politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clinton and Trump dominate in the build up to “Super Tuesda
Comments
-
This is one of the many corruscating burdens on commerce that are rarely tackled. But were the Ministers aware of what was the padding from the EC? Getting out of the EC then our politicians have to take responsibility for the laws made and for not changing the laws that are in place.Richard_Nabavi said:
The same is probably true on the full factfind nonsense. Much of that nonsense is as much because of the enthusiasm of UK regulators as EU regulators.weejonnie said:(Many small businesses are hurt for having to comply with EU legislation and not having the resources to do so e.g. having to work out VAT in each country you sell. I am in insurance as a broker and my business is shot to hell because I have to do a full factfind before recommending a £10.00 travel insurance policy when customers can buy it online (at their own risk). - Blame the DMD and the IMD for that.
0 -
And are poorly advised, because threatening the Brits has worked so well for people in the past...taffys said:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/forget-amicable-divorce-if-you-exit-eu-german-bdi-tells-u-k
The Germans are starting to sweat.....0 -
Jewish human rights group furious at Palsoc’s mock checkpoint
Lawyers for Jewish Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the University of Cambridge hinting that legal action might be taken in response to the mock checkpoint that was erected on Sidgwick site as part of Israeli Apartheid Week.
The letter described the structure as a “deliberately intimidating paramilitary-style antisemitic ‘checkpoint’” and says that it was adorned with an Israeli flag. The letter goes on to say that “It is clear to our client that no-one whatsoever has given any thought to how a Jewish person in the current climate might feel about being forced to walk through such an intimidating road block on the campus.” Finally, the letter condemned the university for endorsing “such virulent antisemitic elements”.
http://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2016/02/26/jewish-human-rights-group-708590 -
Oh, I see what you mean. In that case, it's the Greens, by a small margin. But the article was comparing with UKIP replacing Labour in Britain, suggesting a huge surge to major opposition party, rather than some shuffling in the ranks of also-rans...david_herdson said:
It can't be the SPD: they're in government!NickPalmer said:
The SPD, with around 24% of the vote, compared with the Left, Greens and AfD, all on about 10%, and the CDU on about 35%. Nobody is very popular!david_herdson said:
Is it? Which is the most popular opposition party at the moment?0 -
I do not accept that proposition at all. I am heart to leave and head to stay,a position held by many of the voters who will decide this referendum. I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve. This does not mean I will not vote leave but leave must convince me on trade and free movement of labour. I am genuinely asking someone, anyone in leave, to provide leave's agreed response to this question.Indigo said:
It's utter cant anyway, it it just the next iteration of being "undecided". Now they fall back on being "decided but open to reason". Its bullshit, its the reaction of party loyalist following the beat of their leaders drum, but not wanting to look dogmatic. If Cameron fell under a bus tomorrow and Patterson was elected leader next week there would be a deafening screech of handbrakes and all of a sudden they would be persuaded by the arguments of leave after all.taffys said:
The trouble with those remain people is they haven't offered us a plan. What would Britain look like if we remain?Plato_Says said:#Applause
NorfolkTilIDie said:
Nor do we know what Remain looks like given the various plans for Eurozone integration. Difference is that uncertainty of Leave is in hands of UK government, while uncertainty of Remain is in hands of France and Germany.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.NorfolkTilIDie said:There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?0 -
incidentally I've just noticed Mike's typo - I do rather like the idea of "Supper Tuesday"!0
-
100% access to the EU single market isn't for me the be all and end all.
No, it's a fetish really. But the reason Remainers like Richard keep emphasising it is twofold:
1. They can argue that without it all kinds of dire things will happen to trade (rubbish of course)
2. If you accept it is completely necessary, then the next step is you have to accept all that goes with it e.g. freedom of movement, subjection to EU directives etc....and ultimately, Richard would argue, EU membership. It's the traditional Europhile argument.0 -
I don't agree with free movement of labour but leave need to convince me they can get unconditional trade deals that will enable us to introduce this so called Australian points systemCasino_Royale said:
You are taking the numbers too literally. I was trying to illustrate that a single market-lite deal with practical restrictions on migration may well give us plenty of trade opportunities whilst still bringing migration down to an acceptable level.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would vote to leave if we can have full access to the single market without any free movement of labour. However if all that can be put forward by leave is some haphazard guess work on made up numbers of 75% maybe etc free movement it is my opinion that in this conjecture leave show they have not thought through a coherent planCasino_Royale said:
The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.Richard_Nabavi said:
Two alternatives would make me vote Leave:Casino_Royale said:But, if it were, what would it have to look like for you to vote for it and not shoot it down?
I've been trying to draw you on this for months and, as far as I can tell, you draw the threshold so high for Brexit - and want it signed in blood - that it can never realistically be reached starting from where we are now.
I suspect the only way you'd vote Leave is if a Tory PM advocated Leave, negotiated the exit deal with all 27 member states *prior* to invoking article 50, and then called a referendum recommending we endorse it before triggering the exit process.
- If someone would explain to me how the EEA option would provide better protection for the City (and business services generally) than staying, then I'd probably go for that.
- Even better, if I thought we could get a trade deal including full access to the Single Market (including services), but with control over migration, I'd take that combination like a shot.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
I accept that there are those for whom full free movement of people and 100% full access to the single market is more important that social, employment, criminal, justice, human rights, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, environment and trade policy.
If that's your number one priority - and think even 1/28th of a say in the rules is better than none, and far more important than 100% say over the other powers you'd otherwise repatriate - you probably are being quite logical to vote Remain.0 -
"Resolving post-exit legal issues including trade treaties, taxation and regulatory matters might take five to 10 years...."taffys said:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/forget-amicable-divorce-if-you-exit-eu-german-bdi-tells-u-k
The Germans are starting to sweat.....
So for a decade we'd look like a European version of Cuba, driving around in ageing Mercedes and BMW's and Audis and Porsches, because the UK could no longer import German goods without the EU's blessing..... Uh-huh... Of course we would.... Yeah, sure....
#FearWon'tWork0 -
I loved that word. Its words like that that make me think seriously about trying to learn German.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, great article.DavidL said:I have said on here before that Matt Taibbi's articles on the crash were required reading for anyone who wanted to understand the biggest theft in history.
He's back in Rolling Stone with a great article about the Trump phenomenon, its long but it explains his success and likely progress better than anything else I've read and its got some really funny lines: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224
And I sincerely hope that the word Backpfeifengesicht will enter the PB lexicon.0 -
A common sense PR campaign would work here.
Nothing flashy, just the bald facts. Stated again and again and again.MarqueeMark said:
"Resolving post-exit legal issues including trade treaties, taxation and regulatory matters might take five to 10 years...."taffys said:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/forget-amicable-divorce-if-you-exit-eu-german-bdi-tells-u-k
The Germans are starting to sweat.....
