Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who will win the first Presidential debate?

123578

Comments

  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483

    1947?
    Churchill was a coalition PM so he couldn't just do what Tories wanted, more likely they said 'There's a war on at the moment, lets deal with that issue first and we'll talk about this when the war's over'
    By the time it was properly over, Atlee had become PM and had a big majority.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    Exactly! Things like putting a border down the Irish Sea have been explicitly ruled out by Boris.

    Err..... :open_mouth:
    As a result NI still backs the Union, WTO terms Brexit now does not affect NI as much as it effects Scotland

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nireland-poll/poll-shows-northern-ireland-majority-against-united-ireland-idUSKBN20C0WI
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,846
    edited September 2020

    The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won

    Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
    I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221

    The thing is that I believe there is a very good case to be made for the union and won

    Anything that antagonises this case needs to be considered very carefully and a blunt 'not in this Parliament' is antagonistic unless of course the polls move towards the union.
    A good point. But it won't be done as a blunt, antagonistic "not in this parliament" - unless Boris and Cummings go actually mad (no sign of that yet, but who knows.

    They will flim flam. There will be "negotiations" and Commissions into Federalism and Star Chambers on Devomax, all of it designed to delay everything until the next GE, when the Tories will either be rid of the responsibility, or they can string it out until Holyrood 2025 (where they will hope the SNP will finally lose).

    Don't get me wrong. The Union is in grave danger. There will, inevitably, be an almighty constitutional brouhaha after the next Holyrood elex (unless the SNP implode). But it won't come to a head - a vote - until the latter half of the 2020s.
  • DavidL said:

    The scale of economic incompetence on the part of the SNP has made Westminster look good. But the 30 minute a day party politicals are still boosting Nicola. It’s deeply frustrating but there are quite a few months to May.
    Not just the 30 minute a day PPBs but also two other factors.
    1. PHE persisting for months in reporting dodgy stats while Scotland were only reporting those who died within 28 days, making Scotland's figures look much better than England's when there was no real significant difference.
    2. The media loving to talk up Scotland as a stick to bash the UK Government with.
  • Seems you are judging everyone else by your incredible low morale standards.
    Ok Marcus.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    Your two paragraphs don't make sense.

    If customs posts at Scottish borders and tariffs were the result of voting Yes then the No campaign could use that as an argument to vote no. Which would mean a more than 0.1% chance of No winning again.
    Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
  • HYUFD said:

    As a result NI still backs the Union, WTO terms Brexit now does not affect NI as much as it effects Scotland

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nireland-poll/poll-shows-northern-ireland-majority-against-united-ireland-idUSKBN20C0WI
    And yet in December 2019, only 8 Unionist MPs (out of 18) were elected, the lowest ratio since Partition.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,235
    Pulpstar said:

    Rewatching some 2016 coverage. Clinton at the hotel with the glass ceiling..

    Clinton 60% not honest or trustworthy !
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620

    I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
    I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.

    And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Dems winning party beneath 1.9 for the first time in a long while.

    The great unwind underway?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620

    And yet in December 2019, only 8 Unionist MPs (out of 18) were elected, the lowest ratio since Partition.
    Exactly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    And yet in December 2019, only 8 Unionist MPs (out of 18) were elected, the lowest ratio since Partition.
    So what, the Unionist parties of the DUP and UUP still won more votes than the Nationalist parties of SF and the SDLP so no grounds for a referendum.

    Indeed SF and the SDLP got fewer votes combined in NI at GE 2019 than the SNP did in Scotland on its own
  • HYUFD said:

    Except as the Brexit vote showed economic damage is not enough to stop an independence vote if voters feel they are being ignored
    And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻‍♂️

    If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻‍♂️
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221
    Carnyx said:

    I disagree competely. The Brexiters are producting such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.

    And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
    This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)

    Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.

    This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
  • https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1302697577171820544

    No Deal it is.

