politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t read too much into primary polls at this point in the
Options
Comments
-
Lol - - Lo que sea!0
-
Poor old Jezza looks like a pensioner who's just been told he's going to a secret bingo night at a care home on the ITN News.0
-
Less than 48% would be a poor result for the indy cause.felix said:With less than 5% to be counted now it looks like 39.6% for JxSi and 8.1% for CUP. Not enough.
0 -
If the support for Citizens holds up in the GE and is seen outside Catalonia, then PP and PSOE might realise that their opposition to nationalist self-determination is not helping their cause.
PP and PSC-PSOE are getting the SLAB effect locally. If that becomes a national trend they will panic.0 -
Indeed - this was their big chance and it looks as if they blew it. Echoes of ScotlandSouthamObserver said:
Less than 48% would be a poor result for the indy cause.felix said:With less than 5% to be counted now it looks like 39.6% for JxSi and 8.1% for CUP. Not enough.
0 -
Catalonia is less than 100,000 votes from UDI.SouthamObserver said:
Less than 48% would be a poor result for the indy cause.felix said:With less than 5% to be counted now it looks like 39.6% for JxSi and 8.1% for CUP. Not enough.
That does not seem to be a good result for the unionists either.0 -
Got a message from a colleague just now, I'm reliably informed that VW face fines in the UK of up to £3.5bn, possibly more depending on if the DfT find evidence of cheating before 2012.
I honestly think VW are looking at bankruptcy or a state bailout, the level of fines and law suits will be like nothing we've seen. BP had hoards of cash and a massively cash generating business in Russia to climb our of their vast hole. VW's core business is going to suffer massively over the next year so their profitability will go up in smoke, while they will have tens of billions of dollars worth of fines and lawsuits to settle. I just don't see how they come through the other side in one piece. Anyone still holding VW shares is a mug.0 -
I daresay they'll qualify for an EU bailout if Merkel has her way - I mean when /merkel gets her wayMaxPB said:Got a message from a colleague just now, I'm reliably informed that VW face fines in the UK of up to £3.5bn, possibly more depending on if the DfT find evidence of cheating before 2012.
I honestly think VW are looking at bankruptcy or a state bailout, the level of fines and law suits will be like nothing we've seen. BP had hoards of cash and a massively cash generating business in Russia to climb our of their vast hole. VW's core business is going to suffer massively over the next year so their profitability will go up in smoke, while they will have tens of billions of dollars worth of fines and lawsuits to settle. I just don't see how they come through the other side in one piece. Anyone still holding VW shares is a mug. 0 -
That's a good point well made. I expect the mood in La Linea to be (slightly) less miserable tomorrow. They need the country to hold together. A shame for us though - Gib really needs the Catalonians to get their act together and bugger off.felix said:
A big relief for most of my [relatively] poverty stricken Andalucians here in southern Spain.rcs1000 said:
I think that's absolutely right.felix said:
I expect that after the GE later this year some sort of Federal deal will be cobbbled together. Tonight's vote suggests that full independence is probably not wanted by most Catalonians.HYUFD said:
39.62% for JxSI is more than the 32.9% the SNP got in 2007 but less than 45.4% the SNP got in 2011 so they may need to wait for another election for a referendumPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. They've held a referendum that was ruled illegal and ignored, so they've held this election as a second proxy referendum and a majority have not voted for independence. This is a setback for Catalan independence.Dair said:
Do you think it is beyond the wit of people to find away around such an obstacle?SouthamObserver said:
It's been blocked by the Constitutional Court. The only way to override that is via a constitutional amendment that would have to be endorsed in a Spain-wide referendum.Dair said:
Their platform for the election is that they won't support UDI.felix said:
Nope - CUP will not act unless more than 50% vote for independence parties.Dair said:
So a Referendum has the support of Junts, CUP and CatSi or 56% currently. And potentially either CUP or CatSi could support a JxSi ultimatum to Madrid.SouthamObserver said:
They support the right to a referendum, but don't support independence.Dair said:What is the position of Catalunya Sí que es Pot
From Spanish wikipedia they appear to support a Catalan state. But that's with a translated page so I can't be sure.
CUP and CatSiQueEsPot both support a referendum but Madrid is denying it. Therefore either of those parties are going to be in a position of leverage. They can force Madrid into granting a referendum or agree to support Junts plans for UDI (which Junts themselves probably see as secondary to holding a referendum).
Madrid is in trouble.0 -
The unpopularity of PP/PSOE is down the 7 years of economic crisis and many more years of corruption - sfa to do with self-determination.Dair said:If the support for Citizens holds up in the GE and is seen outside Catalonia, then PP and PSOE might realise that their opposition to nationalist self-determination is not helping their cause.
PP and PSC-PSOE are getting the SLAB effect locally. If that becomes a national trend they will panic.0 -
As the largest party in Catalonia wants a referendum, ultimately one is inevitablePhilip_Thompson said:
Apples and oranges, Westminster was willing to let the Scots hold a referendum so long as the Scots chose to elect a party wanting it. Madrid is dead set against.HYUFD said:
39.62% for JxSI is more than the 32.9% the SNP got in 2007 but less than 45.4% the SNP got in 2011 so they may need to wait for another election for a referendumPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. They've held a referendum that was ruled illegal and ignored, so they've held this election as a second proxy referendum and a majority have not voted for independence. This is a setback for Catalan independence.Dair said:
Do you think it is beyond the wit of people to find away around such an obstacle?SouthamObserver said:
It's been blocked by the Constitutional Court. The only way to override that is via a constitutional amendment that would have to be endorsed in a Spain-wide referendum.Dair said:
Their platform for the election is that they won't support UDI.felix said:
Nope - CUP will not act unless more than 50% vote for independence parties.Dair said:
So a Referendum has the support of Junts, CUP and CatSi or 56% currently. And potentially either CUP or CatSi could support a JxSi ultimatum to Madrid.SouthamObserver said:
They support the right to a referendum, but don't support independence.Dair said:What is the position of Catalunya Sí que es Pot
From Spanish wikipedia they appear to support a Catalan state. But that's with a translated page so I can't be sure.
CUP and CatSiQueEsPot both support a referendum but Madrid is denying it. Therefore either of those parties are going to be in a position of leverage. They can force Madrid into granting a referendum or agree to support Junts plans for UDI (which Junts themselves probably see as secondary to holding a referendum).
Madrid is in trouble.0 -
Maybe, maybe not, it depends on what the deal is and even with a deal that does not automatically prevent a referendum on independence, although it makes it more likely it would failfelix said:
I expect that after the GE later this year some sort of Federal deal will be cobbbled together. Tonight's vote suggests that full independence is probably not wanted by most Catalonians.HYUFD said:
39.62% for JxSI is more than the 32.9% the SNP got in 2007 but less than 45.4% the SNP got in 2011 so they may need to wait for another election for a referendumPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. They've held a referendum that was ruled illegal and ignored, so they've held this election as a second proxy referendum and a majority have not voted for independence. This is a setback for Catalan independence.Dair said:
Do you think it is beyond the wit of people to find away around such an obstacle?SouthamObserver said:
It's been blocked by the Constitutional Court. The only way to override that is via a constitutional amendment that would have to be endorsed in a Spain-wide referendum.Dair said:
Their platform for the election is that they won't support UDI.felix said:
Nope - CUP will not act unless more than 50% vote for independence parties.Dair said:
So a Referendum has the support of Junts, CUP and CatSi or 56% currently. And potentially either CUP or CatSi could support a JxSi ultimatum to Madrid.SouthamObserver said:
They support the right to a referendum, but don't support independence.Dair said:What is the position of Catalunya Sí que es Pot
From Spanish wikipedia they appear to support a Catalan state. But that's with a translated page so I can't be sure.
CUP and CatSiQueEsPot both support a referendum but Madrid is denying it. Therefore either of those parties are going to be in a position of leverage. They can force Madrid into granting a referendum or agree to support Junts plans for UDI (which Junts themselves probably see as secondary to holding a referendum).
Madrid is in trouble.0 -
Care home.. I do hope they are inspected in a better manner than under Labour's watch, but there is a more serious point.. No one can afford them anymore.. A good one will be 50K a year and that's possibly for someone with dementia who would have no idea where they were.chestnut said:Poor old Jezza looks like a pensioner who's just been told he's going to a secret bingo night at a care home on the ITN News.
0 -
"Quote" rel="Dair">What is the position of Catalunya Sí que es Pot
From Spanish wikipedia they appear to support a Catalan state. But that's with a translated page so I can't be sure.
They support the right to a referendum, but don't support independence.
So a Referendum has the support of Junts, CUP and CatSi or 56% currently. And potentially either CUP or CatSi could support a JxSi ultimatum to Madrid.
Nope - CUP will not act unless more than 50% vote for independence parties.
Their platform for the election is that they won't support UDI.
CUP and CatSiQueEsPot both support a referendum but Madrid is denying it. Therefore either of those parties are going to be in a position of leverage. They can force Madrid into granting a referendum or agree to support Junts plans for UDI (which Junts themselves probably see as secondary to holding a referendum).
Madrid is in trouble.
It's been blocked by the Constitutional Court. The only way to override that is via a constitutional amendment that would have to be endorsed in a Spain-wide referendum.
Do you think it is beyond the wit of people to find away around such an obstacle?
Yes. They've held a referendum that was ruled illegal and ignored, so they've held this election as a second proxy referendum and a majority have not voted for independence. This is a setback for Catalan independence.
39.62% for JxSI is more than the 32.9% the SNP got in 2007 but less than 45.4% the SNP got in 2011 so they may need to wait for another election for a referendum
I expect that after the GE later this year some sort of Federal deal will be cobbbled together. Tonight's vote suggests that full independence is probably not wanted by most Catalonians.