So for a decade we'd look like a European version of Cuba, driving around in ageing Mercedes and BMW's and Audis and Porsches, because the UK could no longer import German goods without the EU's blessing..... Uh-huh... Of course we would.... Yeah, sure....
#FearWon'tWork0 -
All the reasons why they will have to do a deal are listed in that article.taffys said:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/forget-amicable-divorce-if-you-exit-eu-german-bdi-tells-u-k
The Germans are starting to sweat.....
It's all too complicated and entangled not to.
Followed by:Of course, one can’t rule out that in five or 10 years things would improve for the U.K. -- it might become a super-Singapore at the gates of Europe,” said Kerber.
0 -
Indeed. The pretext is they are worried about a very large and lucrative market.MarqueeMark said:
"Resolving post-exit legal issues including trade treaties, taxation and regulatory matters might take five to 10 years...."taffys said:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/forget-amicable-divorce-if-you-exit-eu-german-bdi-tells-u-k
The Germans are starting to sweat.....
So for a decade we'd look like a European version of Cuba, driving around in ageing Mercedes and BMW's and Audis and Porsches, because the UK could no longer import German goods without the EU's blessing..... Uh-huh... Of course we would.... Yeah, sure....
#FearWon'tWork
Whatever Cameron says, this could turn into a game of poker between the EU and British electorate.0 -
'All the reasons why they will have to do a deal are listed in that article.'
Indeed, but obviously they would prefer not to have to do so, especially as current arrangements suit them so very well.0 -
In a nutshell.RodCrosby said:For those interested in Professor Norpoth's prediction that Trump is a slam dunk.
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...0 -
Hah, I hadn't up till now ! Actually was only £50. I couldn't bear the thought of winning less than £700 on Trump nominationTheWhiteRabbit said:
Pulp "I haven't back at shorter than evens" starPulpstar said:Had a £100 cheeky top up on Trump at 1.48. Price should come down on Super Tuesday.
0 -
The precedents are the eurozone's woes.
As much as they would have liked to have cut the 'difficult' Greeks adrift, the fall-out was always too much of a risk.
So they take the safe route, kick the can down the road so there is as little disruption as possible and then take forever to engineer any form of meaningful change.
The same will happen.0 -
I agree that it's the GOP's turn but that summary of the NH result seems a bit superficial.RodCrosby said:
In a nutshell.RodCrosby said:For those interested in Professor Norpoth's prediction that Trump is a slam dunk.
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
Hillary is a weak candidate but then Trump has ratings as bad as any candidate in the field - he's winning because he has a reasonable number of enthused supporters, not particularly because he's winning floating voters (and of course, it's pretty much only Republicans voting for him at the moment).
To me, the race is close to a toss-up, though tilted slightly to Hillary. That said, if the Republicans do lose then it's their own stupid fault.
However, if Clinton's weak now, god knows how bad she'll look come 2020.0 -
Yes and we hold all the aces but the dealer is crooked.taffys said:
Indeed. The pretext is they are worried about a very large and lucrative market.MarqueeMark said:
"Resolving post-exit legal issues including trade treaties, taxation and regulatory matters might take five to 10 years...."taffys said:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/forget-amicable-divorce-if-you-exit-eu-german-bdi-tells-u-k
The Germans are starting to sweat.....
So for a decade we'd look like a European version of Cuba, driving around in ageing Mercedes and BMW's and Audis and Porsches, because the UK could no longer import German goods without the EU's blessing..... Uh-huh... Of course we would.... Yeah, sure....
#FearWon'tWork
Whatever Cameron says, this could turn into a game of poker between the EU and British electorate.0 -
In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.0 -
Could this theory be applied in 1992 ?RodCrosby said:
In a nutshell.RodCrosby said:For those interested in Professor Norpoth's prediction that Trump is a slam dunk.
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...0 -
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.Big_G_NorthWales said:I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
0 -
In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
zzzzzzzzzzzz
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz0 -
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.0 -
Yes, I wouldn't anticipate either UKIP or AfD breaking into the top two at a GE any time soon. Unless there's another bad recession.NickPalmer said:
Oh, I see what you mean. In that case, it's the Greens, by a small margin. But the article was comparing with UKIP replacing Labour in Britain, suggesting a huge surge to major opposition party, rather than some shuffling in the ranks of also-rans...david_herdson said:
It can't be the SPD: they're in government!NickPalmer said:
The SPD, with around 24% of the vote, compared with the Left, Greens and AfD, all on about 10%, and the CDU on about 35%. Nobody is very popular!david_herdson said:
Is it? Which is the most popular opposition party at the moment?0 -
According to Norpoth, his model has correctly predicted every election back to 1912, and the "sunspot" predictor alone has a good record (maybe not perfect) going back to 1828!Pulpstar said:
Could this theory be applied in 1992 ?RodCrosby said:
In a nutshell.RodCrosby said:For those interested in Professor Norpoth's prediction that Trump is a slam dunk.
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...0 -
That is a very concise and accurate summary of the problems. The difficulty I have with Richard's argument is that if we opt for out then the regulation of the London market remains a matter for the UK alone. It is true that in trading within the Single Market they would have to comply with EU regulations in relation to that business but regulatory control would remain here.Cyclefree said:Posted without comment, this from the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards (2013):-
"The UK's ability to make necessary reforms to financial regulation risks being constrained by the European regulatory process, which is developing rapidly as Eurozone countries move towards banking union. Some new financial regulation across the EU may be desirable as a support for the Single Market. However, there are at least two dangers for the UK. The first is that the prescriptive and box-ticking tendency of EU rules designed for 27 members will impede the move towards the more judgement-based approach being introduced in the UK in response to past regulatory failures. The second is that some EU regulations may limit the UK's regulatory scope for unilateral action. This could mean moving at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy. This is a risk which the UK, as a medium-sized economy hosting one of the world's two most important financial centres, cannot afford."
London is now so far ahead of the rest of the EU that it needs particular care. The scale of trading is potentially destabilising for a medium sized country like the UK. With turnover exceeding our annual GDP every day market regulators need to be switched on and alert to market trends and systemic risk. Not being so was a major part of the 2008 disaster. An EU solution designed to cover regional banks in Austria or Poland just is not relevant or helpful.0 -
What is the fixation with trade deals, the numbers in question are mostly of the order of a less than a couple of percent under WTO MFN. Yes, it matters, but not that much, and would not take very much in the way of new markets to compete swamp the numbers involved.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I don't agree with free movement of labour but leave need to convince me they can get unconditional trade deals that will enable us to introduce this so called Australian points systemCasino_Royale said:
You are taking the numbers too literally. I was trying to illustrate that a single market-lite deal with practical restrictions on migration may well give us plenty of trade opportunities whilst still bringing migration down to an acceptable level.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would vote to leave if we can have full access to the single market without any free movement of labour. However if all that can be put forward by leave is some haphazard guess work on made up numbers of 75% maybe etc free movement it is my opinion that in this conjecture leave show they have not thought through a coherent planCasino_Royale said:The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
I accept that there are those for whom full free movement of people and 100% full access to the single market is more important that social, employment, criminal, justice, human rights, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, environment and trade policy.
