politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hold that Putin holds over Trump could be revealing that t

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

Lol

FPTish: Elon Musk is the Robert Maxwell of Silicon Valley. All self-aggrandising bluster while the money is frittered away (look at Tesla’s burn rate and ask how he gets to self-driving before running out of cash). The “pedo” tweet doesn’t surprise me at all.

El_Capitano said:

FPTish: Elon Musk is the Robert Maxwell of Silicon Valley. All self-aggrandising bluster while the money is frittered away (look at Tesla’s burn rate and ask how he gets to self-driving before running out of cash). The “pedo” tweet doesn’t surprise me at all.

Yes and no. I quite admire Musk: he has created a heck of a lot of money, is trying to change three different markets (and wants to change more), and has an overarching ambition I can agree with: to get man to Mars.

That's the difference between Musk and (say) Jobs. Jobs collected money and power, and did f'all with it: for him, money and prestige were key. He was the product he was selling. It was about him.

Musk is collecting money and power, but is spending it as well on several things that I can agree with: green energy, electric infrastructure and transport, and Mars. He will never end up penniless, but he could lose his fortune (though that is less likely now). He is gambling for an aim.

Now, that doesn't mean I agree with Musk. I think the Boring company (his tunnelling project) is rather odd, and his recent claims about bricks seems farcical given different geologies (though I'm possibly very wrong on this). He is quick to blame others rather than his own companies, even if that means throwing them to the wolves. And he does not treat staff well, even those close to him. His recent arguments with the NTSB also look horrible.

The question then becomes how much of his douchebaggery am I willing to accept because of his broader aims? It's easy for me to answer 'lots', because I'm unlikely to be the target of his douchebaggery. But there are limits.

JosiasJessop said:

El_Capitano said:

FPTish: Elon Musk is the Robert Maxwell of Silicon Valley. All self-aggrandising bluster while the money is frittered away (look at Tesla’s burn rate and ask how he gets to self-driving before running out of cash). The “pedo” tweet doesn’t surprise me at all.

Yes and no. I quite admire Musk: he has created a heck of a lot of money, is trying to change three different markets (and wants to change more), and has an overarching ambition I can agree with: to get man to Mars.

That's the difference between Musk and (say) Jobs. Jobs collected money and power, and did f'all with it: for him, money and prestige were key. He was the product he was selling. It was about him.

Musk is collecting money and power, but is spending it as well on several things that I can agree with: green energy, electric infrastructure and transport, and Mars. He will never end up penniless, but he could lose his fortune (though that is less likely now). He is gambling for an aim.

Now, that doesn't mean I agree with Musk. I think the Boring company (his tunnelling project) is rather odd, and his recent claims about bricks seems farcical given different geologies (though I'm possibly very wrong on this). He is quick to blame others rather than his own companies, even if that means throwing them to the wolves. And he does not treat staff well, even those close to him. His recent arguments with the NTSB also look horrible.

The question then becomes how much of his douchebaggery am I willing to accept because of his broader aims? It's easy for me to answer 'lots', because I'm unlikely to be the target of his douchebaggery. But there are limits.

marvellous word douchebaggery!

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

Putin's hold? There seem to be three main areas of concern -- though beware I am no y0kel and have not been following this avidly.

It won't be that Russia meddled in the election. We already know that, and a new indictment was issued just a couple of days ago which named several Russian spies, precisely none of whom will be extradited.

What we do not yet have is proof that Trump colluded in this (though there are hints) so it could be this that Putin could provide.

The second area is the suggestion that Trump was financed by Russians who were effectively using his property developments to launder hot roubles. Again, Putin will know more.

Thirdly are the lurid allegations such as paying Russian prostitutes to piss on Obama's bed. Who knows? Who cares? Either of the first two could see Trump impeached or in the dock. This is just embarrassing, even if the KGB does have it all on film.

Dura_Ace said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader.

Of course he doesn't want what's best for Russia. He's destroying it: politically, socially and economically. V.V.P. is just the gnomish henchman of the 110 people who own 35% of the Russian economy. Ironically, under his leadership Russia has become exactly the type of county that Soviet propaganda told its citizens the West was like; corrupt from top to bottom with wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.