I think that's absolutely right.
A big relief for most of my [relatively] poverty stricken Andalucians here in southern Spain.
That's a good point well made. I expect the mood in La Linea to be (slightly) less miserable tomorrow. They need the country to hold together. A shame for us though - Gib really needs the Catalonians to get their act together and bugger off.
I visited Gib last year - I'm afraid it came across as tawdry and tacky compared to my earlier visits on my trip to Jerez and Cadiz. I support your right to exist free of the mainland but the place needs a good clean up.0 -
Local Authorities still pay for care, but only once you have exhausted all your assets first (otherwise there is always an annuity)SquareRoot said:
Care home.. I do hope they are inspected in a better manner than under Labour's watch, but there is a more serious point.. No one can afford them anymore.. A good one will be 50K a year and that's possibly for someone with dementia who would have no idea where they were.chestnut said:Poor old Jezza looks like a pensioner who's just been told he's going to a secret bingo night at a care home on the ITN News.
0 -
The Catalans agreed a deal with the Socialists that was endorsed by the Catalans in a referendum. It was overturned by the Constitutional Court following a PP petition. This is a PP caused mess. And when they lose their majority in December it can be resolved.Dair said:If the support for Citizens holds up in the GE and is seen outside Catalonia, then PP and PSOE might realise that their opposition to nationalist self-determination is not helping their cause.
PP and PSC-PSOE are getting the SLAB effect locally. If that becomes a national trend they will panic.
0 -
YouGov/Times poll
Leave the EU 40%
Remain 38%0 -
Again - many thanks to Frau Merkel are owed by the Booers.TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov/Times poll
Leave the EU 40%
Remain 38%0 -
What is Unio's position? Wiki says they are Catalan nationalists.SouthamObserver said:
The Catalans agreed a deal with the Socialists that was endorsed by the Catalans in a referendum. It was overturned by the Constitutional Court following a PP petition. This is a PP caused mess. And when they lose their majority in December it can be resolved.Dair said:If the support for Citizens holds up in the GE and is seen outside Catalonia, then PP and PSOE might realise that their opposition to nationalist self-determination is not helping their cause.
PP and PSC-PSOE are getting the SLAB effect locally. If that becomes a national trend they will panic.
Junts + CUP + Unio is going to be over 50%.0 -
Unio is opposed to independence. They split with Convergencia over it. They see Catalonia as a nation, but within Spain.Dair said:
What is Unio's position? Wiki says they are Catalan nationalists.SouthamObserver said:
The Catalans agreed a deal with the Socialists that was endorsed by the Catalans in a referendum. It was overturned by the Constitutional Court following a PP petition. This is a PP caused mess. And when they lose their majority in December it can be resolved.Dair said:If the support for Citizens holds up in the GE and is seen outside Catalonia, then PP and PSOE might realise that their opposition to nationalist self-determination is not helping their cause.
PP and PSC-PSOE are getting the SLAB effect locally. If that becomes a national trend they will panic.
Junts + CUP + Unio is going to be over 50%.
0 -
A trend is starting to appear.TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov/Times poll
Leave the EU 40%
Remain 38%0 -
Lol - Dair is going to be gutted he can't get the vote over 50%SouthamObserver said:
Unio is opposed to independence. They split with Convergencia over it. They see Catalonia as a nation, but within Spain.Dair said:
What is Unio's position? Wiki says they are Catalan nationalists.SouthamObserver said:
The Catalans agreed a deal with the Socialists that was endorsed by the Catalans in a referendum. It was overturned by the Constitutional Court following a PP petition. This is a PP caused mess. And when they lose their majority in December it can be resolved.Dair said:If the support for Citizens holds up in the GE and is seen outside Catalonia, then PP and PSOE might realise that their opposition to nationalist self-determination is not helping their cause.
PP and PSC-PSOE are getting the SLAB effect locally. If that becomes a national trend they will panic.
Junts + CUP + Unio is going to be over 50%. 0 -
The Pirates support independence, I think.felix said:
Lol - Dair is going to be gutted he can't get the vote over 50%SouthamObserver said:
Unio is opposed to independence. They split with Convergencia over it. They see Catalonia as a nation, but within Spain.Dair said:
What is Unio's position? Wiki says they are Catalan nationalists.SouthamObserver said:
The Catalans agreed a deal with the Socialists that was endorsed by the Catalans in a referendum. It was overturned by the Constitutional Court following a PP petition. This is a PP caused mess. And when they lose their majority in December it can be resolved.Dair said:If the support for Citizens holds up in the GE and is seen outside Catalonia, then PP and PSOE might realise that their opposition to nationalist self-determination is not helping their cause.
PP and PSC-PSOE are getting the SLAB effect locally. If that becomes a national trend they will panic.
Junts + CUP + Unio is going to be over 50%.
This looks to have killed Indy dead. The only thing that can revive it is a PP victory in December and that is a very remote possibility now.
It'll be interesting to see how Ciutadans (Ciudadanos) does in the nationsl polls now. Tonight is a big result for them.
0 -
Dair isn't the only one hoping for a 50%+ result tonight.felix said:
Lol - Dair is going to be gutted he can't get the vote over 50%SouthamObserver said:
Unio is opposed to independence. They split with Convergencia over it. They see Catalonia as a nation, but within Spain.Dair said:
What is Unio's position? Wiki says they are Catalan nationalists.SouthamObserver said:
The Catalans agreed a deal with the Socialists that was endorsed by the Catalans in a referendum. It was overturned by the Constitutional Court following a PP petition. This is a PP caused mess. And when they lose their majority in December it can be resolved.Dair said:If the support for Citizens holds up in the GE and is seen outside Catalonia, then PP and PSOE might realise that their opposition to nationalist self-determination is not helping their cause.
PP and PSC-PSOE are getting the SLAB effect locally. If that becomes a national trend they will panic.
Junts + CUP + Unio is going to be over 50%.
Tonight's result is disappointing but I'm optimistic about the future.0 -
So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.0
-
And it begins ... CUP opposed to Artur Mas continuing as Catalan president.0
-
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.0 -
Don't knows always cling to nurse or just don't bother to vote. As Sean Fear has pointed out, this come down to who can worry the public more with 3 million immigrants or 3 million lost jobs.TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov/Times poll
Leave the EU 40%
Remain 38%0 -
Nothing is inevitable.HYUFD said:
As the largest party in Catalonia wants a referendum, ultimately one is inevitablePhilip_Thompson said:Apples and oranges, Westminster was willing to let the Scots hold a referendum so long as the Scots chose to elect a party wanting it. Madrid is dead set against.
0 -
On topic for a moment, given how far back some of the eventual winners were in the polls in previous cycles, is it surprising that the funds dried up so quickly for those who have already dropped out of this cycle? Seems like it'd be worth taking a punt on some pretty long shots as given the length of the cycle any of them have a reasonable chance of leading the attention at some point, and there is the possibility they can use that as a base to last longer, even if victory remains unlikely.0
-
That's not going to happen. PP loses its majority in December and that changes everything. The solution to this mess lies in Madrid.Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
0 -
You're delusional. Everything is sunny and great news for those seeking independence even when they fail to get the votes they needed.Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.0 -
On a (physical) geography degree you're quite likely to have to learn to code these days. Python or Matlab for simulation work (glaciers, river flow, sedimentation, ecological modelling, that kinda thing). I've even heard of geography students being taught to code in R to do their statistical analysis, which is nice - definitely beats them just cranking it out of an Excel spreadsheet.JosiasJessop said:
When I was recruiting graduates into the software engineering world a few years back, we rarely took computer science graduates - it was too much of a jack of all trades, master of none subject and rarely taught students much that was of use to us.
Much better were physics, maths, and even (to my surprise) geography students - who were generally people who taught themselves programming as parts of other courses. I never quite worked out why some of the best coders I knew had geography/geology related degrees, though ...
Perhaps the courses have changed for the better in the last few years.0 -
Golf news -Jordan Speith wins the Tour Championship by Coca Cola, and the Fedex Cup, (and $11.8 million), over Henrik Stenson.
Stenson's collapse began in the last few holes yesterday, but after the way he played 6,7 and 8 today (I was on 7 tee) it was pretty much over. The crowds were huge, the atmosphere electric and a wonderful day.
Fun facts -
He is the first golfer ever to win over $20 million in a season (he won $22 million)
He is the youngest ever to win the Fedex Cup at 22
All the four playoff events (Barclays, Deutsche Bank, BMW and Tour Championship (and the last 3 last year) were won by golfers in their 20s
This year's Tour Championship is the first to have no golfers over 40.
With Speith, Fowler, Day and McIlroy, the game of golf is in a good place. Tiger Who?.0 -
Catalonia has just voted against UDI.SouthamObserver said:
That's not going to happen. PP loses its majority in December and that changes everything. The solution to this mess lies in Madrid.Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain is* going to vote against PP.
The two extremes are getting ruled out and a compromise can be reached. Doesn't mean this issue won't resurface in the future, but for now a compromise seems the logical conclusion.
* According to opinion polls. They could be wrong of course.0 -
Who do you think can "grant" this referendum of which you speak? And by what right?Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain doesn't float off the northwest coast of France / southwest coast of Norway.
Apparently they have a thing over there called "Spanish law". One aspect of which is called the Spanish constitution. Apparently, in order to confuse us, the evil Spanish have written a constitution that does not exactly match the British constitution. In fact they have other laws that are different too! And a completely different legal system! Madness!!