If that's your number one priority - and think even 1/28th of a say in the rules is better than none, and far more important than 100% say over the other powers you'd otherwise repatriate - you probably are being quite logical to vote Remain.0 -
So, on balance, what happens the day after a leave vote?AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Everyone throws up trade barriers causing disruption for absolutely everybody, or the leaders agree that it is business as usual whilst discussions are ongoing about the UK's New Deal with Europe?
Business on the continent and here will demand the latter, surely?
0 -
So are you saying leave undertakes to the UK free movement of labour will be abolished on leavingIndigo said:
What is the fixation with trade deals, the numbers in question are mostly of the order of a less than a couple of percent under WTO MFN. Yes, it matters, but not that much, and would not take very much in the way of new markets to compete swamp the numbers involved.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I don't agree with free movement of labour but leave need to convince me they can get unconditional trade deals that will enable us to introduce this so called Australian points systemCasino_Royale said:
You are taking the numbers too literally. I was trying to illustrate that a single market-lite deal with practical restrictions on migration may well give us plenty of trade opportunities whilst still bringing migration down to an acceptable level.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would vote to leave if we can have full access to the single market without any free movement of labour. However if all that can be put forward by leave is some haphazard guess work on made up numbers of 75% maybe etc free movement it is my opinion that in this conjecture leave show they have not thought through a coherent planCasino_Royale said:The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
I accept that there are those for whom full free movement of people and 100% full access to the single market is more important that social, employment, criminal, justice, human rights, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, environment and trade policy.
If that's your number one priority - and think even 1/28th of a say in the rules is better than none, and far more important than 100% say over the other powers you'd otherwise repatriate - you probably are being quite logical to vote Remain.0 -
One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....0 -
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.0 -
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anywayIndigo said:
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.Big_G_NorthWales said:I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
0 -
Or as the UK heads for out, Germany's key business lobby goes to Merkel and says FFS get real. Something Dave says 'CANNOT' happen.chestnut said:
So, on balance, what happens the day after a leave vote?AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Everyone throws up trade barriers causing disruption for absolutely everybody, or the leaders agree that it is business as usual whilst discussions are ongoing about the UK's New Deal with Europe?
Business on the continent and here will demand the latter, surely?0 -
That Rolling Stone article suggests this is starting to change rapidly.david_herdson said:
I agree that it's the GOP's turn but that summary of the NH result seems a bit superficial.RodCrosby said:
In a nutshell.RodCrosby said:For those interested in Professor Norpoth's prediction that Trump is a slam dunk.
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
Hillary is a weak candidate but then Trump has ratings as bad as any candidate in the field - he's winning because he has a reasonable number of enthused supporters, not particularly because he's winning floating voters (and of course, it's pretty much only Republicans voting for him at the moment).This year, national leaders of several prominent unions went with Hillary Clinton – who, among other things, supported her husband's efforts to pass NAFTA – over Bernie Sanders. Pissed, the rank and file in many locals revolted.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224
You will find union members scattered at almost all of Trump's speeches. And there have been rumors of unions nationally considering endorsing Trump. SEIU president Mary Kay Henry even admitted in January that Trump appeals to members because of the "terrible anxiety" they feel about jobs.
"I know guys, union guys, who talk about Trump," says Rand Wilson, an activist from the Labor for Bernie organization. "I try to tell them about Sanders, and they don't know who he is. Or they've just heard he's a socialist. Trump they've heard of."
0 -
Massively pro-EU Financial Times says it will be hard to leave the EU shocker.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.0 -
FLORIDA GOP poll — @ppppolls
Trump 45%
Rubio 25%
Cruz 10%
Kasich 8%
Carson 5%
ONE-ON-ONE
Trump 52%, Rubio 38%0 -
Now I would never stick up for Chelsea fans, believe me I have seen exactly what they can be like over the last 50 years.The_Apocalypse said:One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
But there is a ridiculous romance about Liverpool supporters when in truth some of them are the most disgusting fans in the country. What sort of people, having experienced the horrors of Hillsborough, would attempt to storm the gates in an effort to get in without tickets, something I saw them do at Stamford Bridge in the last CL game we played with them.
I could go on all day about what they are really like.0 -
It got 1960 wrong, but I guess that could be because of Joe Kennedy's mafia buddies ballot stuffing in Illinois and LBJ doing his thing in Texas throwing his model off.RodCrosby said:
According to Norpoth, his model has correctly predicted every election back to 1912, and the "sunspot" predictor alone has a good record (maybe not perfect) going back to 1828!Pulpstar said:
Could this theory be applied in 1992 ?RodCrosby said:
In a nutshell.RodCrosby said:For those interested in Professor Norpoth's prediction that Trump is a slam dunk.
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
For the general I have Trump wins Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado.
A blow out then a few, if not all, of Virginia, New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa.
Won't even be close. Even the morons that vote Democrat aren't stupid enough for vote for a corrupt clown like Clinton.
Saw a talking head say for Super Tuesday internal polls show Trump ahead big in Tennessee. Hopefully Cruz and Rubio will come up short for the cut off in one or two states.0 -
Pleasing SEENSPlato_Says said:FLORIDA GOP poll — @ppppolls
Trump 45%
Rubio 25%
Cruz 10%
Kasich 8%
Carson 5%
ONE-ON-ONE
Trump 52%, Rubio 38%
So if Trump quits the race, Marco wins right ?!0 -
To some, but not to all. The problem Remain has is that a sizeable slice of the electorate - myself included - were looking for a decent deal as a reason to vote Remain. Something along the lines of that promised in the Conservative Party Manifesto in 2015 would have done the job. But what has come back falls so far short of what is in the long-term interests of Britain, we are inclined to vote Leave.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anywayIndigo said:
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.Big_G_NorthWales said:I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
For that, we are fed a diet of fear and abuse and have our sanity questioned.... Way to go, Remain.0 -
It was the DEM's turn (already overdue)Pulpstar said:
Could this theory be applied in 1992 ?RodCrosby said:
In a nutshell.RodCrosby said:For those interested in Professor Norpoth's prediction that Trump is a slam dunk.
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
Bill Clinton didn't win NH, but did OK. Bush won, but faced a serious, divisive challenge.