    Why would Johnson want to re-write the NI protocol when it was fine, or perhaps the Tories lied again and didn't know what they had signed
  • And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻‍♂️

    If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻‍♂️
    Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116
    edited September 2020
    DeClare said:

    Churchill was a coalition PM so he couldn't just do what Tories wanted, more likely they said 'There's a war on at the moment, lets deal with that issue first and we'll talk about this when the war's over'
    By the time it was properly over, Atlee had become PM and had a big majority.
    In Churchill's own words:

    'I would have thought that the Conservative Party would have wanted to defend the cause of British rule in India. It should be using its influence – which is great – to inform and persuade people... One would have thought that if there were one cause in the world which the Conservative party would have hastened to defend, it would be the cause of the British Empire in India... am against this surrender to Gandhi. I am against these conversations and agreements between Lord Irwin and Mr. Ghandi. Gandhi stands for the expulsion of Britain from India. Gandhi stands for the permanent exclusion of British trade from India. Gandhi stands for the substitution of Brahmin domination for British rule in India. You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi. ...'

    http://www.churchillarchiveforschools.com/themes/the-themes/key-developments-in-british-and-empire-history/was-britain-divided-about-indian-independence-1930-47/the-sources/source-2

    http://www.churchillarchive.com/churchill-archive/explore/page?id=CHAR 9/98#image=59
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,235
    Alistair said:

    Dems winning party beneath 1.9 for the first time in a long while.

    The great unwind underway?

    Watching NBC coverage of 2016 (Oh the things we do for fun on a sundday night) - their analyst correctly identifies Ohio and Iowa as crucial for Trump but not the Dems. That'll be true this cycle too.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620
    HYUFD said:

    So what, the Unionist parties of the DUP and UUP still won more votes than the Nationalist parties of SF and the SDLP so no grounds for a referendum.

    Indeed SF and the SDLP got fewer votes combined in NI at GE 2019 than the SNP did in Scotland on its own
    I have here a brain-damaged chimpanzee which can spot the flaw in your argument. Which is that your party and your NI allies swear by FPTP. As is the law of your glorious United Kingdom. And therefore you too.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,846
    edited September 2020
    Carnyx said:

    I disagree completely. The Brexiters are producing such a hideous mess that it is unfair to expect anyone to wait 5 years - or five weeks - before sorting it out.

    And it is none of the business of the English if the Scots wish to depart the UK (and vice versa).
    I don't think that argument holds water. What precise 'messes' do you speak of that will be 'sorted out' by Scotland starting the process of separating itself from RUK and aiming to rejoin the EU in the space of months rather than after 5 years? A mess is practical, so it should be fairly easy to be specific. I am open to being convinced, but I think the argument for going now is a nakedly opportunistic political one, not an economical or social one. And it is irresponsible.

    Edit - as for it not being the business of the English - it is certainly not for England to stop Scotland leaving, but the impact of a decision to leave would be faced by all the constituent nations, so I don't see how a relatively short delay to allow the dust from a big change to settle before another one takes place is a big ask.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,195
    rcs1000 said:

    Our number of excess deaths were - however - horrendous. For a three moth period, about 75% more people were dying than normal. That's a lot of dead people.
    True. But that is because we were stunningly incompetent at protecting our most vulnerable. Many of those would have died in a relatively short period anyway, which is presumably why we had an extended period of less than average deaths. Now we are paying the price of a barely functioning NHS but overall are our Covid deaths really much higher than most? I have my doubts.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620
    LadyG said:

    This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)

    Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.

    This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
    So? We are suffering a Brexit already.

    And ultimately your argument is no more valid than that for India (sensu lato) in the mid-1940s.
  • Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
    We have elections every 5 years for a reason. That is "some significant time" already.

    If the Scots don't want a second referendum they shouldn't vote SNP.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,431
    HYUFD said:

    So what, the Unionist parties of the DUP and UUP still won more votes than the Nationalist parties of SF and the SDLP so no grounds for a referendum.

    Indeed SF and the SDLP got fewer votes combined in NI at GE 2019 than the SNP did in Scotland on its own
    So, just to get this right:

    - when it's a question of who the Americans want to be next President, it's not the number of votes they get, but the number of seats in the electoral college

    and

    - when it's a question of whether Northern Ireland wants to remain in the Union, it's not the number of seats that the Unionist parties get, but the number of votes.

    Have I got that right?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620

    Well they had a referendum 6 years ago, it's not unreasonable to leave some significant time between that and the next one. It was to settle the matter for a generation according to the SNP.
    Not the SNP. Do check your sources.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Pulpstar said:

    Watching NBC coverage of 2016 (Oh the things we do for fun on a sundday night) - their analyst correctly identifies Ohio and Iowa as crucial for Trump but not the Dems. That'll be true this cycle too.
    The amount of effort the Hillary campaign put into winning Ohio at the expense of Wisconsin and Michigan is mind boggling.
  • https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1302700717115953152

    Good luck signing trade deals when we can't even stick to agreements we sign
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    And your reaction to knowing that is that if the Scots give a mandate to hold a referendum then we should ignore them? 🤦🏻‍♂️

    If the Scots vote for a referendum and get their referendum they're not being ignored. You're the one wanting to ignore what they vote for. 🤦🏻‍♂️
    It would be the WTO terms Brexit they were voting against, that would be the main change from 2014 when they voted no to independence and did not feel ignored.