It is more a return of Russia to its state of a century and more ago. A country with a new aristocracy, desiring of baubles and keeping the peasants in line via a potent mix of nationalism and obscurantism.

Good morning, everyone.

Interesting comments from Greening.

I wonder if there's the possibility, remote, I realise, of both blues and reds splitting, and MPs leaving the Party of Leave and the Party of Socialist Insanity and joining a Bland Party.

Up to 1916 with Liddell Hart's History of the First World War. Not sure I've read a history with so many unlucky or incompetent commanders before. And the numbers involved are just astounding.

daodao said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

And a shared hostility to China.

and the EU(SSR)

The EU was already named but it is China which poses a military threat to Russia and is eclipsing Russia as the second superpower -- militarily and economically.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Russia's real problem is its dependence on dig-and-sell commodities, mainly oil and gas, whose price has gone through the floor of late, and will probably stay there owing to renewables and US shale oil. Putin did try to address this but without apparent success.

Note incidentally that while Trump was right to call out Germany's dealings with and dependence on Russian gas, he may have had mixed motives as America is now a major gas exporter and has lots of tankers that could provide Germany's needs.

Germany is in the process of building an LNG import terminal already. It has the Norwegian gas pipeline that is running below capacity (the Russians underbid them). And it has enormous lignite reserves with mothballed power stations that it could use in a strategic emergency.

The fact is that Germany's dependence on imported energy has been declining for 20 odd years, and with the arrival of LNG terminals in the Baltic, it will have a lot of energy options.

Russia, on the other hand, is stuck with a single customer for its gas.

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

Perhaps the Putin regimes short term interest, in the longer term and broader interest Russia should become closer to the EU.

In other EU news, Selmayr and Juncker seem to be doing better than Liam Fox and Boris:

https://twitter.com/MartinSelmayr/status/1018707911294488576?s=19

China is clearly worried about a worldwide trade war, and making some moves in recognising that its own trade policies are severely flawed.
There is also perhaps the recognition that western companies are finally getting reluctant to form joint ventures in China under existing rules of control, having had so much technology effectively stolen over the last three or four decades.

And note this isn't just the EU - Tesla (for example) announced last week it is being allowed to set up a 100% Tesla controlled Chinese factory.

Morris_Dancer said:

Up to 1916 with Liddell Hart's History of the First World War. Not sure I've read a history with so many unlucky or incompetent commanders before. And the numbers involved are just astounding.

Take Liddell Hart back to the antique shop and read some more modern scholarship eg Hew Strachan or Gary Sheffield. Or don't read at all because there is a lot of good stuff on Youtube and Strachan is on dvd. We are approaching the anniversary of the end of ww1 so I expect there will be more on telly soon.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Putin's hold? There seem to be three main areas of concern -- though beware I am no y0kel and have not been following this avidly.

It won't be that Russia meddled in the election. We already know that, and a new indictment was issued just a couple of days ago which named several Russian spies, precisely none of whom will be extradited.

What we do not yet have is proof that Trump colluded in this (though there are hints) so it could be this that Putin could provide.

The second area is the suggestion that Trump was financed by Russians who were effectively using his property developments to launder hot roubles. Again, Putin will know more.

Thirdly are the lurid allegations such as paying Russian prostitutes to piss on Obama's bed. Who knows? Who cares? Either of the first two could see Trump impeached or in the dock. This is just embarrassing, even if the KGB does have it all on film.

? Obama ?

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

As there is a tendency for AV to lead to a compromise outcome, it may be the best chance of the Chequers deal winning through.

If only we could have a thread on the wonders of AV systems!

If nothing else, it would force the ridiculous Mogg to prove his assertion that Leavers prefer No Deal...

And what if four-fifths of them do (which may be a conservative estimate) and the Remainers split over this deal? Worse, supposing under AV 'no deal' is the second preference, not Remain, so even if the deal wins on first count no deal wins overall?

The country is tightly split, but a great many of my fellow Remainers are seriously underestimating how hated the EU is. A second referendum would harden attitudes, not reverse them (especially as one of the complaints about the EU is it ignores, subverts or reverses results it doesn't like).

A second referendum is the worst idea since the Battle of the Crater in 1864, and would probably have a similar result.