Therefore the chances of Bush "hanging on" to the White House for the GOP were negligible...0 -
Yes but if the latter wasn't so, I couldn't really care less about the former. Does that make sense?david_herdson said:
Yes, your original point was about the MENA migrants "roaming freely across the EU". You then changed that to talking about common residency rights and passports.isam said:
Was it?! How so?david_herdson said:
Skilfully changed from your original point.isam said:
Were there no EU and Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement, the people encouraged by it wouldn't have the same passport as me in 2024david_herdson said:
It has nothing to do with the EU. The migrants have crossed any number of non-EU / non-Schengen boundaries to get to Germany, Sweden and other final destinations. Were there no EU and had Merkel made exactly the same policy announcement then pretty much exactly the same thing would have happened.isam said:
A year ago, the idea of millions of MENA migrants roaming freely across the EU was "planned" was it? Or is it a "risk" of being part of it for the countries affected?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, precisely. So we don't know what we'd end up with.NorfolkTilIDie said:There are several Brexit plans. It will be up to elected government to decide which one it follows after the vote.
This is almost a definition of 'risk'.
I really can't see why anyone regards anything I am saying on this as controversial. Of course a major change to the status quo, with no well-developed plan, is risky. It might be worth the risk, but is anyone seriously disagreeing with me that it is risky?
I wish I could take the use of "skilfully" as a compliment, but I don't think it was!
The latter is a consequence of EU membership; the former was down to a mixture of events in the Middle East combined with the leadership of one member indulging in an emotional spasm.
I only really care that Merkel made the offer because of the effect it will have on us in the future.0 -
I don't speak for leave and therefore undertake nothing. I made no comment of free movement. As a Leave voter I am observing that should that eventuality happen, the potential tariffs that would accrue to us under the WTO Most Favoured Nation status are pretty small. That it would not take much in the way on new markets to offset that loss. And that in any case the total bill for tariffs in a typical year would cost the country less that the EU membership bill.Big_G_NorthWales said:
So are you saying leave undertakes to the UK free movement of labour will be abolished on leavingIndigo said:
What is the fixation with trade deals, the numbers in question are mostly of the order of a less than a couple of percent under WTO MFN. Yes, it matters, but not that much, and would not take very much in the way of new markets to compete swamp the numbers involved.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I don't agree with free movement of labour but leave need to convince me they can get unconditional trade deals that will enable us to introduce this so called Australian points systemCasino_Royale said:
You are taking the numbers too literally. I was trying to illustrate that a single market-lite deal with practical restrictions on migration may well give us plenty of trade opportunities whilst still bringing migration down to an acceptable level.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I would vote to leave if we can have full access to the single market without any free movement of labour. However if all that can be put forward by leave is some haphazard guess work on made up numbers of 75% maybe etc free movement it is my opinion that in this conjecture leave show they have not thought through a coherent planCasino_Royale said:The second one is exactly what I want and what I'd negotiate for. But I'm not sure we could get 100% access to the single market without 100% free migration.
What about..75% access but 75% free movement ? Made those numbers up a bit, but I mean free movement within an absolute annual cap of, say, 75-80k.
I accept that there are those for whom full free movement of people and 100% full access to the single market is more important that social, employment, criminal, justice, human rights, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, environment and trade policy.
If that's your number one priority - and think even 1/28th of a say in the rules is better than none, and far more important than 100% say over the other powers you'd otherwise repatriate - you probably are being quite logical to vote Remain.0 -
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
0 -
Just taken a bit of cheap Cruzinsurance at 150.0 for Prez and 60.0 for RepNom.
OK, he might not have much chance, but he's still the second-placed GOP candidate, and those odds are more than generous. If, as the polls indicate, Cruz wins Texas, Rubio loses in FL, and Trump pretty much cleans up elesewhere, then the current relative odds on Cruz and Rubio will look even more lopsided than they do at the moment.0 -
Or you could play the ball instead.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anywayIndigo said:
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.Big_G_NorthWales said:I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
0 -
Yes a good opportunity to buy some Cruz POTUS. Probably a loser, but at 150.0 who cares. It's live.Richard_Nabavi said:Just taken a bit of cheap Cruzinsurance at 150.0 for Prez and 60.0 for RepNom.
OK, he might not have much chance, but he's still the second-placed GOP candidate, and those odds are more than generous. If, as the polls indicate, Cruz wins Texas, Rubio loses in FL, and Trump pretty much cleans up elesewhere, then the current relative odds on Cruz and Rubio will look even more lopsided than they do at the moment.0 -
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224Indigo said:
That Rolling Stone article suggests this is starting to change rapidly.david_herdson said:
I agree that it's the GOP's turn but that summary of the NH result seems a bit superficial.RodCrosby said:
In a nutshell.RodCrosby said:For those interested in Professor Norpoth's prediction that Trump is a slam dunk.
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
Hillary is a weak candidate but then Trump has ratings as bad as any candidate in the field - he's winning because he has a reasonable number of enthused supporters, not particularly because he's winning floating voters (and of course, it's pretty much only Republicans voting for him at the moment).This year, national leaders of several prominent unions went with Hillary Clinton – who, among other things, supported her husband's efforts to pass NAFTA – over Bernie Sanders. Pissed, the rank and file in many locals revolted.
You will find union members scattered at almost all of Trump's speeches. And there have been rumors of unions nationally considering endorsing Trump. SEIU president Mary Kay Henry even admitted in January that Trump appeals to members because of the "terrible anxiety" they feel about jobs.
"I know guys, union guys, who talk about Trump," says Rand Wilson, an activist from the Labor for Bernie organization. "I try to tell them about Sanders, and they don't know who he is. Or they've just heard he's a socialist. Trump they've heard of."
Trump is still running a net favourability the wrong side of -20.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating
Comparing favourability head-to-head isn't a direct guide as it doesn't predict how people who have a favourable view of both (or more likely at the moment, an unfavourable view of both) will go. All the same, Trump is unlikely to win with that sort of score.0 -
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?Indigo said:
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.0 -
Wow, I didn't know that. The last time I was with a whole crowd of Liverpool supporters was December 2014 (Arsenal's 2-2 draw at Anfield), and there they seemed to be okay. But I don't think any group of fans should be romanticised, they are all annoying to various degrees. I'm an Arsenal fan, and I dislike a good 70% of our fans!nigel4england said:
Now I would never stick up for Chelsea fans, believe me I have seen exactly what they can be like over the last 50 years.The_Apocalypse said:One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
But there is a ridiculous romance about Liverpool supporters when in truth some of them are the most disgusting fans in the country. What sort of people, having experienced the horrors of Hillsborough, would attempt to storm the gates in an effort to get in without tickets, something I saw them do at Stamford Bridge in the last CL game we played with them.
I could go on all day about what they are really like.0 -
the more you engage or counter, the more right they are.Richard_Nabavi said:You see, this is why Dan Hodges is right. The Eurofanatical Leavers are incapable of accepting that there is any possible advantage whatsoever to staying In. They are not balancing pros and cons, they are starting from the definition that We Must Leave!, and then working backwards to dismiss any possible argument that goes the other way. This puts them into the most extraordinary logical contortions, for example, Richard T's ludicrous claim that we'd actually have more influence on EU regulations in the EEA option!
not just the corbynistas
or indeed PB Tories (although we are the exception to the rule as we're never wrong...)