And to really spite us, they haven't even just done a verbatim copy of that other constitution we understand, the U.S. one. In fact that's an interesting counterpoint. If Arizona (or whoever, though there is added complication in the case of Texas so have been deliberately avoiding that one) wanted an "independence referendum" then who in the USA could "grant" one, and how?0 -
I learnt to code in my Economics course 15 years ago, to model econometrics. That's probably quite common in a number of BSc or MSc courses.MyBurningEars said:
On a (physical) geography degree you're quite likely to have to learn to code these days. Python or Matlab for simulation work (glaciers, river flow, sedimentation, ecological modelling, that kinda thing). I've even heard of geography students being taught to code in R to do their statistical analysis, which is nice - definitely beats them just cranking it out of an Excel spreadsheet.JosiasJessop said:
When I was recruiting graduates into the software engineering world a few years back, we rarely took computer science graduates - it was too much of a jack of all trades, master of none subject and rarely taught students much that was of use to us.
Much better were physics, maths, and even (to my surprise) geography students - who were generally people who taught themselves programming as parts of other courses. I never quite worked out why some of the best coders I knew had geography/geology related degrees, though ...
Perhaps the courses have changed for the better in the last few years.0 -
I have not dabbled much yet on this one. Clinton seems to have quite a machine but not much enthusiasm. I cannot see any of the other Democrats deposing her though Sanders may get the US Corbyniztas juices flowing.kle4 said:On topic for a moment, given how far back some of the eventual winners were in the polls in previous cycles, is it surprising that the funds dried up so quickly for those who have already dropped out of this cycle? Seems like it'd be worth taking a punt on some pretty long shots as given the length of the cycle any of them have a reasonable chance of leading the attention at some point, and there is the possibility they can use that as a base to last longer, even if victory remains unlikely.
It is hard to have any idea about the Republicans, being so barking mad makes it hard to call. Trump looks to me to be the warm up act rather than the headliner. The Republicans may favour Fiorina so as to neuter the feminist appeal of Clinton.
Anything could happen, so I am drawn to bet on a few outsiders, but not yet with decent sums. Things are too bonkers to call with confidence.0 -
The Beeb takes a rather different view of the Catalan election result:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-343725480 -
It was once the SNP became the largest party in Scotland and the PQ in Quebec that a referendum occurred. The separatist party is clearly the largest party in Catalonia tonight and ultimately a referendum will eventually follow, even if a deal of some form is agreed beforehandPhilip_Thompson said:
Nothing is inevitable.HYUFD said:
As the largest party in Catalonia wants a referendum, ultimately one is inevitablePhilip_Thompson said:Apples and oranges, Westminster was willing to let the Scots hold a referendum so long as the Scots chose to elect a party wanting it. Madrid is dead set against.
0 -
-
They have won a majority of seats, that wasn't what they were looking for though for the mandate. The Beeb are being equivocal in their reporting too saying that "the road ahead is controversial and anything but clear" etcRichard_Nabavi said:The Beeb takes a rather different view of the Catalan election result:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-343725480 -
The Republicans seem to be in an anti establishment mood, as evidenced by the eviction of Boehner, I would not rule out Trump and Cruz may also have a presence. Historically the leader of the Republican race at this stage is normally nominee, 2008 was an exception but mainly because Giuliani's voters simply shifted to McCainfoxinsoxuk said:
I have not dabbled much yet on this one. Clinton seems to have quite a machine but not much enthusiasm. I cannot see any of the other Democrats deposing her though Sanders may get the US Corbyniztas juices flowing.kle4 said:On topic for a moment, given how far back some of the eventual winners were in the polls in previous cycles, is it surprising that the funds dried up so quickly for those who have already dropped out of this cycle? Seems like it'd be worth taking a punt on some pretty long shots as given the length of the cycle any of them have a reasonable chance of leading the attention at some point, and there is the possibility they can use that as a base to last longer, even if victory remains unlikely.
It is hard to have any idea about the Republicans, being so barking mad makes it hard to call. Trump looks to me to be the warm up act rather than the headliner. The Republicans may favour Fiorina so as to neuter the feminist appeal of Clinton.
Anything could happen, so I am drawn to bet on a few outsiders, but not yet with decent sums. Things are too bonkers to call with confidence.0 -
The polls show the PP will still be the largest party, they will simply lose their majorityPhilip_Thompson said:
Catalonia has just voted against UDI.SouthamObserver said:
That's not going to happen. PP loses its majority in December and that changes everything. The solution to this mess lies in Madrid.Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain is* going to vote against PP.
The two extremes are getting ruled out and a compromise can be reached. Doesn't mean this issue won't resurface in the future, but for now a compromise seems the logical conclusion.
* According to opinion polls. They could be wrong of course.0 -
Bona nit a tots. Visca Catalunya i Visca Espanya!0
-
The UK and Canada were willing to respect the wishes of the Scots and Quebecois respectively. The same can not be said about the Spaniards, this is a unique situation.HYUFD said:
It was once the SNP became the largest party in Scotland and the PQ in Quebec that a referendum occurred. The separatist party is clearly the largest party in Catalonia tonight and ultimately a referendum will eventually follow, even if a deal of some form is agreed beforehandPhilip_Thompson said:
Nothing is inevitable.HYUFD said:
As the largest party in Catalonia wants a referendum, ultimately one is inevitablePhilip_Thompson said:Apples and oranges, Westminster was willing to let the Scots hold a referendum so long as the Scots chose to elect a party wanting it. Madrid is dead set against.
0 -
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:
Who do you think can "grant" this referendum of which you speak? And by what right?Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain doesn't float off the northwest coast of France / southwest coast of Norway.
Apparently they have a thing over there called "Spanish law". One aspect of which is called the Spanish constitution. Apparently, in order to confuse us, the evil Spanish have written a constitution that does not exactly match the British constitution. In fact they have other laws that are different too! And a completely different legal system! Madness!!
And to really spite us, they haven't even just done a verbatim copy of that other constitution we understand, the U.S. one. In fact that's an interesting counterpoint. If Arizona (or whoever, though there is added complication in the case of Texas so have been deliberately avoiding that one) wanted an "independence referendum" then who in the USA could "grant" one, and how?
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.0 -
Now Trump has boycotted Fox News - again - for treating him unfairly, he will get many fewer eyeballs on the other networks than he would on Fox, which is utterly dominant in the news networks ratingsHYUFD said:
The Republicans seem to be in an anti establishment mood, as evidenced by the eviction of Boehner, I would not rule out Trump and Cruz may also have a presence. Historically the leader of the Republican race at this stage is normally nominee, 2008 was an exception but mainly because Giuliani's voters simply shifted to McCainfoxinsoxuk said:
I have not dabbled much yet on this one. Clinton seems to have quite a machine but not much enthusiasm. I cannot see any of the other Democrats deposing her though Sanders may get the US Corbyniztas juices flowing.kle4 said:On topic for a moment, given how far back some of the eventual winners were in the polls in previous cycles, is it surprising that the funds dried up so quickly for those who have already dropped out of this cycle? Seems like it'd be worth taking a punt on some pretty long shots as given the length of the cycle any of them have a reasonable chance of leading the attention at some point, and there is the possibility they can use that as a base to last longer, even if victory remains unlikely.
It is hard to have any idea about the Republicans, being so barking mad makes it hard to call. Trump looks to me to be the warm up act rather than the headliner. The Republicans may favour Fiorina so as to neuter the feminist appeal of Clinton.
Anything could happen, so I am drawn to bet on a few outsiders, but not yet with decent sums. Things are too bonkers to call with confidence.0 -
Apparently there was an unofficial vote in November...Philip_Thompson said:
The UK and Canada were willing to respect the wishes of the Scots and Quebecois respectively. The same can not be said about the Spaniards, this is a unique situation.HYUFD said:
It was once the SNP became the largest party in Scotland and the PQ in Quebec that a referendum occurred. The separatist party is clearly the largest party in Catalonia tonight and ultimately a referendum will eventually follow, even if a deal of some form is agreed beforehandPhilip_Thompson said:
Nothing is inevitable.HYUFD said:
As the largest party in Catalonia wants a referendum, ultimately one is inevitablePhilip_Thompson said:Apples and oranges, Westminster was willing to let the Scots hold a referendum so long as the Scots chose to elect a party wanting it. Madrid is dead set against.
0 -
O/T This is an interesting article on the Chinese stock market:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/27/us-china-markets-funds-warnings-idUSKCN0RR10120150927
By intervening to prop up the market, the Chinese government might have made it a less attractive place in which to invest.0 -
Yes, well eventually that will come to a head if neither gives groundPhilip_Thompson said:
The UK and Canada were willing to respect the wishes of the Scots and Quebecois respectively. The same can not be said about the Spaniards, this is a unique situation.HYUFD said:
It was once the SNP became the largest party in Scotland and the PQ in Quebec that a referendum occurred. The separatist party is clearly the largest party in Catalonia tonight and ultimately a referendum will eventually follow, even if a deal of some form is agreed beforehandPhilip_Thompson said:
Nothing is inevitable.HYUFD said:
As the largest party in Catalonia wants a referendum, ultimately one is inevitablePhilip_Thompson said:Apples and oranges, Westminster was willing to let the Scots hold a referendum so long as the Scots chose to elect a party wanting it. Madrid is dead set against.
0 -
More fun Jordan Speith facts -
He has made 3 more birdies than any other player in Masters History (28)
He is the youngest to win 2 career majors since Gene Sarazen in 1922
He is the 3rd player in the modern era to finish top 4 in all 4 majors (Tiger and Jack)
He has the most official earnings in a season in PGA Tour history ($12,030,465). (Doesn't include the playoffs).