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

As there is a tendency for AV to lead to a compromise outcome, it may be the best chance of the Chequers deal winning through.

If only we could have a thread on the wonders of AV systems!

If nothing else, it would force the ridiculous Mogg to prove his assertion that Leavers prefer No Deal...

And what if four-fifths of them do (which may be a conservative estimate) and the Remainers split over this deal? Worse, supposing under AV 'no deal' is the second preference, not Remain, so even if the deal wins on first count no deal wins overall?

The country is tightly split, but a great many of my fellow Remainers are seriously underestimating how hated the EU is. A second referendum would harden attitudes, not reverse them (especially as one of the complaints about the EU is it ignores, subverts or reverses results it doesn't like).

A second referendum is the worst idea since the Battle of the Crater in 1864, and would probably have a similar result.

No, because the second vote will have to include a specific proposition that would be progressed in the event that it is supported in the vote. Which will both concentrate minds and enable a somewhat more informed debate. And its supporters won't be able to get away with vague promises of a sunny problem-free future.

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader. ....

‘Undoubtedly a patriot’ ?
Only insofar as Russia’s interest and his converge.

The richest kleptocrat in a society of kleptocrats is arguably not much of a patriot.

I think that's irrelevant. Russia has a long history of not caring about the peasants, and Putin is just continuing that history. The 'best for' his country will not be the good of the people, but how it looks upon the world stage: especially that it would be seen as a superpower. Hence the winter Olympics and world cup, and expensive new weapons systems whilst the army conscripts get f'all pay.

and undermining NATO, destabilising the EU, and shifting America away from its historic role in Europe/the West are all in what Russia would see as its strategic interest.

Perhaps the Putin regimes short term interest, in the longer term and broader interest Russia should become closer to the EU.

In other EU news, Selmayr and Juncker seem to be doing better than Liam Fox and Boris:

https://twitter.com/MartinSelmayr/status/1018707911294488576?s=19

German industry not impressed. Oddly they are demanding the same things as Trump, fair and reciprocal access, no non trade barriers and respect for IP.


https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article179385350/Wirtschaft-warnt-EU-vor-zu-viel-Naehe-zu-China.html

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

They don't really want a deal at all, and want to sink any that is on offer and go to WTO. Which is as good as being explained by one of them on R4 right now.

And why is ex-Cabinet Minster and Remainer Justine Greening calling for a second referendum any more worthy of note than if it had been said by ex-Cabinet Minister and Remainer Amber Rudd?

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

As there is a tendency for AV to lead to a compromise outcome, it may be the best chance of the Chequers deal winning through.

If only we could have a thread on the wonders of AV systems!

If nothing else, it would force the ridiculous Mogg to prove his assertion that Leavers prefer No Deal...

And what if four-fifths of them do (which may be a conservative estimate) and the Remainers split over this deal? Worse, supposing under AV 'no deal' is the second preference, not Remain, so even if the deal wins on first count no deal wins overall?

The country is tightly split, but a great many of my fellow Remainers are seriously underestimating how hated the EU is. A second referendum would harden attitudes, not reverse them (especially as one of the complaints about the EU is it ignores, subverts or reverses results it doesn't like).

A second referendum is the worst idea since the Battle of the Crater in 1864, and would probably have a similar result.

But that is exactly the point. Both Parliament and the country are split, not just over Brexit, but over how Brexit is to be implemented - either through a less than optimal deal with the EU, or a no deal exit which would gratify the headbangers and quite likely lead to severe distress elsewhere.
If Parliament truly cannot resolve the issue then it might be the only option.

None of this is a good idea, but we are where we are.

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.

Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.

Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.

I don't really disagree with that - and despite having voted remain have been saying similar thing for some time.
But there is now no potential administration which will do that - even if sufficient time remained.

Dura_Ace said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader.

Of course he doesn't want what's best for Russia. He's destroying it: politically, socially and economically. V.V.P. is just the gnomish henchman of the 110 people who own 35% of the Russian economy. Ironically, under his leadership Russia has become exactly the type of county that Soviet propaganda told its citizens the West was like; corrupt from top to bottom with wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.