0 -
Lib Dem conference in Scotland is like a graveyard, why they booked a big hall is hard to imagine. Be lucky to be out of double figures. So far it is SNPBAD.0
-
That really isn't the point though, is it? How can we expect Cameron to be a driving force for reform if the decision is made to stay in the EU if that is how he goes about negotiation and change? He is not fit for purpose.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anywayIndigo said:
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.Big_G_NorthWales said:I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
He may be a more than adequate PM on domestic issues, but clearly not vis-a-vis the EU/UK relationship.0 -
This is how I feel as well. I don't particularly like to EU, but the uncertainty that voting Leave brings, is probably the biggest reason why I'm in the Remain camp right now.AlastairMeeks said:
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?Indigo said:
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.0 -
Way too boring. Since I want some excitement in my life I am going for Leave.AlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.0 -
although my cover bet on yvette for loto by putting a tenner on mary creagh at 150-1 wasn't 100% correct.0
-
This is taken from a post on the Liverpool fans Red Cafe site, written by one of their own:The_Apocalypse said:
Wow, I didn't know that. The last time I was with a whole crowd of Liverpool supporters was December 2014 (Arsenal's 2-2 draw at Anfield), and there they seemed to be okay. But I don't think any group of fans should be romanticised, they are all annoying to various degrees. I'm an Arsenal fan, and I dislike a good 70% of our fans!nigel4england said:
Now I would never stick up for Chelsea fans, believe me I have seen exactly what they can be like over the last 50 years.The_Apocalypse said:One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
But there is a ridiculous romance about Liverpool supporters when in truth some of them are the most disgusting fans in the country. What sort of people, having experienced the horrors of Hillsborough, would attempt to storm the gates in an effort to get in without tickets, something I saw them do at Stamford Bridge in the last CL game we played with them.
I could go on all day about what they are really like.
"At Stamford Bridge in the Champions League semi-final two years ago, a very dangerous crush ensued when Scousers broke through the gates. Away to PSV Eindhoven in the quarter-final this season, there were frightening moments outside the ground and the behaviour of ticketless fans provoked some harsh exchanges on the internet forums."
0 -
Can't we all compromise on "correct, deranged and irrelevant"? I'm sure the Lib Dems themselves would recognise the truth of that description.malcolmg said:0 -
Bloody hell....nigel4england said:
This is taken from a post on the Liverpool fans Red Cafe site, written by one of their own:The_Apocalypse said:
Wow, I didn't know that. The last time I was with a whole crowd of Liverpool supporters was December 2014 (Arsenal's 2-2 draw at Anfield), and there they seemed to be okay. But I don't think any group of fans should be romanticised, they are all annoying to various degrees. I'm an Arsenal fan, and I dislike a good 70% of our fans!nigel4england said:
Now I would never stick up for Chelsea fans, believe me I have seen exactly what they can be like over the last 50 years.The_Apocalypse said:One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
But there is a ridiculous romance about Liverpool supporters when in truth some of them are the most disgusting fans in the country. What sort of people, having experienced the horrors of Hillsborough, would attempt to storm the gates in an effort to get in without tickets, something I saw them do at Stamford Bridge in the last CL game we played with them.
I could go on all day about what they are really like.
"At Stamford Bridge in the Champions League semi-final two years ago, a very dangerous crush ensued when Scousers broke through the gates. Away to PSV Eindhoven in the quarter-final this season, there were frightening moments outside the ground and the behaviour of ticketless fans provoked some harsh exchanges on the internet forums."
That's left me speechless.0 -
Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?AlastairMeeks said:
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?Indigo said:
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.0 -
All set for Super Tuesday ?MTimT said:
That really isn't the point though, is it? How can we expect Cameron to be a driving force for reform if the decision is made to stay in the EU if that is how he goes about negotiation and change? He is not fit for purpose.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anywayIndigo said:
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.Big_G_NorthWales said:I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
He may be a more than adequate PM on domestic issues, but clearly not vis-a-vis the EU/UK relationship.0 -
Actually Red Cafe is a Man Utd website but the whole piece was lifted from a Liverpool site, I could find loads of other links if anyone doubts what is stated.The_Apocalypse said:
Bloody hell....nigel4england said:
This is taken from a post on the Liverpool fans Red Cafe site, written by one of their own:The_Apocalypse said:
Wow, I didn't know that. The last time I was with a whole crowd of Liverpool supporters was December 2014 (Arsenal's 2-2 draw at Anfield), and there they seemed to be okay. But I don't think any group of fans should be romanticised, they are all annoying to various degrees. I'm an Arsenal fan, and I dislike a good 70% of our fans!nigel4england said:
Now I would never stick up for Chelsea fans, believe me I have seen exactly what they can be like over the last 50 years.The_Apocalypse said:One thing it'll be interesting to see come November is which PB regular is right. It seems out of several people, only JackW (who appears to have the best record out of everyone regarding predictions) is confident of a Clinton win.
Sorry to hear about TSE's leg. I actually think Liverpool have a genuine chance of beating Man City this weekend, looking at City's form (their win on Wednesday aside) in recent weeks. RE nigel4england's point on Liverpool fans, all the Liverpool fans I know seem to be alright. The worst fans in my experience, have been Chelsea fans....
But there is a ridiculous romance about Liverpool supporters when in truth some of them are the most disgusting fans in the country. What sort of people, having experienced the horrors of Hillsborough, would attempt to storm the gates in an effort to get in without tickets, something I saw them do at Stamford Bridge in the last CL game we played with them.
I could go on all day about what they are really like.
"At Stamford Bridge in the Champions League semi-final two years ago, a very dangerous crush ensued when Scousers broke through the gates. Away to PSV Eindhoven in the quarter-final this season, there were frightening moments outside the ground and the behaviour of ticketless fans provoked some harsh exchanges on the internet forums."
That's left me speechless.0 -
@nigel4england It doesn't get aired much for obvious reasons, but my Wednesday supporting colleagues don't have a great view of Liverpool fans either.0
-
I think it's more likely that the sensible Leave wing of UKIP collapses into the Tories, now, rather than the other way round.david_herdson said:
Yes, I wouldn't anticipate either UKIP or AfD breaking into the top two at a GE any time soon. Unless there's another bad recession.NickPalmer said:
Oh, I see what you mean. In that case, it's the Greens, by a small margin. But the article was comparing with UKIP replacing Labour in Britain, suggesting a huge surge to major opposition party, rather than some shuffling in the ranks of also-rans...david_herdson said:
It can't be the SPD: they're in government!NickPalmer said:
The SPD, with around 24% of the vote, compared with the Left, Greens and AfD, all on about 10%, and the CDU on about 35%. Nobody is very popular!david_herdson said:
Is it? Which is the most popular opposition party at the moment?