He missed the cut in the first 2 playoff events.
He is now back to #1 in the world.0 -
-
Richard: the independence parties fell short of a 50% vote share, and fell well short of their opinion poll ratings. Without an overwhelming mandate, UDI will not happen.
Will there be an official referendum in 2020? Quite possibly. But the fear of Spain breaking up in a disorganised manner in the next 18 months has receded greatly this evening.0 -
If 2/3 of the states backed it it could be, though of course if a separatist party won control of the Texas legislature and governorship and declared independence following a referendum there would be little the rest of the US could do about it short of a second civil warfoxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:
Who do you think can "grant" this referendum of which you speak? And by what right?Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain doesn't float off the northwest coast of France / southwest coast of Norway.
Apparently they have a thing over there called "Spanish law". One aspect of which is called the Spanish constitution. Apparently, in order to confuse us, the evil Spanish have written a constitution that does not exactly match the British constitution. In fact they have other laws that are different too! And a completely different legal system! Madness!!
And to really spite us, they haven't even just done a verbatim copy of that other constitution we understand, the U.S. one. In fact that's an interesting counterpoint. If Arizona (or whoever, though there is added complication in the case of Texas so have been deliberately avoiding that one) wanted an "independence referendum" then who in the USA could "grant" one, and how?
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.0 -
Trump has enough money to fund blanket advertising across the networks regardless of what the talking heads sayTim_B said:
Now Trump has boycotted Fox News - again - for treating him unfairly, he will get many fewer eyeballs on the other networks than he would on Fox, which is utterly dominant in the news networks ratingsHYUFD said:
The Republicans seem to be in an anti establishment mood, as evidenced by the eviction of Boehner, I would not rule out Trump and Cruz may also have a presence. Historically the leader of the Republican race at this stage is normally nominee, 2008 was an exception but mainly because Giuliani's voters simply shifted to McCainfoxinsoxuk said:
I have not dabbled much yet on this one. Clinton seems to have quite a machine but not much enthusiasm. I cannot see any of the other Democrats deposing her though Sanders may get the US Corbyniztas juices flowing.kle4 said:On topic for a moment, given how far back some of the eventual winners were in the polls in previous cycles, is it surprising that the funds dried up so quickly for those who have already dropped out of this cycle? Seems like it'd be worth taking a punt on some pretty long shots as given the length of the cycle any of them have a reasonable chance of leading the attention at some point, and there is the possibility they can use that as a base to last longer, even if victory remains unlikely.
It is hard to have any idea about the Republicans, being so barking mad makes it hard to call. Trump looks to me to be the warm up act rather than the headliner. The Republicans may favour Fiorina so as to neuter the feminist appeal of Clinton.
Anything could happen, so I am drawn to bet on a few outsiders, but not yet with decent sums. Things are too bonkers to call with confidence.0 -
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:
Who do you think can "grant" this referendum of which you speak? And by what right?Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain doesn't float off the northwest coast of France / southwest coast of Norway.
Apparently they have a thing over there called "Spanish law". One aspect of which is called the Spanish constitution. Apparently, in order to confuse us, the evil Spanish have written a constitution that does not exactly match the British constitution. In fact they have other laws that are different too! And a completely different legal system! Madness!!
And to really spite us, they haven't even just done a verbatim copy of that other constitution we understand, the U.S. one. In fact that's an interesting counterpoint. If Arizona (or whoever, though there is added complication in the case of Texas so have been deliberately avoiding that one) wanted an "independence referendum" then who in the USA could "grant" one, and how?
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.0 -
He has all the money he needs but hasn't spent any yet. Free media is what's pushing him, but I think he's peaked. In addition the Fox News boycott makes him look like a 12 year oldHYUFD said:
Trump has enough money to fund blanket advertising across the networks regardless of what the talking heads sayTim_B said:
Now Trump has boycotted Fox News - again - for treating him unfairly, he will get many fewer eyeballs on the other networks than he would on Fox, which is utterly dominant in the news networks ratingsHYUFD said:
The Republicans seem to be in an anti establishment mood, as evidenced by the eviction of Boehner, I would not rule out Trump and Cruz may also have a presence. Historically the leader of the Republican race at this stage is normally nominee, 2008 was an exception but mainly because Giuliani's voters simply shifted to McCainfoxinsoxuk said:
I have not dabbled much yet on this one. Clinton seems to have quite a machine but not much enthusiasm. I cannot see any of the other Democrats deposing her though Sanders may get the US Corbyniztas juices flowing.kle4 said:On topic for a moment, given how far back some of the eventual winners were in the polls in previous cycles, is it surprising that the funds dried up so quickly for those who have already dropped out of this cycle? Seems like it'd be worth taking a punt on some pretty long shots as given the length of the cycle any of them have a reasonable chance of leading the attention at some point, and there is the possibility they can use that as a base to last longer, even if victory remains unlikely.
It is hard to have any idea about the Republicans, being so barking mad makes it hard to call. Trump looks to me to be the warm up act rather than the headliner. The Republicans may favour Fiorina so as to neuter the feminist appeal of Clinton.
Anything could happen, so I am drawn to bet on a few outsiders, but not yet with decent sums. Things are too bonkers to call with confidence.0 -
Speaking of political advertising, DirecTV reportedly has come with an offering to political parties here. Unlike a cable company they are nationwide with 39 million subscribers, more accurately 38,999,999 and me.
They are apparently able to target advertising to individual households or zip codes, or a couple of other criteria.
Presumably this will also be of interest to others too.0 -
The American Civil War was not democracies going to war. It was a rebellion from within a country, by people that didn't want their black neighbours to have democratic rights.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:
Who do you think can "grant" this referendum of which you speak? And by what right?Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain doesn't float off the northwest coast of France / southwest coast of Norway.
Apparently they have a thing over there called "Spanish law". One aspect of which is called the Spanish constitution. Apparently, in order to confuse us, the evil Spanish have written a constitution that does not exactly match the British constitution. In fact they have other laws that are different too! And a completely different legal system! Madness!!
And to really spite us, they haven't even just done a verbatim copy of that other constitution we understand, the U.S. one. In fact that's an interesting counterpoint. If Arizona (or whoever, though there is added complication in the case of Texas so have been deliberately avoiding that one) wanted an "independence referendum" then who in the USA could "grant" one, and how?
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.0 -
Whether Trump stays in or not doesn't really have anything to do with money or polling, but whether he is still having fun or not. He has not looked like a happy bunny recently.Tim_B said:
He has all the money he needs but hasn't spent any yet. Free media is what's pushing him, but I think he's peaked. In addition the Fox News boycott makes him look like a 12 year oldHYUFD said:
Trump has enough money to fund blanket advertising across the networks regardless of what the talking heads sayTim_B said:
Now Trump has boycotted Fox News - again - for treating him unfairly, he will get many fewer eyeballs on the other networks than he would on Fox, which is utterly dominant in the news networks ratingsHYUFD said:
The Republicans seem to be in an anti establishment mood, as evidenced by the eviction of Boehner, I would not rule out Trump and Cruz may also have a presence. Historically the leader of the Republican race at this stage is normally nominee, 2008 was an exception but mainly because Giuliani's voters simply shifted to McCainfoxinsoxuk said:
I have not dabbled much yet on this one. Clinton seems to have quite a machine but not much enthusiasm. I cannot see any of the other Democrats deposing her though Sanders may get the US Corbyniztas juices flowing.kle4 said:On topic for a moment, given how far back some of the eventual winners were in the polls in previous cycles, is it surprising that the funds dried up so quickly for those who have already dropped out of this cycle? Seems like it'd be worth taking a punt on some pretty long shots as given the length of the cycle any of them have a reasonable chance of leading the attention at some point, and there is the possibility they can use that as a base to last longer, even if victory remains unlikely.
It is hard to have any idea about the Republicans, being so barking mad makes it hard to call. Trump looks to me to be the warm up act rather than the headliner. The Republicans may favour Fiorina so as to neuter the feminist appeal of Clinton.
Anything could happen, so I am drawn to bet on a few outsiders, but not yet with decent sums. Things are too bonkers to call with confidence.0 -
UDI was never a realistic prospect in my view, however Catalonia following Scotland and Quebec in having a referendum on independence remains likely in the next few yearsrcs1000 said:Richard: the independence parties fell short of a 50% vote share, and fell well short of their opinion poll ratings. Without an overwhelming mandate, UDI will not happen.
Will there be an official referendum in 2020? Quite possibly. But the fear of Spain breaking up in a disorganised manner in the next 18 months has receded greatly this evening.0 -
While clearly not the only cause of the ACW, the issue of States rights vs Federal control was one of the major issues. What seems clear now took a very bloody war and decades of reconstruction to resolve. As late as the 1960's Alabama called out the militia (National Guard) to oppose a Federal imposition.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:
Who do you think can "grant" this referendum of which you speak? And by what right?Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain doesn't float off the northwest coast of France / southwest coast of Norway.
Apparently they have a thing over there called "Spanish law". One aspect of which is called the Spanish constitution. Apparently, in order to confuse us, the evil Spanish have written a constitution that does not exactly match the British constitution. In fact they have other laws that are different too! And a completely different legal system! Madness!!
And to really spite us, they haven't even just done a verbatim copy of that other constitution we understand, the U.S. one. In fact that's an interesting counterpoint. If Arizona (or whoever, though there is added complication in the case of Texas so have been deliberately avoiding that one) wanted an "independence referendum" then who in the USA could "grant" one, and how?
