Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mitch McConnell’s failure to back Trump on Syria should be wor
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mitch McConnell’s failure to back Trump on Syria should be worrying for the White House
The total focus on Brexit over the past few days has taken the attention away from United States politics where the ongoing saga in relation to Donald Trump is becoming even more perilous for the 73 year old.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Would it be cynical to suggest that maybe some Russian business associates were not unhappy with American retreat from Syria.
The real problem is that it would require Trump both to run and to win in 2020.
We should stand by the Kurds. We should carpet bomb ISIS.
I can't imagine there are many votes out there for Trump from principled non-interventionists who are accepting of seeing the Kurds slaughtered, while letting captured ISIS fighters run amok. Apart from our friend Mr HYFUD perhaps but I get the impression he's not registered to vote in the US.
- passing the Johnson Brexit deal by 31 October
- a second referendum
- No Deal
- making Corbyn PM
Things it seems there is a majority for:
- the principle of Boris's Brexit deal
- a customs union amendment to the Pol. Declaration.
So govt loses the timetabling motion today/tomorrow. The bill gets bogged down so a flextension is granted. A second ref amendment fails. A customs union amendment passes.
Then what? At third reading Labour vote to Brexit and Tory vote to Remain? My head hurts.
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201910210014.html
Japan battled on, despite a couple of players carrying injuries, including props Jiwoon Koo, Keita Inagaki and flyhalf Yu Tamura.
“The last five minutes of the test match epitomized this team. We were down by 20-odd... but we showed a never-die attitude and an ability to keep on getting up,” said Joseph, who revealed the influential Tamura had been playing with broken ribs for much of the match....
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.163014027
A not inconsiderable chance Boris seeks to pull the legislation as it gets transformed, and tries to squat motionless in No.10 until he gets given his election.
All rather depends on how helpful the EU are in a position where theres no deal but also no indication what will pass. We have seen February floated, and frankly its almost bizarre that they keep kicking the can without us even providing a reason. I know they dont want to be responsible for an accidental no deal, but the chances of that are much lower now we know the ERG and co have a deal they are willing to back, can they not see an extension should wait for a clear indication?
Oh, and they want to vote down the programme motion, not because they disagree with it, but because they don’t want the government to have the ‘win’ of leaving the EU on 31st October?
And yes, Labour wants to prevent the current deal being rushed through, or indeed passed at all. We don't agree with it. There is no moral or political reason why the Opposition should automatically agree with whatever the PM comes up with.
Ball-park would do, Jeremy.
Married to Jared Kushnar.
"As a result of his father's conviction for fraud and incarceration, [Jared] took over management of his father's real estate company Kushner Companies, which launched his business career."
What could possibly go wrong?
Denies the Democrats the “win” of an impeachment.
Will Sarah Champion, Caroline Flint and Stephen Kinnock vote down all the amendments?
They must know that if they don’t, and they pass, that the ERG will vote against it on 3rd reading.
That is to say, the UK would have to allow tariff and quota free imports if that is what the EU decided, but would not necessarily have the right to export tariff and quota free to the same country? Much less to have the UK's prized services industries given any prominence at all in future trade talks?
Can't you see that this would leave the UK as the bargaining chip in all future EU trade negotiations? What's even more absurd given this is Labour policy, is that this is effectively what May negotiated (a Backstop with a view to permanent customs union). And yet Labour voted it down, even though it also had Level Playing Field conditions in the legally binding section of the treaty (now shifted to the non-binding Pol. Declaration of course).
Labour's customs union policy is pig-headed and designed for a single purpose - maximum short term political chaos over an issue that few people on the street will understand the implications of. While I have some sympathy that tribalism puts pressure on you to toe the line, it's such a disingenuous policy that it does you no credit at all for backing it.
Mr. Brooke, perhaps. Some argue more involvement earlier would've been better.
Turns out the Middle East can be a quagmire.
That said, if the deal was modified to include a CU and a referendum between that (effectively soft Brexit) and Remain, I doubt if we'd oppose it. Maybe that's where we'll collectively end up.