Events of the last month may prove to be extremely important for the long-term health of both parties.
Farage's ego is leading UKIP down a blind alley.0 -
Now you see, that doesn't work half as well because Britain has been in the EU for over 40 years and for good or ill the general public have a general idea of what they think the EU is about. That's perceived as a known known. You might argue that it's all going to change radically in the next 6 months but (1) that case has to be made and (2) it's not exactly obvious even when you've made that case.MarqueeMark said:
Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?AlastairMeeks said:
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?Indigo said:
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Whether a post-Leave Britain is going to put up barricades against furreiners or be a slash-and-burn capitalist free trading country is an unknown and the Leave camp seem disinclined to enlighten us on what of the multiple options available they purpose by advocating a Leave vote. People might quite like some options and be appalled by others.0 -
I am planning to be equally cheeky.Pulpstar said:Had a £100 cheeky top up on Trump at 1.48. Price should come down on Super Tuesday.
0 -
Where will the EU be in 40 years Alistair ?AlastairMeeks said:
Now you see, that doesn't work half as well because Britain has been in the EU for over 40 years and for good or ill the general public have a general idea of what they think the EU is about. That's perceived as a known known. You might argue that it's all going to change radically in the next 6 months but (1) that case has to be made and (2) it's not exactly obvious even when you've made that case.MarqueeMark said:
Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?AlastairMeeks said:
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?Indigo said:
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Whether a post-Leave Britain is going to put up barricades against furreiners or be a slash-and-burn capitalist free trading country is an unknown and the Leave camp seem disinclined to enlighten us on what of the multiple options available they purpose by advocating a Leave vote. People might quite like some options and be appalled by others.
Are you asking us to take a leap into the unknown by staying ?0 -
It's not 'equally'. Have you actually read that FT article?MarqueeMark said:Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?
Just read the section about a third of the way down headed 'The rule book'.
It beggars belief that Leavers simply dismiss the procedural risks as not even worth engaging with. Note in particular the bits about having to negotiate with 27 other EU countries including unanimity plus ratification by parliaments, and the fact that extending the deadline requires unanimity.0 -
There's none so blind as will not see.TGOHF said:
Where will the EU be in 40 years Alistair ?AlastairMeeks said:
Now you see, that doesn't work half as well because Britain has been in the EU for over 40 years and for good or ill the general public have a general idea of what they think the EU is about. That's perceived as a known known. You might argue that it's all going to change radically in the next 6 months but (1) that case has to be made and (2) it's not exactly obvious even when you've made that case.MarqueeMark said:
Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?AlastairMeeks said:
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?Indigo said:
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Whether a post-Leave Britain is going to put up barricades against furreiners or be a slash-and-burn capitalist free trading country is an unknown and the Leave camp seem disinclined to enlighten us on what of the multiple options available they purpose by advocating a Leave vote. People might quite like some options and be appalled by others.
Are you asking us to take a leap into the unknown by staying ?0 -
Are you serious, you'd rather have President Trump than Clinton?LondonBob said:
It got 1960 wrong, but I guess that could be because of Joe Kennedy's mafia buddies ballot stuffing in Illinois and LBJ doing his thing in Texas throwing his model off.RodCrosby said:
According to Norpoth, his model has correctly predicted every election back to 1912, and the "sunspot" predictor alone has a good record (maybe not perfect) going back to 1828!Pulpstar said:
Could this theory be applied in 1992 ?RodCrosby said:
In a nutshell.RodCrosby said:For those interested in Professor Norpoth's prediction that Trump is a slam dunk.
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
For the general I have Trump wins Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado.
A blow out then a few, if not all, of Virginia, New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa.
Won't even be close. Even the morons that vote Democrat aren't stupid enough for vote for a corrupt clown like Clinton.
Saw a talking head say for Super Tuesday internal polls show Trump ahead big in Tennessee. Hopefully Cruz and Rubio will come up short for the cut off in one or two states.0 -
Also posted without comment -
"The so-called Five Presidents' Report on 'Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union', authored by the commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, "in close cooperation" with Donald Tusk, the European Council president, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the European Stability Mechanism (and of the informal Eurogroup of eurozone finance ministers), Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, and Martin Schultz, president of the European Parliament, says the strengthening of the supervisory framework necessitated by a more integrated capital markets across the EU "should lead ultimately to a single European Capital markets supervisor"."
This is from today's date.
To be transparent, the current EU Commission September 2015 Action Plan did not propose a single supervisor for a future Capital Markets Union.
0 -
4.2 in POTUS might well be a better option actually. It's an implied 2.9.Casino_Royale said:
I am planning to be equally cheeky.Pulpstar said:Had a £100 cheeky top up on Trump at 1.48. Price should come down on Super Tuesday.
0 -
Does me.AlastairMeeks said:
Can't we all compromise on "correct, deranged and irrelevant"? I'm sure the Lib Dems themselves would recognise the truth of that description.malcolmg said:0 -
I never saw your response before so I'm happy to bet £500 at evens that the Democrats win Nevada. Are you willing to takeup the offer??LondonBob said:
It got 1960 wrong, but I guess that could be because of Joe Kennedy's mafia buddies ballot stuffing in Illinois and LBJ doing his thing in Texas throwing his model off.RodCrosby said:
According to Norpoth, his model has correctly predicted every election back to 1912, and the "sunspot" predictor alone has a good record (maybe not perfect) going back to 1828!Pulpstar said:
Could this theory be applied in 1992 ?RodCrosby said:
In a nutshell.RodCrosby said:For those interested in Professor Norpoth's prediction that Trump is a slam dunk.
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
For the general I have Trump wins Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Colorado.
A blow out then a few, if not all, of Virginia, New Hampshire, Michigan, Iowa.
Won't even be close. Even the morons that vote Democrat aren't stupid enough for vote for a corrupt clown like Clinton.
Saw a talking head say for Super Tuesday internal polls show Trump ahead big in Tennessee. Hopefully Cruz and Rubio will come up short for the cut off in one or two states.0 -
And domestic issues win elections - not banging on about EuropeMTimT said:
That really isn't the point though, is it? How can we expect Cameron to be a driving force for reform if the decision is made to stay in the EU if that is how he goes about negotiation and change? He is not fit for purpose.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anywayIndigo said:
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.Big_G_NorthWales said:I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
He may be a more than adequate PM on domestic issues, but clearly not vis-a-vis the EU/UK relationship.0 -
I am wondering if this touches on the real issue. Fear of uncertainty and the temptation to play it safe. Most people are brought up to play by the rules, go to school, get a job or run a small business, it's mostly safe, it's unexciting but with luck and application gets you are reasonable standard of living. These are the remainders.The_Apocalypse said:
This is how I feel as well. I don't particularly like to EU, but the uncertainty that voting Leave brings, is probably the biggest reason why I'm in the Remain camp right now.AlastairMeeks said:
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?Indigo said:
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Others are the risk takers, either because life dealt them a poor hand and they have had to take their chances where they can, or because they are naturally that way inclined. Take me for example, after uni I only had what people would call a real job for 5 years, contracted for a bit, then sold my house packed up my family and moved to Asia and looked around for ways to make money, its been hairy, some years there is plenty of money, other years its all a bit squeaky bum, but it feels alive, i would die of boredom in an office, or even running a business. I'm a leaver0 -
'Business on the continent and here will demand the latter, surely?'