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.0 -
Even if this is his peak if he stays at this level he wins Iowa and NH and the nominationTim_B said:
He has all the money he needs but hasn't spent any yet. Free media is what's pushing him, but I think he's peaked. In addition the Fox News boycott makes him look like a 12 year oldHYUFD said:
Trump has enough money to fund blanket advertising across the networks regardless of what the talking heads sayTim_B said:
Now Trump has boycotted Fox News - again - for treating him unfairly, he will get many fewer eyeballs on the other networks than he would on Fox, which is utterly dominant in the news networks ratingsHYUFD said:
The Republicans seem to be in an anti establishment mood, as evidenced by the eviction of Boehner, I would not rule out Trump and Cruz may also have a presence. Historically the leader of the Republican race at this stage is normally nominee, 2008 was an exception but mainly because Giuliani's voters simply shifted to McCainfoxinsoxuk said:
I have not dabbled much yet on this one. Clinton seems to have quite a machine but not much enthusiasm. I cannot see any of the other Democrats deposing her though Sanders may get the US Corbyniztas juices flowing.kle4 said:On topic for a moment, given how far back some of the eventual winners were in the polls in previous cycles, is it surprising that the funds dried up so quickly for those who have already dropped out of this cycle? Seems like it'd be worth taking a punt on some pretty long shots as given the length of the cycle any of them have a reasonable chance of leading the attention at some point, and there is the possibility they can use that as a base to last longer, even if victory remains unlikely.
It is hard to have any idea about the Republicans, being so barking mad makes it hard to call. Trump looks to me to be the warm up act rather than the headliner. The Republicans may favour Fiorina so as to neuter the feminist appeal of Clinton.
Anything could happen, so I am drawn to bet on a few outsiders, but not yet with decent sums. Things are too bonkers to call with confidence.0 -
I should clarify, although making some sort of bet is of interest, what I had meant by it worth taking a punt was that those backing the candidates in the american primaries presumably let them know when they are not willing to continue to cough up money and so they pull out, but given how long the race is and how no-hopers get their day in the sun, I'm surprised the money men would turn off the taps quite so early even for the no hopers.
Good night all.0 -
The states seceded, formed their own country, the Confederate States of America, had their own currency, constitution etc. True, it was not recognized by any other countries.JEO said:
The American Civil War was not democracies going to war. It was a rebellion from within a country, by people that didn't want their black neighbours to have democratic rights.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:
Who do you think can "grant" this referendum of which you speak? And by what right?Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain doesn't float off the northwest coast of France / southwest coast of Norway.
Apparently they have a thing over there called "Spanish law". One aspect of which is called the Spanish constitution. Apparently, in order to confuse us, the evil Spanish have written a constitution that does not exactly match the British constitution. In fact they have other laws that are different too! And a completely different legal system! Madness!!
And to really spite us, they haven't even just done a verbatim copy of that other constitution we understand, the U.S. one. In fact that's an interesting counterpoint. If Arizona (or whoever, though there is added complication in the case of Texas so have been deliberately avoiding that one) wanted an "independence referendum" then who in the USA could "grant" one, and how?
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
You can criticize the reasons for this, but the fact remains it was a country. Remember Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, and the US Constitutionthe three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state0 -
State's rights were a complete fabrication of an argument. The southern states were quite happy to use the force of the Federal Government to compel northern states to enforce the fugitive slave act.foxinsoxuk said:
While clearly not the only cause of the ACW, the issue of States rights vs Federal control was one of the major issues. What seems clear now took a very bloody war and decades of reconstruction to resolve. As late as the 1960's Alabama called out the militia (National Guard) to oppose a Federal imposition.
Besides, Lincoln hadn't even done anything to infringe on their rights. The only anti-slavery policy on his platform was not to extend slavery Westwards in new states.0 -
I was for staying until a couple of months ago. Now it seems quite apparent that Cameron intends nothing to change and the European Commission/Germany couldn't care less if the UK left - they don't want a multi-speed/tier Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Brown vs Board of Education was a major reason for the reappearance of the Confederate Battle Flag, symbolizing resistance to desegregation.foxinsoxuk said:
While clearly not the only cause of the ACW, the issue of States rights vs Federal control was one of the major issues. What seems clear now took a very bloody war and decades of reconstruction to resolve. As late as the 1960's Alabama called out the militia (National Guard) to oppose a Federal imposition.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:
Who do you think can "grant" this referendum of which you speak? And by what right?Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain doesn't float off the northwest coast of France / southwest coast of Norway.
Apparently they have a thing over there called "Spanish law". One aspect of which is called the Spanish constitution. Apparently, in order to confuse us, the evil Spanish have written a constitution that does not exactly match the British constitution. In fact they have other laws that are different too! And a completely different legal system! Madness!!
And to really spite us, they haven't even just done a verbatim copy of that other constitution we understand, the U.S. one. In fact that's an interesting counterpoint. If Arizona (or whoever, though there is added complication in the case of Texas so have been deliberately avoiding that one) wanted an "independence referendum" then who in the USA could "grant" one, and how?
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.0 -
I could believe Cameron might intend things to change, or at least would like things to...but I cannot see anything more than a bauble being offered even if he does, and that is the biggest problem. We want things to change one way, or at least remain static perhaps, whereas most of Europe still remains keen to change in the other direction, and has open contempt for suggestions otherwise. Staying in in those circumstances is possible, but not healthy for either side.CornishBlue said:
I was for staying until a couple of months ago. Now it seems quite apparent that Cameron intends nothing to change and the European Commission/Germany couldn't care less if the UK left - they don't want a multi-speed/tier Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."JEO said:
State's rights were a complete fabrication of an argument. The southern states were quite happy to use the force of the Federal Government to compel northern states to enforce the fugitive slave act.foxinsoxuk said:
While clearly not the only cause of the ACW, the issue of States rights vs Federal control was one of the major issues. What seems clear now took a very bloody war and decades of reconstruction to resolve. As late as the 1960's Alabama called out the militia (National Guard) to oppose a Federal imposition.
Besides, Lincoln hadn't even done anything to infringe on their rights. The only anti-slavery policy on his platform was not to extend slavery Westwards in new states.
Of course, once the Emancipation Proclamation came out in September 1862, it all changed for the South.0 -
You are, of course, correct that the USA isn't much like Spain. The point I was trying to get Dair to understand (who knows with what success, nobody else seems to have persuaded him) was that in some countries, unlike the UK, there just isn't a guy who can authorise a secession referendum. If the Alabamans wanted an indyref, and Pres Obama thought this was a jolly good idea, it doesn't mean he could sign a sheet of paper granting them one.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:
Who do you think can "grant" this referendum of which you speak? And by what right?Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain doesn't float off the northwest coast of France / southwest coast of Norway.
Apparently they have a thing over there called "Spanish law". One aspect of which is called the Spanish constitution. Apparently, in order to confuse us, the evil Spanish have written a constitution that does not exactly match the British constitution. In fact they have other laws that are different too! And a completely different legal system! Madness!!
And to really spite us, they haven't even just done a verbatim copy of that other constitution we understand, the U.S. one. In fact that's an interesting counterpoint. If Arizona (or whoever, though there is added complication in the case of Texas so have been deliberately avoiding that one) wanted an "independence referendum" then who in the USA could "grant" one, and how?
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.0 -
Germany does not want the UK to leave leaving it outvoted by the Southern Europeans and a multi-tier Europe of eurozone and non-eurozone nations is inevitableCornishBlue said:
I was for staying until a couple of months ago. Now it seems quite apparent that Cameron intends nothing to change and the European Commission/Germany couldn't care less if the UK left - they don't want a multi-speed/tier Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
They could hold one anyway and if secessionists controlled the governorship and legislature and the referendum passed there would be little he could do short of another civil warMyBurningEars said:
You are, of course, correct that the USA isn't much like Spain. The point I was trying to get Dair to understand (who knows with what success, nobody else seems to have persuaded him) was that in some countries, unlike the UK, there just isn't a guy who can authorise a secession referendum. If the Alabamans wanted an indyref, and Pres Obama thought this was a jolly good idea, it doesn't mean he could sign a sheet of paper granting them one.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:
Who do you think can "grant" this referendum of which you speak? And by what right?Dair said:
The logic of that just doesn't stand up.SouthamObserver said:So it looks like Junts will finish at bottom end of expectations, Ciutadans at very top end, PSC towards top end, PP towards bottom and CUP and Podemos pretty much as expected.
If such damage has been done to the Independence movement then CUP have every incentive to use the Independence majority of seats to force a referendum out of Madrid and if it is not granted, work with Junts towards UDI *regardless* of anything they have said.
That's how politics works. They have an aim, if their aim is threatened, they will do what they can to achieve it.
There is a very clear path here for CUP - simply claim that the support for a Referendum is over 50% and if not granted, they now agree with Junts on UDI.
Spain doesn't float off the northwest coast of France / southwest coast of Norway.
led the. In fact they have other laws that are different too! And a completely different legal system! Madness!!
And to really spite us, they haven't even just done a verbatim copy of that other constitution we understand, the U.S. one. In fact that's an interesting counterpoint. If Arizona (or whoever, though there is added complication in the case of Texas so have been deliberately avoiding that one) wanted an "independence referendum" then who in the USA could "grant" one, and how?
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.0 -
I'm not sure the framers of the United States constitution would have approved of the way "interstate commerce" has been used to grab power for the centre.Tim_B said:The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.0 -
You mean a bit like Islamic State? They seem to have a slavery fetish too...Tim_B said:True, it was not recognized by any other countries.
