it'd help if work on transport weren't cancelled when funds were suddenly withdrawn (Leeds by itself has blown tens if not hundreds of millions on plans for a tram system which has been proposed and then axed by multiple governments).
The Northern Powerhouse is based on the idea that “urban agglomeration” drives productivity (hence, let’s connect the Northern Cities) because firms are able to access a larger pool of skills.
Yet almost uniquely, in Britain the reverse can be true. Birmingham, for example, actually has *lower* productivity than the surrounding countryside. Birmingham seems to *destroy* value! Whereas Cambridge - quite small compared to the big metros - is the outstanding success story of the last twenty years.
Policy remedies are still highly debated. But my read is that it comes down to:
1. Devolution - allowing public and private regional actors control over their own economic strategy.
2. Transport - enabling effective transport *inside* metro areas (ie replicating TfL and supporting infrustructure in our Northern Cities makes more sense than HS2).
3. A concerted effort to encourage academic/private partnerships in the regions.
4. A great push to create high value add industrial/knowledge clusters in the regions.
Obviously all of these, bar 3, have been considered verboten by the Treasury, and policy to date has been very half-hearted.
What hotch potch idea remains of "HS3" already looks like a 2 year old's scribble of a straight line, essing from Liverpool to Manchester Airport, up and then almost encircling central Manchester, then weaving to Leeds through Roch/Calder Valley (actually that last bit is fairly comparable with the current Tame/Colne route). Journey time is king, but still...
Sheffield shot itself in the foot over HS2 somewhat, being excluded from HS3 entirely is pretty terrible for it.
0 -
If anyone is going to remember they'll be on here, but I don't recall Remain talking about this during the referendum. Perhaps they should have...OldKingCole said:
Underlines what a mad idea Brexit is.AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
And no, I’m not denigrating those who voted for it. Too many people were the victims of serial liars.0 -
Turn on the cricket at 11.25, having been ‘doing things’ until then, and we’ve lost a wicket already.0
-
Don't be ridiculous the entire thing is up for negotiations at the moment.Beverley_C said:
No Alastair - it makes complete sense. The EU is largely driven by enforcing it legal frameworks and, as we all know it sometimes seems to do it with a sense of bloodymindedness that is breathtaking.AlastairMeeks said:
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.Beverley_C said:
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
The EU bureaucrats will enforce the legal agreements. That is their job. The politicians are constrained by EU law.
It will frustrate them too, but if you start trying to ignore the law and have tantrums about it, then you might as well call yourself "Donald"
When the UK hinted that defense might be tied to the economic agreement the EU reacted with exaggerated horror and got the UK to agree that defense was imperative to be agreed separately with full security.
Having negotiators creating divisions in security does not fulfil that ambition. The EU is using that line as its backfired not because that was the reason.0 -
I thought you told us you were joining the army so as to take part in the forthcoming UK invasion of Russia...or did I read your hysterical posts in the wake of the spy poisonings wrongly?JosiasJessop said:
It seems unclear: the vehicles and missiles are part of the Russian armed forces; it may not be that the operations crew were. (Or more likely given history, that there was a mixed crew of Ukranian rebels and Russian 'advisers').brendan16 said:
Do they mean the missile launcher was fired by members of the Russian armed forces? A weapon can be used by anyone who knows how to use it - people are members of armed forces not objects.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in news of Corbyn's favourite country:
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/999580738881286144
Perhaps that's the problem with tweets!
"But on Thursday Wilbert Paulissen, a Dutch official from the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), told reporters: "All the vehicles in a convoy carrying the missile were part of the Russian armed forces."
He said investigators had traced the convoy to Russia's 53rd brigade."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44235402
The Putin regime is up to it's evil little necks in it.
Where's LuckyGuy to post the latest Russian line?0 -
I await the day when you really mean that. I feel like it won't be long, given what is unfolding in Italy.TOPPING said:
Thank goodness we are leaving and want nothing more to do with the whole damn project.MaxPB said:
I really don't get it either. The Mail have said the French are not happy with the EU over this either and given they are the only other major military power in Europe it does show the flaws of letting Germany decide that they want German companies to get the plum contracts by excluding the UK from a defence programme.AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
Germany are, again, the problem country. They are an incredibly unreliable partner.0 -
I think the EU is being stupid.AlastairMeeks said:
This has nothing to do with rules (none of it does really - the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must). If there's one area where the EU really wants Britain fully engaged, it's in relation to defence. Why on earth they thought it a good idea to piss Britain off on this front is incomprehensible to me. The received response was utterly predictable.Beverley_C said:
Well, as it says in the article "EU officials have claimed they are merely following the rules - agreed by Britain at the launch of Galileo 15 years ago - which exclude third countries from the exchange of secure information."AlastairMeeks said:Well this was entirely predictable:
twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/999591776003547137
You have to wonder what the EU thinks it is playing at.
We are experiencing what we agreed should happen. I do not see that we are in any position to moan about it now.
We want out and "out" means "out". Not "out except for that bit there..."
But at the end of the day, it’s a rule based institution - it *has* to be to cope with 27 different members.
Galileo is a metaphor for the whole Brexit project.
We were in, and doing well from it.
Now it looks like we might be out, and will have to reproduce it if we are to keep up with the modern economy - but at vastly greater expense.0