    If Boris wants WTO terms then he must refuse Sturgeon at all costs
  • Anecdote time:

    Yesterday I drove through the plague city also known as Bradford. Imagine my shock on seeing a couple of new 5G masts at the side of the road!

    Oh, sorry - that isn't the anecdote. Passed a takeaway. 4 customers inside. No masks. In Bradford.
  • https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1302697577171820544

    No Deal it is.

    Why would Johnson want to re-write the NI protocol when it was fine, or perhaps the Tories lied again and didn't know what they had signed

    I wonder what truth there is to these "rumours".

    Johnson's supporters by and large don't care if its No Deal. Most of us would like a deal if a good one is available, but we're not afraid of No Deal like Johnson's opponents are terrified by it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116
    LadyG said:

    This is shite. Of course it the business of the English if the Scots depart. For a start you want to use the £ and the Bank of England for quite a while. And your departure will ensure a deep, deep recession in England (and probably a Depression in Scotland)

    Likewise it is the business of the Scots if the English decide to leave the UK. This would have massive ramifications for Scotland, and you deserve to be consulted.

    This is why referenda are not devolved matters, but reserved to Westminster, the parliament of the entire UK.
    Exactly and Scottish independence on WTO terms Brexit means tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and border posts from Gretna to Berwick having a huge effect on England as well as Scotland
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,431
    DavidL said:

    True. But that is because we were stunningly incompetent at protecting our most vulnerable. Many of those would have died in a relatively short period anyway, which is presumably why we had an extended period of less than average deaths. Now we are paying the price of a barely functioning NHS but overall are our Covid deaths really much higher than most? I have my doubts.
    Well, let's look at excess deaths for the year. I suspect it'll still look fairly ugly.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620

    I don't think that argument holds water. What precise 'messes' do you speak of that will be 'sorted out' by Scotland starting the process of separating itself from RUK and aiming to rejoin the EU in the space of months rather than after 5 years? A mess is practical, so it should be fairly easy to be specific. I am open to being convinced, but I think the argument for going now is a nakedly opportunistic political one, not an economical or social one. And it is irresponsible.

    On the contrary, it is sensivle to rejoin Europe (whether as EEA or EU) as soon as\ possible, before years of UK policy have destroyed any serious linkage and trade with, say, San Marino.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    25% wanting a new referendum is a very significant amount and if that 25% wins the election then so be it. That is called democracy.

    The other 75% couldn't have cared to stop it, because if they did they would vote for a party that wants to stop it.

    Not caring cuts both ways. You can't add people who don't vote to the opposition, they're saying they don't care either way. So the winners are the ones that matter.

    If the SNP wins they have the mandate - no ifs, no buts, that is democracy in action.
    If the SNP loses then the SNP have no mandate. Again democracy.
    But many will attach little importance to the opinion of the Holyrood Assembly on such an issue and,therefore, not be inclined to participate in its elections. Moreover quite a few No voters are likely to vote SNP at Holyrood elections for a wide range of reasons - just as other supporters are likely to opt for other parties at Westminster elections.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116
    Carnyx said:

    I have here a brain-damaged chimpanzee which can spot the flaw in your argument. Which is that your party and your NI allies swear by FPTP. As is the law of your glorious United Kingdom. And therefore you too.
    And who are the largest party in NI? The DUP, including the Alliance (most of whose voters are soft Unionists) the SDLP and SF combined do not even have a majority of NI MPs anyway
  • This Government is full of cronies
  • HYUFD said:

    It would be the WTO terms Brexit they were voting against, that would be the main change from 2014 when they voted no to independence and did not feel ignored.

    If Boris wants WTO terms then he must refuse Sturgeon at all costs
    Your thoughts do not follow each other.

    If he wants WTO terms Brexit then he must do that. That is decided this year - the Scottish election isn't until next year and a Scottish Referendum likely couldn't be before next autumn but would probably be 2022.