0 -
I would agree with that too. That being said, the independence movement in Spain appears to have peaked at the height of the Eurozone crisis. With Spain's GDP growing c. 4% this year, and with 100,000 new jobs being created every month (as well as a new government giving lots of additional powers to Catalonia), I think it's likely it will continue too recede.HYUFD said:
UDI was never a realistic prospect in my view, however Catalonia following Scotland and Quebec in having a referendum on independence remains likely in the next few yearsrcs1000 said:Richard: the independence parties fell short of a 50% vote share, and fell well short of their opinion poll ratings. Without an overwhelming mandate, UDI will not happen.
Will there be an official referendum in 2020? Quite possibly. But the fear of Spain breaking up in a disorganised manner in the next 18 months has receded greatly this evening.0 -
Possibly another bad exampleMyBurningEars said:
You are, of course, correct that the USA isn't much like Spain. The point I was trying to get Dair to understand (who knows with what success, nobody else seems to have persuaded him) was that in some countries, unlike the UK, there just isn't a guy who can authorise a secession referendum. If the Alabamans wanted an indyref, and Pres Obama thought this was a jolly good idea, it doesn't mean he could sign a sheet of paper granting them one.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:Dair said:SouthamObserver said:
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.
Obama has signed more executive orders either modifying laws passed by Congress (Obamacare alone over 40) or refusing to enforce them, than any other president. This is of course unconstitutional.
Incidentally someone on here - I forget who - said that he felt Obama was a good president.
He is a left wing ideologue, so far to the left on the US political scale that almost 3 out of 4 feel he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
That's the reason in 2010 after Obamacare passed, the Democrats received the biggest reversal in Congress in over 80 years. Even Obama called it a shellacking. 2014 wasn't that much better.0 -
That's certainly true. The framers would doubtless be horrified at the size of the federal government.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure the framers of the United States constitution would have approved of the way "interstate commerce" has been used to grab power for the centre.Tim_B said:The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.0 -
He is also the first Democratic President since FDR to be elected and then re-elected with more than 50% of the vote, he is not an A list president, but that is an achievement that cannot be deniedTim_B said:
Possibly another bad exampleMyBurningEars said:
You are, of course, correct that the USA isn't much like Spain. The point I was trying to get Dair to understand (who knows with what success, nobody else seems to have persuaded him) was that in some countries, unlike the UK, there just isn't a guy who can authorise a secession referendum. If the Alabamans wanted an indyref, and Pres Obama thought this was a jolly good idea, it doesn't mean he could sign a sheet of paper granting them one.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:Dair said:SouthamObserver said:
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.
Obama has signed more executive orders either modifying laws passed by Congress (Obamacare alone over 40) or refusing to enforce them, than any other president. This is of course unconstitutional.
Incidentally someone on here - I forget who - said that he felt Obama was a good president.
He is a left wing ideologue, so far to the left on the US political scale that almost 3 out of 4 feel he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
That's the reason in 2010 after Obamacare passed, the Democrats received the biggest reversal in Congress in over 80 years. Even Obama called it a shellacking. 2014 wasn't that much better.0 -
Who's denying it? Facts are facts.HYUFD said:
He is also the first Democratic President since FDR to be elected and then re-elected with more than 50% of the vote, he is not an A list president, but that is an achievement that cannot be deniedTim_B said:
Possibly another bad exampleMyBurningEars said:
You are, of course, correct that the USA isn't much like Spain. The point I was trying to get Dair to understand (who knows with what success, nobody else seems to have persuaded him) was that in some countries, unlike the UK, there just isn't a guy who can authorise a secession referendum. If the Alabamans wanted an indyref, and Pres Obama thought this was a jolly good idea, it doesn't mean he could sign a sheet of paper granting them one.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:Dair said:SouthamObserver said:
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.
Obama has signed more executive orders either modifying laws passed by Congress (Obamacare alone over 40) or refusing to enforce them, than any other president. This is of course unconstitutional.
Incidentally someone on here - I forget who - said that he felt Obama was a good president.
He is a left wing ideologue, so far to the left on the US political scale that almost 3 out of 4 feel he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
That's the reason in 2010 after Obamacare passed, the Democrats received the biggest reversal in Congress in over 80 years. Even Obama called it a shellacking. 2014 wasn't that much better.
he is not an A list president, but that is an achievement that cannot be denied
Of course it is an achievement not to be an A list president 0 -
It does not have much to do with economics really and regardless of what powers or not are given that may simply make it easier to defeat a referendum, not deny the referendum itselfrcs1000 said:
I would agree with that too. That being said, the independence movement in Spain appears to have peaked at the height of the Eurozone crisis. With Spain's GDP growing c. 4% this year, and with 100,000 new jobs being created every month (as well as a new government giving lots of additional powers to Catalonia), I think it's likely it will continue too recede.HYUFD said:
UDI was never a realistic prospect in my view, however Catalonia following Scotland and Quebec in having a referendum on independence remains likely in the next few yearsrcs1000 said:Richard: the independence parties fell short of a 50% vote share, and fell well short of their opinion poll ratings. Without an overwhelming mandate, UDI will not happen.
Will there be an official referendum in 2020? Quite possibly. But the fear of Spain breaking up in a disorganised manner in the next 18 months has receded greatly this evening.0 -
Independence campaigners often are not entirely consistent and often known for their brass necks! I cite the example of the SNP government wanting independence with a joint bank account as a contemporary example.JEO said:
State's rights were a complete fabrication of an argument. The southern states were quite happy to use the force of the Federal Government to compel northern states to enforce the fugitive slave act.foxinsoxuk said:
While clearly not the only cause of the ACW, the issue of States rights vs Federal control was one of the major issues. What seems clear now took a very bloody war and decades of reconstruction to resolve. As late as the 1960's Alabama called out the militia (National Guard) to oppose a Federal imposition.
Besides, Lincoln hadn't even done anything to infringe on their rights. The only anti-slavery policy on his platform was not to extend slavery Westwards in new states.
States rights was a rallying call for many in the south. Most whites in the CSA were not slaveholders but resented what they saw as Federal abuse of powers. Such resentments continue in the American backwoods with their "militia" movements.0 -
You, by your implication that he was resoundingly rejected in 2 elections with a less than 40% turnout when he won the two that mattered most on a turnout of around 60%Tim_B said:
Who's denying it? Facts are facts.HYUFD said:
He is also the first Democratic President since FDR to be elected and then re-elected with more than 50% of the vote, he is not an A list president, but that is an achievement that cannot be deniedTim_B said:
Possibly another bad exampleMyBurningEars said:
You are, of course, correct that the USA isn't much like Spain. The point I was trying to get Dair to understand (who knows with what success, nobody else seems to have persuaded him) was that in some countries, unlike the UK, there just isn't a guy who can authorise a secession referendum. If the Alabamans wanted an indyref, and Pres Obama thought this was a jolly good idea, it doesn't mean he could sign a sheet of paper granting them one.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:Dair said:SouthamObserver said:
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.
Obama has signed more executive orders either modifying laws passed by Congress (Obamacare alone over 40) or refusing to enforce them, than any other president. This is of course unconstitutional.
Incidentally someone on here - I forget who - said that he felt Obama was a good president.
He is a left wing ideologue, so far to the left on the US political scale that almost 3 out of 4 feel he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
That's the reason in 2010 after Obamacare passed, the Democrats received the biggest reversal in Congress in over 80 years. Even Obama called it a shellacking. 2014 wasn't that much better.0 -
I agree: I was merely pontificating on the likely result of the 2020 election...HYUFD said:
It does not have much to do with economics really and regardless of what powers or not are given that may simply make it easier to defeat a referendum, not deny the referendum itselfrcs1000 said:
I would agree with that too. That being said, the independence movement in Spain appears to have peaked at the height of the Eurozone crisis. With Spain's GDP growing c. 4% this year, and with 100,000 new jobs being created every month (as well as a new government giving lots of additional powers to Catalonia), I think it's likely it will continue too recede.HYUFD said:
UDI was never a realistic prospect in my view, however Catalonia following Scotland and Quebec in having a referendum on independence remains likely in the next few yearsrcs1000 said:Richard: the independence parties fell short of a 50% vote share, and fell well short of their opinion poll ratings. Without an overwhelming mandate, UDI will not happen.
Will there be an official referendum in 2020? Quite possibly. But the fear of Spain breaking up in a disorganised manner in the next 18 months has receded greatly this evening.0 -
His program was resoundingly rejected in those mid terms to an almost unprecedented amount in a mid term. It's not an implication, but a fact.HYUFD said:
You, by your implication that he was resoundingly rejected in 2 elections with a less than 40% turnout when he won the two that mattered most on a turnout of around 60%Tim_B said:
Who's denying it? Facts are facts.HYUFD said:
He is also the first Democratic President since FDR to be elected and then re-elected with more than 50% of the vote, he is not an A list president, but that is an achievement that cannot be deniedTim_B said:
Possibly another bad exampleMyBurningEars said:
You are, of course, correct that the USA isn't much like Spain. The point I was trying to get Dair to understand (who knows with what success, nobody else seems to have persuaded him) was that in some countries, unlike the UK, there just isn't a guy who can authorise a secession referendum. If the Alabamans wanted an indyref, and Pres Obama thought this was a jolly good idea, it doesn't mean he could sign a sheet of paper granting them one.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:Dair said:SouthamObserver said:
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.
Obama has signed more executive orders either modifying laws passed by Congress (Obamacare alone over 40) or refusing to enforce them, than any other president. This is of course unconstitutional.
Incidentally someone on here - I forget who - said that he felt Obama was a good president.
He is a left wing ideologue, so far to the left on the US political scale that almost 3 out of 4 feel he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
That's the reason in 2010 after Obamacare passed, the Democrats received the biggest reversal in Congress in over 80 years. Even Obama called it a shellacking. 2014 wasn't that much better.