If Article 50 is invoked that creates a two-year period (or in fact shorter or longer, if all parties agree and think it appropriate) in which existing structures will be in force and during which a new arrangement can be negotiated.
There is no question whatever of 'trade barriers' coming into existence on day 1 after Brexit. To suggest otherwise is just dishonest.
I had this discussion with a local agribusiness last week, the boss of which had received 'Remain' info suggesting exports to the EU would suffer immediate disruption or even end after a Brexit vote.0 -
Your head on a spike is our number one priority.AlastairMeeks said:
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?Indigo said:
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.0 -
Remind me what the top item of concern for the public for the past several months has been ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
And domestic issues win elections - not banging on about EuropeMTimT said:
That really isn't the point though, is it? How can we expect Cameron to be a driving force for reform if the decision is made to stay in the EU if that is how he goes about negotiation and change? He is not fit for purpose.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anywayIndigo said:
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.Big_G_NorthWales said:I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
He may be a more than adequate PM on domestic issues, but clearly not vis-a-vis the EU/UK relationship.
No, your opponent being an idiot that can't eat a bacon sandwich and tells the audience on Question Time that the last Labour government didn't spend too much, wins elections. I understand you opponent being a marxist terrorist-sympathiser works quite well as well 0 -
A cover bet on Liz Kendall would have been 100% correct. If you were using binary.Scrapheap_as_was said:although my cover bet on yvette for loto by putting a tenner on mary creagh at 150-1 wasn't 100% correct.
0 -
It works if you assume that the status quo isn't an option. That we can't stand still. The EU will undoubtedly say "OK, UK, we humoured you. We let you have your "renegotiation". You voted on it. Now you will pay up and shut up and do as the other members tell you to do..."AlastairMeeks said:Now you see, that doesn't work half as well because Britain has been in the EU for over 40 years and for good or ill the general public have a general idea of what they think the EU is about. That's perceived as a known known. You might argue that it's all going to change radically in the next 6 months but (1) that case has to be made and (2) it's not exactly obvious even when you've made that case.
Whether a post-Leave Britain is going to put up barricades against furreiners or be a slash-and-burn capitalist free trading country is an unknown and the Leave camp seem disinclined to enlighten us on what of the multiple options available they purpose by advocating a Leave vote. People might quite like some options and be appalled by others.
Are you saying the status quo is an option? If so - on what romantically rose-tinted basis are the other EU members going to let us continue to be some curmudgeonly semi-detatched bastards? No, point forward this goes one of two ways. Both have a duty to spell out what they want. So far, Remain has shown a pathological fear of admitting what Remain looks like, a decade down the line.
Because they know it would be electoral suicide.0 -
The Germans can't even get their numbers right. 40% of our exports (and falling) is with the EU. Not 50%.nigel4england said:
Yes and we hold all the aces but the dealer is crooked.taffys said:
Indeed. The pretext is they are worried about a very large and lucrative market.MarqueeMark said:
"Resolving post-exit legal issues including trade treaties, taxation and regulatory matters might take five to 10 years...."taffys said:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/forget-amicable-divorce-if-you-exit-eu-german-bdi-tells-u-k
The Germans are starting to sweat.....
So for a decade we'd look like a European version of Cuba, driving around in ageing Mercedes and BMW's and Audis and Porsches, because the UK could no longer import German goods without the EU's blessing..... Uh-huh... Of course we would.... Yeah, sure....
#FearWon'tWork
Whatever Cameron says, this could turn into a game of poker between the EU and British electorate.0 -
Yesterday there were links to an updated forecast for the Scottish Parliament by, I think, UK elect but it does not appear on their website. Was this some sort of premium service not yet generally available? It had a very useful layout.
I want to look if the loss of 1 of the northern constituencies means the Lib Dems go down an MSP or whether they get it back on the list. I am also interested in how vulnerable they are to being squeezed off the list elsewhere by the legendary (and possibly imaginary) Tory surge.0 -
Ah, that's the Norway option, article 6.1.8:Casino_Royale said:Your head on a spike is our number one priority.
http://www.norsk-rettsmuseum.no/en/utstillinger/ddsstraff-a-la-christian-v
0 -
Quite telling that the more you are questioned the more vague you become.AlastairMeeks said:
There's none so blind as will not see.TGOHF said:
Where will the EU be in 40 years Alistair ?AlastairMeeks said:
Now you see, that doesn't work half as well because Britain has been in the EU for over 40 years and for good or ill the general public have a general idea of what they think the EU is about. That's perceived as a known known. You might argue that it's all going to change radically in the next 6 months but (1) that case has to be made and (2) it's not exactly obvious even when you've made that case.MarqueeMark said:
Equally....Remain's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is letting us in for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting Remain for (as opposed to against)?AlastairMeeks said:
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?Indigo said:
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Whether a post-Leave Britain is going to put up barricades against furreiners or be a slash-and-burn capitalist free trading country is an unknown and the Leave camp seem disinclined to enlighten us on what of the multiple options available they purpose by advocating a Leave vote. People might quite like some options and be appalled by others.
Are you asking us to take a leap into the unknown by staying ?
How about a straight answer?0 -
Life is a risk. Anything worthwhile involves taking chances.Indigo said:
I am wondering if this touches on the real issue. Fear of uncertainty and the temptation to play it safe. Most people are brought up to play by the rules, go to school, get a job or run a small business, it's mostly safe, it's unexciting but with luck and application gets you are reasonable standard of living. These are the remainders.The_Apocalypse said:
This is how I feel as well. I don't particularly like to EU, but the uncertainty that voting Leave brings, is probably the biggest reason why I'm in the Remain camp right now.AlastairMeeks said:
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?Indigo said:
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Others are the risk takers, either because life dealt them a poor hand and they have had to take their chances where they can, or because they are naturally that way inclined. Take me for example, after uni I only had what people would call a real job for 5 years, contracted for a bit, then sold my house packed up my family and moved to Asia and looked around for ways to make money, its been hairy, some years there is plenty of money, other years its all a bit squeaky bum, but it feels alive, i would die of boredom in an office, or even running a business. I'm a leaver0 -
Not sure that is entirely ECHR compliant. Which is a different argument altogether of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
Ah, that's the Norway option, article 6.1.8:Casino_Royale said:Your head on a spike is our number one priority.
http://www.norsk-rettsmuseum.no/en/utstillinger/ddsstraff-a-la-christian-v0 -
On the contrary remain has been very clear on this. A decade from now Britain will not be in the Euro, we will not be part of a European army, we will not be part of future Eurozone integration. We will have full access to the single-market, we will have reciprocal free movement, we will play a full part in EU democracy such as it is. In other words it will much like that dreaded phrase, the status quo.MarqueeMark said:So far, Remain has shown a pathological fear of admitting what Remain looks like, a decade down the line.