    If the Scots decide they don't want to stay in the UK with WTO terms then so be it that is their choice and we should respect their decision. If they decide they do then the SNP would need to accept that. Either way, we need to resolve the matter if that's what the Scots vote for.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620
    justin124 said:

    But many will attach little importance to the opinion of the Holyrood Assembly on such an issue and,therefore, not be inclined to participate in its elections. Moreover quite a few No voters are likely to vote SNP at Holyrood elections for a wide range of reasons - just as other supporters are likely to opt for other parties at Westminster elections.
    But it works the other way round too. Quite a few Labour voters are pro indy.
  • Carnyx said:

    Not the SNP. Do check your sources.
    Oh right, so what was this about then?

    "Alex Salmond today pledged there would not be a second Scottish independence referendum for another generation even if he loses Thursday’s contest by a single vote.

    The First Minister indicated there would not be another referendum for at least another 18 years, dismissing concerns the separatists would pursue a 'never-endum” strategy by calling for another vote as soon as possible.' "
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    We have elections every 5 years for a reason. That is "some significant time" already.

    If the Scots don't want a second referendum they shouldn't vote SNP.
    Most of them don't, 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at GE 19 and 54% of Scots did not vote SNP in 2016 either
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,568
    Djokovic defaults.
  • HYUFD said:

    Exactly and Scottish independence on WTO terms Brexit means tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and border posts from Gretna to Berwick having a huge effect on England as well as Scotland
    To be honest with COVID and no EU deal it might be the best time to get all this stuff over with in one go.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620

    Oh right, so what was this about then?

    "Alex Salmond today pledged there would not be a second Scottish independence referendum for another generation even if he loses Thursday’s contest by a single vote.

    The First Minister indicated there would not be another referendum for at least another 18 years, dismissing concerns the separatists would pursue a 'never-endum” strategy by calling for another vote as soon as possible.' "
    Siource please. Obiter dicta.

    And he's not FM any more,.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,302

    I think there's a very good argument, for the welfare of every UK citizen, for letting the dust settle on Brexit - I'd say not less than 5 years subsequently to actually leaving, before opening the possibility of firing the starting pistol on another huge constitutional and economical upheaval. I find it deeply irresponsible to even suggest it should happen before then.
    How laughable to see the sheer hypocrisy of Brexiteers who were so inflamed by the importance of the UK 'winning independence' from the EU (which it always was anyway) while tying themselves in knots trying to invent reasons why Scotland should not be allowed to become independent.

    I will be sad to see the UK be broken up but the actions of Brexiteers have made it inevitable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116
    rcs1000 said:

    So, just to get this right:

    - when it's a question of who the Americans want to be next President, it's not the number of votes they get, but the number of seats in the electoral college

    and

    - when it's a question of whether Northern Ireland wants to remain in the Union, it's not the number of seats that the Unionist parties get, but the number of votes.

    Have I got that right?
    Yes that is the US system, the winner of the EC becomes President..

    The NI system as you well know is the leader of the largest party is First Minister, that is the DUP and Arlene Foster
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221
    Carnyx said:

    So? We are suffering a Brexit already.

    And ultimately your argument is no more valid than that for India (sensu lato) in the mid-1940s.
    Rubbish. There was no UK parliament incorporating democratically elected MPs from India.

    India was a colony, pure and simple. Independence was India's right to claim. Scotland is not a fricking colony, despite the hysterical claims of madder Nats.

    Scotland is legally a part of the UK, has full democratic rights within the UK, and Scotland has an agreed Devolution Settlement with the UK, that referendums on independence must be agreed by the whole UK parliament at Westminster (as is logically obvious: otherwise Sturgeon could call a vote every Tuesday, until she wins).

    Let Westminster - including its Scots MPs - vote on whether indyref2 should be allowed. I'm happy to wager £100 at evens that Parliament at Westminster will not allow a Scots vote until the next UK GE in 2024 or so.
  • Scott_xP said:
    Breaking international law and agreements?

    Who would have thought it from Alex Boris Johnson, whose word is, of course, his bond.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,814
    Track n trace to be properly tested in coming days then, thanks to all those international travellers. If we close September with only a few thousand cases a day despite all the loosenings then I think we’ll be in pretty good shape.

    AstraZeneca investor call tomorrow is a pre arranged call as part of JP Morgan series of ceo calls and is probably unlikely to shed much new light on vaccine progress.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116
    edited September 2020

    To be honest with COVID and no EU deal it might be the best time to get all this stuff over with in one go.
    The impact of the Covid lockdown plus WTO terms Brexit and tariffs on exports to and from the UK and EU plus Scottish independence and tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and England will lead to the biggest economic recession in the British Isles since the 1930s Depression, if not worse.