I never mentioned, referred to, or implied, anything about his two victories. Facts are facts.0 -
Yes, since Calvin Coolidge true, but you know what I meanTim_B said:
Who's denying it? Facts are facts.HYUFD said:
He is also the first Democratic President since FDR to be elected and then re-elected with more than 50% of the vote, he is not an A list president, but that is an achievement that cannot be deniedTim_B said:
Possibly another bad exampleMyBurningEars said:
You are, of course, correct that the USA isn't much like Spain. The point I was trying to get Dair to understand (who knows with what success, nobody else seems to have persuaded him) was that in some countries, unlike the UK, there just isn't a guy who can authorise a secession referendum. If the Alabamans wanted an indyref, and Pres Obama thought this was a jolly good idea, it doesn't mean he could sign a sheet of paper granting them one.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:Dair said:SouthamObserver said:
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.
Obama has signed more executive orders either modifying laws passed by Congress (Obamacare alone over 40) or refusing to enforce them, than any other president. This is of course unconstitutional.
Incidentally someone on here - I forget who - said that he felt Obama was a good president.
He is a left wing ideologue, so far to the left on the US political scale that almost 3 out of 4 feel he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
That's the reason in 2010 after Obamacare passed, the Democrats received the biggest reversal in Congress in over 80 years. Even Obama called it a shellacking. 2014 wasn't that much better.
he is not an A list president, but that is an achievement that cannot be denied
Of course it is an achievement not to be an A list president0 -
Indeed, we shall see in the years ahead, nightrcs1000 said:
I agree: I was merely pontificating on the likely result of the 2020 election...HYUFD said:
It does not have much to do with economics really and regardless of what powers or not are given that may simply make it easier to defeat a referendum, not deny the referendum itselfrcs1000 said:
I would agree with that too. That being said, the independence movement in Spain appears to have peaked at the height of the Eurozone crisis. With Spain's GDP growing c. 4% this year, and with 100,000 new jobs being created every month (as well as a new government giving lots of additional powers to Catalonia), I think it's likely it will continue too recede.HYUFD said:
UDI was never a realistic prospect in my view, however Catalonia following Scotland and Quebec in having a referendum on independence remains likely in the next few yearsrcs1000 said:Richard: the independence parties fell short of a 50% vote share, and fell well short of their opinion poll ratings. Without an overwhelming mandate, UDI will not happen.
Will there be an official referendum in 2020? Quite possibly. But the fear of Spain breaking up in a disorganised manner in the next 18 months has receded greatly this evening.0 -
Most whites in the CSA were not slaveholders but resented the idea that negroes might be equal to them. It was nothing to do with federal abuse of powers, as there wasn't a federal action they could even be upset about.foxinsoxuk said:
Independence campaigners often are not entirely consistent and often known for their brass necks! I cite the example of the SNP government wanting independence with a joint bank account as a contemporary example.JEO said:
State's rights were a complete fabrication of an argument. The southern states were quite happy to use the force of the Federal Government to compel northern states to enforce the fugitive slave act.foxinsoxuk said:
While clearly not the only cause of the ACW, the issue of States rights vs Federal control was one of the major issues. What seems clear now took a very bloody war and decades of reconstruction to resolve. As late as the 1960's Alabama called out the militia (National Guard) to oppose a Federal imposition.
Besides, Lincoln hadn't even done anything to infringe on their rights. The only anti-slavery policy on his platform was not to extend slavery Westwards in new states.
States rights was a rallying call for many in the south. Most whites in the CSA were not slaveholders but resented what they saw as Federal abuse of powers. Such resentments continue in the American backwoods with their "militia" movements.
The modern militia movements are a different kettle of fish. More of a Western thing than a Southern thing.0 -
I did, yes, hence the smiley at your unintended phrasing.HYUFD said:
Yes, since Calvin Coolidge true, but you know what I meanTim_B said:
Who's denying it? Facts are facts.HYUFD said:
He is also the first Democratic President since FDR to be elected and then re-elected with more than 50% of the vote, he is not an A list president, but that is an achievement that cannot be deniedTim_B said:
Possibly another bad exampleMyBurningEars said:
You are, of course, correct that the USA isn't much like Spain. The point I was trying to get Dair to understand (who knows with what success, nobody else seems to have persuaded him) was that in some countries, unlike the UK, there just isn't a guy who can authorise a secession referendum. If the Alabamans wanted an indyref, and Pres Obama thought this was a jolly good idea, it doesn't mean he could sign a sheet of paper granting them one.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:Dair said:SouthamObserver said:
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.
Obama has signed more executive orders either modifying laws passed by Congress (Obamacare alone over 40) or refusing to enforce them, than any other president. This is of course unconstitutional.
Incidentally someone on here - I forget who - said that he felt Obama was a good president.
He is a left wing ideologue, so far to the left on the US political scale that almost 3 out of 4 feel he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
That's the reason in 2010 after Obamacare passed, the Democrats received the biggest reversal in Congress in over 80 years. Even Obama called it a shellacking. 2014 wasn't that much better.
he is not an A list president, but that is an achievement that cannot be denied
Of course it is an achievement not to be an A list president0 -
Almost every president loses mid-terms and has to face an opposition Congress, Obama is left of the political centre in the US that is obvious and the midterms shifted the pivot back more towards the centre, but nonetheless he was still re-elected despite Obamacare, gay marriage is now legal in the US etc. He has shifted the US in a more liberal direction than when he took office that is clear. That is not the same as the US being a centre-left nation which clearly it is not, but it is a shift nonetheless. NightTim_B said:
His program was resoundingly rejected in those mid terms to an almost unprecedented amount in a mid term. It's not an implication, but a fact.HYUFD said:
You, by your implication that he was resoundingly rejected in 2 elections with a less than 40% turnout when he won the two that mattered most on a turnout of around 60%Tim_B said:
Who's denying it? Facts are facts.HYUFD said:
He is also the first Democratic PresidentTim_B said:
Possibly another bad exampleMyBurningEars said:
You are, of course, correct that the USA isn't much like Spain. The point I was trying to get Dair to understand (who knows with what success, nobody else seems to have persuaded him) was that in some countries, unlike the UK, there just isn't a guy who can authorise a secession referendum. If the Alabamans wanted an indyref, and Pres Obama thought this was a jolly good idea, it doesn't mean he could sign a sheet of paper granting them one.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:Dair said:SouthamObserver said:
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.
That's the reason in 2010 after Obamacare passed, the Democrats received the biggest reversal in Congress in over 80 years. Even Obama called it a shellacking. 2014 wasn't that much better.
I never mentioned, referred to, or implied, anything about his two victories. Facts are facts.0 -
I'm banking on this and the idea that various leaks are just the Cameroons soft-peddling expectations. I WANT Cameron to persuade me to stay in. But the proof shall be in the pudding.HYUFD said:
Germany does not want the UK to leave leaving it outvoted by the Southern Europeans and a multi-tier Europe of eurozone and non-eurozone nations is inevitableCornishBlue said:
I was for staying until a couple of months ago. Now it seems quite apparent that Cameron intends nothing to change and the European Commission/Germany couldn't care less if the UK left - they don't want a multi-speed/tier Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
IndeedTim_B said:
I did, yes, hence the smiley at your unintended phrasing.HYUFD said:
Yes, since Calvin Coolidge true, but you know what I meanTim_B said:
Who's denying it? Facts are facts.HYUFD said:
He is also the first Democratic President since FDR to be elected and then re-elected with more than 50% of the vote, he is not an A list president, but that is an achievement that cannot be deniedTim_B said:
Possibly another bad exampleMyBurningEars said:
You are, of course, correct that the USA isn't much like Spain. The point I was trying to get Dair to understand (who knows with what success, nobody else seems to have persuaded him) was that in some countries, unlike the UK, there just isn't a guy who can authorise a secession referendum. If the Alabamans wanted an indyref, and Pres Obama thought this was a jolly good idea, it doesn't mean he could sign a sheet of paper granting them one.Tim_B said:
The US started out as a country, with clear distinctions between states rights and what the Feds would do (foreign policies etc). whereas the EU didn't. There are different legal systems, judicial systems, and cultures. It's like herding cats.foxinsoxuk said:
Seccession is not permitted in the USA. They had a war that killed more Americans than all other US wars combined over the issue. The US is far more domineering than the EU in this regard.MyBurningEars said:Dair said:SouthamObserver said:
The American Civil War is also a great example of democracies going to war too.
I'm not sure the comparison is that good.
Obama has signed more executive orders either modifying laws passed by Congress (Obamacare alone over 40) or refusing to enforce them, than any other president. This is of course unconstitutional.
Incidentally someone on here - I forget who - said that he felt Obama was a good president.
He is a left wing ideologue, so far to the left on the US political scale that almost 3 out of 4 feel he is leading the country in the wrong direction.