Leave can poke holes in this if they wish but the idea that it hasn't been spelled out is wrong.0 -
BTW, we get to choose our Eurovision entry tonight.0
-
Two Labour yoghurt-knitters are trying to ban the Washington Redskins
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/02/25/british-lawmakers-object-to-nfls-redskins-playing-in-london-under-current-name.html0 -
Immigration but as no one to date from leave has confirmed unambiguously that by leaving free movement of labour will end the issue is not addressed by either side. And I would make the point that inward immigration and the migration crises are two different subjectsIndigo said:
Remind me what the top item of concern for the public for the past several months has been ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
And domestic issues win elections - not banging on about EuropeMTimT said:
That really isn't the point though, is it? How can we expect Cameron to be a driving force for reform if the decision is made to stay in the EU if that is how he goes about negotiation and change? He is not fit for purpose.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I suspect that whatever he brought back would not be acceptable to you anywayIndigo said:
He didn't even ask for the best deal, he went around the EU leaders asking them what they would accept.Big_G_NorthWales said:I support David Cameron as an excellent Prime Minister and believe he has the best deal he could achieve.
He may be a more than adequate PM on domestic issues, but clearly not vis-a-vis the EU/UK relationship.
No, your opponent being an idiot that can't eat a bacon sandwich and tells the audience on Question Time that the last Labour government didn't spend too much, wins elections. I understand you opponent being a marxist terrorist-sympathiser works quite well as well0 -
2 years seems an incredibly short time, especially if 6 months of huff are built into the discussions.runnymede said:'Business on the continent and here will demand the latter, surely?'
If Article 50 is invoked that creates a two-year period (or in fact shorter or longer, if all parties agree and think it appropriate) in which existing structures will be in force and during which a new arrangement can be negotiated.
There is no question whatever of 'trade barriers' coming into existence on day 1 after Brexit. To suggest otherwise is just dishonest.
I had this discussion with a local agribusiness last week, the boss of which had received 'Remain' info suggesting exports to the EU would suffer immediate disruption or even end after a Brexit vote.
I think it would be more like 4 or 5 years to be honest.0 -
A straight answer:nigel4england said:
Quite telling that the more you are questioned the more vague you become.AlastairMeeks said:
There's none so blind as will not see.TGOHF said:
Where will the EU be in 40 years Alistair ?
Are you asking us to take a leap into the unknown by staying ?
How about a straight answer?
In the long run, we all die. Trying to see forward into the very long term is a fool's errand. 40 years ago we were all going to be holidaying on the moon by now. But we can look forward as far as we can.
In the short run, the route forward for the EU is capable of being visualised. It isn't particularly attractive and it doesn't look particularly likely to get more attractive in the short to medium term. It will continue to be a reactive, lumbering, bureaucratic corporatist beast that moves slowly and behind events.
In the short run, the route forward outside the EU is completely opaque and many of the suggestions put forward are mutually contradictory. The Prime Minister is entirely justified to keep using the phrase a leap in the dark. That is absolutely what is on offer. We wouldn't know what Leave meant until after we'd left. We don't even know what Leave think the prospectus for Leave should look like after we left.0 -
Interestingly, my dad is a leaver and his feelings towards office work/traditional jobs, is the same. He could have trained be an accountant, but he hates being in an office and having a boss around him. So for most of his life, he's been a field engineer, and he's been self-employed at times as well.Indigo said:
I am wondering if this touches on the real issue. Fear of uncertainty and the temptation to play it safe. Most people are brought up to play by the rules, go to school, get a job or run a small business, it's mostly safe, it's unexciting but with luck and application gets you are reasonable standard of living. These are the remainders.The_Apocalypse said:
This is how I feel as well. I don't particularly like to EU, but the uncertainty that voting Leave brings, is probably the biggest reason why I'm in the Remain camp right now.AlastairMeeks said:
Leave's failure to give even the vaguest idea of what it is aiming for is its single greatest weakness. What on earth is anyone actually voting for (as opposed to against)?Indigo said:
Oh, I was told earlier that was the plans of the Leave camp, Remain need to think of something newAlastairMeeks said:
Satanic rituals will become compulsory every Wednesday at 5.30pm, the first born will be slaughtered once every five years and El Dorado will be recommissioned and broadcast on all terrestrial TV channels at 7.30pm three times a week.nigel4england said:
Can we have a meaningful explanation from the Remain camp about what Remain would actually mean please.AlastairMeeks said:In the absence of any meaningful explanation from the Leave camp about what Leave would actually mean, the FT has had a go at looking at the options:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e0bce28-dbda-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz41Aegnek4
Summary, it's complicated, would take a long time and negotiations would be conducted in a hostile atmosphere.
Apart from that, life will go on much as at present.
Others are the risk takers, either because life dealt them a poor hand and they have had to take their chances where they can, or because they are naturally that way inclined. Take me for example, after uni I only had what people would call a real job for 5 years, contracted for a bit, then sold my house packed up my family and moved to Asia and looked around for ways to make money, its been hairy, some years there is plenty of money, other years its all a bit squeaky bum, but it feels alive, i would die of boredom in an office, or even running a business. I'm a leaver0 -
There are quite a lot of spikes, wheels, burnings and beheadings there.DavidL said:
Not sure that is entirely ECHR compliant. Which is a different argument altogether of course.Richard_Nabavi said:
Ah, that's the Norway option, article 6.1.8:Casino_Royale said:Your head on a spike is our number one priority.
http://www.norsk-rettsmuseum.no/en/utstillinger/ddsstraff-a-la-christian-v0 -
Who on earth was Paul Tsongas? Never heard of him before.RodCrosby said:
It was the DEM's turn (already overdue)Pulpstar said:
Could this theory be applied in 1992 ?RodCrosby said:
In a nutshell.RodCrosby said:For those interested in Professor Norpoth's prediction that Trump is a slam dunk.
Here's his paper from 2012, calling that election for Obama.
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PS2012Norpoth.pdf
It's the GOP's turn anyhow (the sunspot predictor)
Clinton got smashed by Sanders in NH, while Trump smashed his rivals.
Therefore the chances of Clinton "hanging on" to the White House for the Democrats are negligible...
Bill Clinton didn't win NH, but did OK. Bush won, but faced a serious, divisive challenge.
Therefore the chances of Bush "hanging on" to the White House for the GOP were negligible...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_New_Hampshire,_1992#Results_20