Khordokovsky and other oligarchs Putin has jailed may disagree

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

JosiasJessop said:

philiph said:

Putin wins.
He is richer, more powerful in his home territory, more alpha male

Is there anything else these two care about?

I dislike Putin intensely (or, more accurately, I dislike his methods), but he is undoubtedly a patriot who genuinely cares for, and wants the best for, his country. It's just that he sees the best for his country is for him to be leader.

Of course he doesn't want what's best for Russia. He's destroying it: politically, socially and economically. V.V.P. is just the gnomish henchman of the 110 people who own 35% of the Russian economy. Ironically, under his leadership Russia has become exactly the type of county that Soviet propaganda told its citizens the West was like; corrupt from top to bottom with wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.

Khordokovsky and other oligarchs Putin has jailed may disagree

On what grounds ?

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

It says in the article

‘Ms Greening, who supported Remain in the EU referendum, said there were other senior Conservatives who agreed with her stance, adding that people who supported Leave in the referendum would also feel the government's approach is "not what they voted for".’

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

I see Trump has said he will run for re election in a GMB interview with Piers Morgan

Interesting. I was expecting him to wait to see how the midterms went in PA, MI and OH before confirming this. Of course, a subsequent change of mind due to “the fake news media” is entirely possible.

I doubt it, even if the GOP lose heavily as is likely at least in the House he will just blame it on what he sees as the useless leadership of Ryan and McConnell. Trump's own approval rating is significantly higher than that of the Congressional GOP

MarqueeMark said:

And why is ex-Cabinet Minster and Remainer Justine Greening calling for a second referendum any more worthy of note than if it had been said by ex-Cabinet Minister and Remainer Amber Rudd?

Equally noteworthy, Mr Mark. Has Mrs Rudd said that?

Government accepts Brexiteer amendments to Customs Bill


https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1018760270527778816

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

It says in the article

‘Ms Greening, who supported Remain in the EU referendum, said there were other senior Conservatives who agreed with her stance, adding that people who supported Leave in the referendum would also feel the government's approach is "not what they voted for".’

This has been the Remainer strategy all along. Repeatedly force May into a Brexit in Name Only, and then say Leavers didn't get what they wanted as an excuse to stay in the EU. Despicable.

Sadly some of the less intelligent Leavers are foolish enough to go along with it, and not smart enough to realise they have 95% of what they wanted.

Greening should be expelled from the Tory Party for such a knifing of the PM in contravention of the manifesto, however.

currystar said:

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.

Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.

Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.

So you really think if May just walked away that the concessions would start flowing from the EU?

In effect we have stopped negotiating since December, but it wasn't the EU27 that caved in.

NickPalmer said:

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

Seems unlikely, given the interview they just ran with her stressing that she is a remainer.
She makes the quite strong point that a House of Commons arranged on party lines is ill equipped to deal with an issue that splits both main parties, and which is quite unlikely to vote for the May 'compromise'.= which is unacceptable to both sides.

I don't see any massive objection in principle to a second referendum - particularly as is suggested under AV rules, offering two flavours of leave. The problem is the practicality of holding one - though practicality has hardly been foremost throughout our Brexit struggles.

Headline story on R4 explicitly says she is a remainer.

The interesting thing about this is not so much who said it as that it offers an option that gives a chance BOTH to Remain and to hard Brexit, as an alternative to the "muddle through to the least bad fudge" approach which the Government is taking. As such, I can see it having attractions to Labour and thence to a majority in the Commons. I suspect that people might vote for the May plan as the middle option anyway, but possibly not - in an AV approach, the plan with fewest first-place choices loses.

It's a high risk gamble for both Leavers and Remainers who are opposed to the proposals. The former may get Remain, or the latter No Deal.

Elliot said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

It says in the article

‘Ms Greening, who supported Remain in the EU referendum, said there were other senior Conservatives who agreed with her stance, adding that people who supported Leave in the referendum would also feel the government's approach is "not what they voted for".’

This has been the Remainer strategy all along. Repeatedly force May into a Brexit in Name Only, and then say Leavers didn't get what they wanted as an excuse to stay in the EU. Despicable.

Sadly some of the less intelligent Leavers are foolish enough to go along with it, and not smart enough to realise they have 95% of what they wanted.