  • Scott_xP said:
    Sounds entirely reasonable to me. The agreement will still be there but UK courts will need to abide by UK law? So they absolutely should, that is part of being a sovereign country.

    If the EU thinks we're in breach of the treaty then that is for them to deal with, not UK courts.
  • Can we all stop pretending that we wont be No Dealing at end of the year now?

    Exactly as Cummings and his sidekick Johnson wanted all along.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221

    Breaking international law and agreements?

    Who would have thought it from Alex Boris Johnson, whose word is, of course, his bond.
    Slow down. This is the FT. The Masada of Remainerism.
  • No Deal was not on offer during the referendum, Johnson lied as he lies about everything.
  • HYUFD said:

    Most of them don't, 55% of Scots did not vote SNP at GE 19 and 54% of Scots did not vote SNP in 2016 either
    You can't add opposition parties up together. If the Scots want a Scottish Labour or Scottish Tory government they can vote for that. If the Scots want an SNP minority government with unionists holding a majority to veto any potential referendum they can vote for that too.

    Democracy really shouldn't be a hard concept for you to grasp.
  • Sounds entirely reasonable to me. The agreement will still be there but UK courts will need to abide by UK law? So they absolutely should, that is part of being a sovereign country.

    If the EU thinks we're in breach of the treaty then that is for them to deal with, not UK courts.
    Lol, of course you do
  • Sounds entirely reasonable to me. The agreement will still be there but UK courts will need to abide by UK law? So they absolutely should, that is part of being a sovereign country.

    If the EU thinks we're in breach of the treaty then that is for them to deal with, not UK courts.
    We will have to await details, but if UK f*cks up the NI issue then a hard border will end up within the island of Ireland and then all hell could break lose.
  • I wonder how Japan feels about having their trade deal undermined by UK law
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,134
    Sell FTSE and the £ tomorrow, then.
  • So the question os who has been briefing the media and why.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221
    I confess a small, mischievous and deeply irresponsible part of me thrills to the idea of saying FUCK IT, NO DEAL

    Bring it on, the world is in chaos anyway. Reclaim our seas and borders. Give Brussels £5.28 for the spinny chair we borrowed. Fuck the rest of their shit.

    If the Irish complain, we patrol the borders with armed Scotsmen, ready to use a dirk.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116

    You can't add opposition parties up together. If the Scots want a Scottish Labour or Scottish Tory government they can vote for that. If the Scots want an SNP minority government with unionists holding a majority to veto any potential referendum they can vote for that too.

    Democracy really shouldn't be a hard concept for you to grasp.
    We have democracy, we have a Tory government elected with a majority of 80 to respect 'the once in a generation' 2014 referendum as the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.

    I know you are a liberal not a Tory and disagree with that but there we go, until 2024 this Tory government will block indyref2 even with an SNP majority at Holyrood next year as Westminster is supreme to Holyrood
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,134
    New York (CNN Business)Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, said his magazine's story about Trump calling Americans who died in battle "losers" and "suckers," was just the tip of the iceberg.

    "I would fully expect more reporting to come out about this and more confirmation and new pieces of information in the coming days and weeks," Goldberg told CNN's Chief Media Correspondent Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" Sunday. "We have a responsibility and we're going to do it regardless of what he says."
  • If we No Deal and it is a disaster, the Tories have the full share of the blame. Their choice.
  • I wonder how Japan feels about having their trade deal undermined by UK law

    How does this effect a UK - Japan trade deal
  • How does this effect a UK - Japan trade deal
    If we're going to undermine EU agreements, why not do the same for an agreement we sign with Japan?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116
    edited September 2020
    LadyG said:

    I confess a small, mischievous and deeply irresponsible part of me thrills to the idea of saying FUCK IT, NO DEAL

    Bring it on, the world is in chaos anyway. Reclaim our seas and borders. Give Brussels £5.28 for the spinny chair we borrowed. Fuck the rest of their shit.

    If the Irish complain, we patrol the borders with armed Scotsmen, ready to use a dirk.