That's the reason in 2010 after Obamacare passed, the Democrats received the biggest reversal in Congress in over 80 years. Even Obama called it a shellacking. 2014 wasn't that much better.
he is not an A list president, but that is an achievement that cannot be denied
Of course it is an achievement not to be an A list president0 -
We must hope he comes out with something concrete anyway but time will tell. Good nightJEO said:
I'm banking on this and the idea that various leaks are just the Cameroons soft-peddling expectations. I WANT Cameron to persuade me to stay in. But the proof shall be in the pudding.HYUFD said:
Germany does not want the UK to leave leaving it outvoted by the Southern Europeans and a multi-tier Europe of eurozone and non-eurozone nations is inevitableCornishBlue said:
I was for staying until a couple of months ago. Now it seems quite apparent that Cameron intends nothing to change and the European Commission/Germany couldn't care less if the UK left - they don't want a multi-speed/tier Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
The whites in the CSA may not have been justified in complaining about abuse of Federal powers but nonetheless they were agrieved. Lincoln did not propose the abolition of slavery and equal rights for african americans until the ACW was 18 months old. The Emancipation proclomation of 1863 also only applied to the CSA; emancipation did not apply in the Union controlled areas or the Union States of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri until the war was over.JEO said:
Most whites in the CSA were not slaveholders but resented the idea that negroes might be equal to them. It was nothing to do with federal abuse of powers, as there wasn't a federal action they could even be upset about.foxinsoxuk said:
Independence campaigners often are not entirely consistent and often known for their brass necks! I cite the example of the SNP government wanting independence with a joint bank account as a contemporary example.JEO said:
State's rights were a complete fabrication of an argument. The southern states were quite happy to use the force of the Federal Government to compel northern states to enforce the fugitive slave act.foxinsoxuk said:
While clearly not the only cause of the ACW, the issue of States rights vs Federal control was one of the major issues. What seems clear now took a very bloody war and decades of reconstruction to resolve. As late as the 1960's Alabama called out the militia (National Guard) to oppose a Federal imposition.
Besides, Lincoln hadn't even done anything to infringe on their rights. The only anti-slavery policy on his platform was not to extend slavery Westwards in new states.
States rights was a rallying call for many in the south. Most whites in the CSA were not slaveholders but resented what they saw as Federal abuse of powers. Such resentments continue in the American backwoods with their "militia" movements.
The modern militia movements are a different kettle of fish. More of a Western thing than a Southern thing.
The militia movement in the US is in the West, but has as its roots the same feisty resistance to cental Federal control as the hillbillys of the South. A feisty independence rooted in Scots-Irish resentments.0 -
They don't lose mid terms on the scale Obama did. At this point I doubt gay marriage bothers anyone other than the religious folks. Obama used to be against it.HYUFD said:
Almost every president loses mid-terms and has to face an opposition Congress, Obama is left of the political centre in the US that is obvious and the midterms shifted the pivot back more towards the centre, but nonetheless he was still re-elected despite Obamacare, gay marriage is now legal in the US etc. He has shifted the US in a more liberal direction than when he took office that is clear. That is not the same as the US being a centre-left nation which clearly it is not, but it is a shift nonetheless. NightTim_B said:
His program was resoundingly rejected in those mid terms to an almost unprecedented amount in a mid term. It's not an implication, but a fact.HYUFD said:
You, by your implication that he was resoundingly rejected in 2 elections with a less than 40% turnout when he won the two that mattered most on a turnout of around 60%Tim_B said:
Who's denying it? Facts are facts.HYUFD said:
He is also the first Democratic PresidentTim_B said:
Possibly another bad exampleMyBurningEars said:Tim_B said:foxinsoxuk said:MyBurningEars said:Dair said:SouthamObserver said:
That's the reason in 2010 after Obamacare passed, the Democrats received the biggest reversal in Congress in over 80 years. Even Obama called it a shellacking. 2014 wasn't that much better.
I never mentioned, referred to, or implied, anything about his two victories. Facts are facts.
No, the US is not more liberal than it was 6 years ago. If anything his attempts for bigger government have shown it doesn't work. Obamacare is the classic example. Yes, they get subsidized premiums, but when the time comes to see a doctor or a specialist the copays and deductibles are huge compared to conventional insurance, and the lists of those who accept Obamacare are very short compared to regular insurance. Obamacare reimburses less than Medicaid, so most providers will not accept it. Obamacare buys you health insurance, but not access to healthcare.0 -
In the South they mainly seem to be survivalists with vast stores of canned food and weapons.foxinsoxuk said:
The whites in the CSA may not have been justified in complaining about abuse of Federal powers but nonetheless they were agrieved. Lincoln did not propose the abolition of slavery and equal rights for african americans until the ACW was 18 months old. The Emancipation proclomation of 1863 also only applied to the CSA; emancipation did not apply in the Union controlled areas or the Union States of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri until the war was over.JEO said:
Most whites in the CSA were not slaveholders but resented the idea that negroes might be equal to them. It was nothing to do with federal abuse of powers, as there wasn't a federal action they could even be upset about.foxinsoxuk said:
Independence campaigners often are not entirely consistent and often known for their brass necks! I cite the example of the SNP government wanting independence with a joint bank account as a contemporary example.JEO said:
State's rights were a complete fabrication of an argument. The southern states were quite happy to use the force of the Federal Government to compel northern states to enforce the fugitive slave act.foxinsoxuk said:
While clearly not the only cause of the ACW, the issue of States rights vs Federal control was one of the major issues. What seems clear now took a very bloody war and decades of reconstruction to resolve. As late as the 1960's Alabama called out the militia (National Guard) to oppose a Federal imposition.
Besides, Lincoln hadn't even done anything to infringe on their rights. The only anti-slavery policy on his platform was not to extend slavery Westwards in new states.
States rights was a rallying call for many in the south. Most whites in the CSA were not slaveholders but resented what they saw as Federal abuse of powers. Such resentments continue in the American backwoods with their "militia" movements.
The modern militia movements are a different kettle of fish. More of a Western thing than a Southern thing.
The militia movement in the US is in the West, but has as its roots the same feisty resistance to cental Federal control as the hillbillys of the South. A feisty independence rooted in Scots-Irish resentments.0 -
The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure to deprive rebels of their property in slaves and to dispose of said property, and nothing to do with equal rights, just freedom. Thus it could only be applied to the enemy rebels and not Union slave states. In fact, only a small number of white people North or South believed in racial equality. All this is covered in "Battle Cry of Freedom", which was mentioned here on Saturday night as one of the top history books, and which I am now mentioning again.foxinsoxuk said:
The whites in the CSA may not have been justified in complaining about abuse of Federal powers but nonetheless they were agrieved. Lincoln did not propose the abolition of slavery and equal rights for african americans until the ACW was 18 months old. The Emancipation proclomation of 1863 also only applied to the CSA; emancipation did not apply in the Union controlled areas or the Union States of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri until the war was over.JEO said:
Most whites in the CSA were not slaveholders but resented the idea that negroes might be equal to them. It was nothing to do with federal abuse of powers, as there wasn't a federal action they could even be upset about.foxinsoxuk said:
Independence campaigners often are not entirely consistent and often known for their brass necks! I cite the example of the SNP government wanting independence with a joint bank account as a contemporary example.JEO said:
State's rights were a complete fabrication of an argument. The southern states were quite happy to use the force of the Federal Government to compel northern states to enforce the fugitive slave act.foxinsoxuk said:
While clearly not the only cause of the ACW, the issue of States rights vs Federal control was one of the major issues. What seems clear now took a very bloody war and decades of reconstruction to resolve. As late as the 1960's Alabama called out the militia (National Guard) to oppose a Federal imposition.
Besides, Lincoln hadn't even done anything to infringe on their rights. The only anti-slavery policy on his platform was not to extend slavery Westwards in new states.
States rights was a rallying call for many in the south. Most whites in the CSA were not slaveholders but resented what they saw as Federal abuse of powers. Such resentments continue in the American backwoods with their "militia" movements.
The modern militia movements are a different kettle of fish. More of a Western thing than a Southern thing.
The militia movement in the US is in the West, but has as its roots the same feisty resistance to cental Federal control as the hillbillys of the South. A feisty independence rooted in Scots-Irish resentments.0 -
Just took pictures of the Red Moon.0
-
Lots of history written about the ACW. No excuse for ignorance. Lincoln!n was constrained by War Democrats. The EP was made possible by the half victory of Anteitam.EPG said:
The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure to deprive rebels of their property in slaves and to dispose of said property, and nothing to do with equal rights, just freedom. Thus it could only be applied to the enemy rebels and not Union slave states. In fact, only a small number of white people North or South believed in racial equality. All this is covered in "Battle Cry of Freedom", which was mentioned here on Saturday night as one of the top history books, and which I am now mentioning again.foxinsoxuk said:
The whites in the CSA may not have been justified in complaining about abuse of Federal powers but nonetheless they were agrieved. Lincoln did not propose the abolition of slavery and equal rights for african americans until the ACW was 18 months old. The Emancipation proclomation of 1863 also only applied to the CSA; emancipation did not apply in the Union controlled areas or the Union States of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri until the war was over.JEO said:
...foxinsoxuk said:
Independence campaigners often are not entirely consistent and often known for their brass necks! I cite the example of the SNP government wanting independence with a joint bank account as a contemporary example.JEO said:
State's rights were a complete fabrication of an argument. The southern states were quite happy to use the force of the Federal Government to compel northern states to enforce the fugitive slave act.foxinsoxuk said:
While clearly not the only cause of the ACW, the issue of States rights vs Federal control was one of the major issues. What seems clear now took a very bloody war and decades of reconstruction to resolve. As late as the 1960's Alabama called out the militia (National Guard) to oppose a Federal imposition.
Besides, Lincoln hadn't even done anything to infringe on their rights. The only anti-slavery policy on his platform was not to extend slavery Westwards in new states.
States rights was a rallying call for many in the south. Most whites in the CSA were not slaveholders but resented what they saw as Federal abuse of powers. Such resentments continue in the American backwoods with their "militia" movements.
The modern militia movements are a different kettle of fish. More of a Western thing than a Southern thing.
The militia movement in the US is in the West, but has as its roots the same feisty resistance to cental Federal control as the hillbillys of the South. A feisty independence rooted in Scots-Irish resentments.
I'm watching the lunar eclipse at moment. Good night for star gazing.0