Greening should be expelled from the Tory Party for such a knifing of the PM in contravention of the manifesto, however.

You mean like John Major expelled the likes of IDS for contravening the 1992 manifesto?

Mr. Eagles, does sound like it should be getting rather more attention.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, does sound like it should be getting rather more attention.

When it happens in Greece, it’s Russian interference. When it happens in Britain, it’s the “will of the people”.

HYUFD said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

To be fair it says Greening backed Remain in the 8th paragraph

8th para? In Lalaleaverland that's just the same as not mentioning it.

Except for hedging the Mbappe best player bet, I managed to get every single World Cup bet wrong. That's quite the statistical achievement.

HYUFD said:

I see Trump has said he will run for re election in a GMB interview with Piers Morgan

Piers Morgan owes Trump a lot. His career was sagging until he discovered that love for Trump gave him a USP few outside the Fox network could claim

Mr. B2, I'm proficient in losing bets across many sports

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1018761358106681344?s=20

Morning PB,

Shall we sue the pants of Russia AND the EU?

https://twitter.com/pdanahar/status/1018767305155796993?s=21

currystar said:

MarqueeMark said:

currystar said:

Can anyone explain to me what is the point of the ERG, Jacob Rees Mogg and his pals arguing that Mays plan has given too much ground to the EU and that she should demaind more concessions from them. The reality is it is extremely unlikely that the EU will even accept Mays plan without radical changes to it, so the chances that they will accept a deal that Rees Mogg wants is just plain fantasy. I do not understand why they are not questionned more on this point.

The reality is that until you put the EUs feet to the fire, you will have no idea what concessions you can achieve from Brussels.

Your mindset is that of those civil servants who have been advising May - and Cameron before her. That nothing can be achieved. That nothing has been achieved is testament to that view having won out. Because the EU has never believed that the UK would go out with no £40 billion cheque on WTO terms, in the same way that the EU never believed Cameron would support Leave.

Both represent a fundamental failure to negotiate.

So you really think if May just walked away that the concessions would start flowing from the EU?

Let's find out, eh?

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1018761358106681344?s=20

As I said the other day, if the ERG can't get 48 letters then I have huge doubts they'll be able to get JRM or Boris in to the final two.

CarlottaVance said:

New poll?

https://twitter.com/benglaze/status/1018766588055605248?s=21

Before rushing to judgement, it might be wise too see how the questions are phrased?

DavidL said:

Why is Putin having Trump attend a meeting in this way when it risks so undermining him? Is it just because he can? It seems an extravagant demonstration of power.

For Trump it is hard to see any upsides on this. At a time when his team are facing indictments back in the US it borders on foolhardy. I am pretty sure he would not be doing it if he felt he had a choice.

There is another option.

Trump is such an overwhelming egotist that he allows his personal feelings override logical decision making.
Trump views Putin as being an ally not a 'foe' because he is on his side.

Roger said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Roger said:

One of the most terrifying cinema villains of recent years was Anton Chigurth played by Xavier Bardem in the Conen Brothers 'No Country for Old Men'.

John Bolton leaves him standing.

John 'the Bolt' Bolton.

https://youtu.be/8xyvOCNCXdU

I'll raise you nuking North Korea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFnpkrFjGiM

Chigurh/Bardem looks like Death, somehow it's worse that Bolton looks like some old codger punting Werther's Originals.

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Amazed this mentions nowhere that Greening is a remainer. In fact, it quotes her saying what leavers think, and says irrelevantly that where she was born is 68% leave. It's almost like the Beeb want to make it look like she's a leaver who wants a second referendum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154

To be fair it says Greening backed Remain in the 8th paragraph

8th para? In Lalaleaverland that's just the same as not mentioning it.

LALALEAVERLAND! I like it!

SquareRoot said:

CarlottaVance said:

New poll?

https://twitter.com/benglaze/status/1018766588055605248?s=21

Before rushing to judgement, it might be wise too see how the questions are phrased?

Agree - but this poll is from a newspaper, not a Leave or Remain group, which tend to be far more selective in their poll questions and highlighting of data. My favourite example of which was “As many as one in four agree with (whatever that organisation was pushing)”