    Armed Presbyterian DUP voting Scotch Irish from Antrim?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    Just to let everyone know, I had the Russian Covid-19 vaccination yesterday and can tell you there are absolutely no negative sideffski efectovski secundariosvki Кто может это прочитать Обожаю Владимира Путина!
    Товарищ с облегчением

    Edit: Crap, I mean, that's a relief.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,195
    LadyG said:

    Slow down. This is the FT. The Masada of Remainerism.
    Nah. Those Jews were equivocators paralysed by self doubt compared to the FT.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221

    If we No Deal and it is a disaster, the Tories have the full share of the blame. Their choice.

    lol
  • I have no idea on these rumours but it has certainly stirred up the remainer's tonight
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 38,151

    How does this effect a UK - Japan trade deal

    We can't be trusted to keep it
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,964
    HYUFD said:

    The impact of the Covid lockdown plus WTO terms Brexit and tariffs on exports to and from the UK and EU plus Scottish independence and tariffs on exports to and from Scotland and England will lead to the biggest economic recession in the British Isles since the 1930s Depression, if not worse.
    Well, young HY, is this really what the moderate and respectable Conservatives were working for all this time?

    Or were you deceived by your leaders?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,195
    Carnyx said:

    Siource please. Obiter dicta.

    And he's not FM any more,.
    Well that’s lucky.
  • Looks like the government is giving up on the Union and any trade deals with anyone to embrace a full rogue state strategy. It’s really tough to see how this benefits us.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,116
    ClippP said:

    Well, young HY, is this really what the moderate and respectable Conservatives were working for all this time?

    Or were you deceived by your leaders?
    Don't blame me, I voted Remain, however I also respect referendum results unlike the SNP
  • I have no idea on these rumours but it has certainly stirred up the remainer's tonight

    And why shouldn't we discuss it? I never voted for Brexit, so I will take every opportunity to call out its seeming failure.

    I hope it is a success - but you can't honestly sit there and think "you know what, let's undermine our agreements" and think it is going well
  • LadyG said:

    I confess a small, mischievous and deeply irresponsible part of me thrills to the idea of saying FUCK IT, NO DEAL

    Bring it on, the world is in chaos anyway. Reclaim our seas and borders. Give Brussels £5.28 for the spinny chair we borrowed. Fuck the rest of their shit.

    If the Irish complain, we patrol the borders with armed Scotsmen, ready to use a dirk.

    Jim Pickard reporting a rumour that a No Deal announcement is scheduled for this coming week.

  • HYUFD said:

    Indeed, people forget the Tories under Churchill refused to even grant India independence and ignored Gandhi's 'Quit India' campaign begun in 1942, it took Attlee's Labour government for that to happen in 1948 and it was a Liberal PM Lloyd George who agreed the Irish Free State.
    Which UK party granted Independence to the following?

    Libya (1951)
    Sudan (1956)
    Ghana (1957)
    Malaya (1957)
    Nigeria (1960)
    Somalia (1960)
    Cyprus (1960)
    Sierra Leone (1961)
    Tanganyika (1961)
    Kuwait (1961)
    Uganda (1962)
    Jamaica (1962)
    Trinidad and Tobago (1962)
    Barbados (1962)
    Kenya (1963)
    Zanzibar (1963)
    Sarawak and North Borneo (1963)
    Singapore (1963)
    Malawi (1964)
    Malta (1964)
    Fiji (1970)
    UAE (1971)
    Qatar (1971)
    Bahrain (1971)
    Oman (1971)
    Bahamas (1973)
    Grenada (1974)
    St. Vincent and the Grenadines (1979)
    Kiribati (1979)
    Zimbabwe (1980)
    Vanuatu (1980)
    Belize (1981)
    Antigua and Barbuda (1981)
    Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983)
    Brunei (1984)

    And I guess we could also mention Hong Kong (Sino-British joint declaration in 1984).


  • If we're going to undermine EU agreements, why not do the same for an agreement we sign with Japan?
    The UK - Japan trade deal will not be undermined

    I am not commenting on these rumours but I do think no deal is very near
  • I have no idea on these rumours but it has certainly stirred up the remainer's tonight

    It should stir up the leavers as well. Hard as nails no deal. Having torn up a legally binding trade deal. With no hope of signing any trade deal with anyone without a change of government. I know that the faithful think England is exceptional and will prevail. That delusion is about to splat against the wall of reality.
  • The UK - Japan trade deal will not be undermined

    I am not commenting on these rumours but I do think no deal is very near
    Why won't it be? We're - seemingly - going to undermine the EU agreement we signed.
  • HYUFD said:

    Don't blame me, I voted Remain, however I also respect referendum results unlike the SNP
    If you voted remain, you are NOT a True Conservative.
This discussion has been closed.