The combination of obvious ongoing crimes and - ahem - unconventional - foreign policy is a little bit dangerous for Trump, but the obvious solution is to fix it at the foreign policy end.
Aside from a long standing commitment to the Saudis, the US has little to gain in the region. It is simply protecting China;s oil flows and for that matter the EUs. Those dependent on the oil may need to make thie own arrangements in future.
I don't understand the thing about bringing the MV back.
They brought it, it got amended to "we'll let you know when we see the WAB", and the result apparently passed without a vote.
If they bring it back, are they bringing it back as amended so they can have a symbolic vote on it? Or is the idea that the previous amended motion is just left sitting there, and they have a go at repeating the exercise from the beginning and seeing if that gets amended as well?
BPE: No Deal
CON: The Deal
LIB/SNP: Revoke
LAB: People's Confirmatory Second Referendum on Remain vs Labour's Non-Tory Pro Jobs Brexit including a Customs Union, in which Labour would campaign for Remain except maybe some MPs in Leave seats if Momentum hasn't thrown bricks through their windows, as well as the Dear Leader who would not formally express a public opinion because that would go against his constitutional role but if asked outside his allotment by a well wisher would tell them that the "country should think carefully about the future".
The legislation for the WA itself is a quite different matter. It will, or course, require more than a single vote, and is likely to face a number of amendments as discussed below.
I’d be mildly surprised.
Though, to be fair, the Supreme Court has never addressed the matter.
I suspect were this to occur the paperwork would get through Parliament but it would be changed somewhat to include things Boris doesn't want like workers rights and a customs union.
Post his time the Brexit debate should be more fairly conducted and of course he will not go to the HOL as long as the government is in office
Also Justin Greening refutes supporting a customs union on Sky just now so that must bring in play a lot of independents and the lib dems who will also reject it
The point of the Letwin amendment (for Letwin at least) was to ensure that the deal be fully legislated before we left, to avoid the possibility of No Deal.
The MV was intended to satisfy the Benn amendment so that an extension request did not have to be sent, and therefore leave open the prospect of No Deal in order to provide a means of pressuring the opposition.
Clearly it has now failed in that, so I’m not really sure what the point of bringing it back is.
But the general view is that it covers anyone who holds US citizenship from birth, regardless of where they are born.
Otherwise there is an arguable if admittedly rather ridiculous case that Al Gore was ineligible to be VP.
And he leaves on the 31st October no doubt taking the Chiltern Hundreds
he helped create them. going will clear the air.
Any bets it might change ?
Though there’s also a dispute over whether it falls within their jurisdiction... which is probably why no one has yet tried.
If a majority of the Commons wants rid of him, he’ll have to go... but is not entirely clear that they will while the current WA is being debated.
Given most of the fees paid by Switzerland, Norway, etc., are related to membership of specific programs, my guess is not.
Resistance is clearly futile.
Indeed you cannot assume all of labour will support it even on a 3 line whip
Remember the government had 306 votes on Saturday v 322 so only 8 to change sides and both Letwin and Rudd committed to the deal yesterday.
Well at least Lady Nugee is an honest opponent of democracy, admitting she wants to “bind the hands” of the next parliament.
More importantly she refutes adding a custom union to the deal but does want a referendum
But then - we would Brexit.
Yep Lady Nugee, that's where we are. It's where we have been since the Remainers had a toddler tantrum in aisle three when the voters told them in the referendum that no, you can't have chocolate for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
A No Deal Brexit would have had a huge majority had hardline Remainers not been implacably opposed to it too.
BoZo has assured the headbangers that even if they vote for this deal, we can still crash out next year.
As a Remainer even I can’t see the logic of leaving the EU and then having your trade policy dictated by the EU with zip say in anything .
If you’re going to stay in one thing it should be the single market which allows you to set your own trade policy . Sadly the Tories obsession with ending FOM means that’s not possible .
Its fine as it is.
Indeed if you ask the public aswell what their preferred outcome is a no deal is very much a minority opinion .
The hard decision has to be made once we have negotiated the deal. That was always just reality slapping you upside the head.
A week is a long time in politics.