@Alistair The debates are quite likely to prove very confusing because the two candidates will be trying to do very different things. Hillary Clinton will be trying to win a conventional political debate. Donald Trump will be trying to give a spellbinding theatrical performance.
Both might well succeed in their aims. But it is unclear which is going to be clinching in the ballot box.
Also worth noting that while individual member states don't have a veto on the deal, the European Parliament does.
Even that is not completely clear:
That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
What if they don't agree? And does the 'consent' have to be obtained right at the end (i.e. a veto on the final deal), or can the parliament 'consent' in general terms at an earlier stage?
It's a complete dog's breakfast, which is one significant risk in the whole Brexit process. We might end up crashing out in a chaotic fashion almost by accident.
'For the record I now think it will be Momentum who will be cheering in Liverpool on Saturday. '
Don has all the credibility of Comical Ali, fighting American M1 tanks with his imaginary divisions. It's time for Don to take a very long nap in a very dark room.
well lib dems really are just labour-lit now aren't they.
If the Libs got a decent, eye-catching leader (maybe by merging with the Labour moderates and going for Chuka etc) they would shoot up in the polls. Farron is just invisible. But lots of people have sympathy with the LD worldview.
I've just (roughly) evened up my POTUS book by laying trump.
The LA times & surveymonkey polls have spooked me.
As the LA times African American figure falls back to its long term average so it will continue to narrow.
If people have been thinking Trump has this locked up due to the LA Times tracker then that is very hasty thinking.
Yeah.
Betfair punters obviously don't take the LA times poll seriously, but the direction of travel is still a useful data point. Interestingly, punters also discount Trump's 538 win probability by 10 percentage points. I think it's likely this *arb* will hold right until November the 8th.
If Clinton does win, it'll be at short odds.
If Trump wins, he'll be value right until the very end.
I'm reasonably certain the debates will shake bettors up. Clinton winning the debates is clearly priced in at the moment.
Is it? Or is it the demographics that are priced in?
@Alistair The debates are quite likely to prove very confusing because the two candidates will be trying to do very different things. Hillary Clinton will be trying to win a conventional political debate. Donald Trump will be trying to give a spellbinding theatrical performance.
Both might well succeed in their aims. But it is unclear which is going to be clinching in the ballot box.
Trump is more likely to benefit, I think. He's quick on his feet, and Hillary isn't. He just needs a few platitudes on policy - enough to get him by without sounding a complete berk - and he can torpedo what will no doubt be Hillary's well-rehearsed lines with a few devastating put-downs, which he's very good at.
Also, he has been given some splendid ammunition. 'Secretary Clinton thinks millions of viewers watching this debate are deplorable.'
@Alistair The debates are quite likely to prove very confusing because the two candidates will be trying to do very different things. Hillary Clinton will be trying to win a conventional political debate. Donald Trump will be trying to give a spellbinding theatrical performance.
Both might well succeed in their aims. But it is unclear which is going to be clinching in the ballot box.
Yes, Trump won't care if he says something outrageous and ridiculous as his core strategy is simply to maximise media coverage for himself and hope to win the (sizeable) 'fuck you' vote.
I've just (roughly) evened up my POTUS book by laying trump.
The LA times & surveymonkey polls have spooked me.
As the LA times African American figure falls back to its long term average so it will continue to narrow.
If people have been thinking Trump has this locked up due to the LA Times tracker then that is very hasty thinking.
Yeah.
Betfair punters obviously don't take the LA times poll seriously, but the direction of travel is still a useful data point. Interestingly, punters also discount Trump's 538 win probability by 10 percentage points. I think it's likely this *arb* will hold right until November the 8th.
If Clinton does win, it'll be at short odds.
If Trump wins, he'll be value right until the very end.
I'm reasonably certain the debates will shake bettors up. Clinton winning the debates is clearly priced in at the moment.
As is a decent Blue GOTV operation vs. a potentially haphazard, inconsistent and unsupported Trump GOTV.
On a slightly related point - I had the same thought as @pulpstar when he highlighted texas as possibly value on @shadsy 's first-state-to-go-blue list.
I'm confused on the question of whether Article 50 negotiations, and negotiating an EU-UK trade deal (which are theoretically separate), will require unanimous agreement from the EU27 or can be agreed by qualified majority. I suspect I'm not the only one, but it's clearly a very important question.
While a final deal has to be approved by a qualified majority comprising of 72 percent of the remaining members and 65 percent of the EU population, any member can veto the process while granting the negotiating mandate, a process that will be updated by the bloc’s leaders, Prouza said.
What does that mean?
Article 50 clearly talks about a qualified majority, and I believe that pure trade deals can also be agreed by qualified majority. However, any deal which strays into areas not strictly about trade may need unanimous agreement.
I think that the answer to this question will determine whether or not we end up with a very hard and bumpy Brexit.
The final deal is without question subject to QMV - that's specified in Article 50 (paragraph 2). There may, however, be points along the way where effective or actual vetoes could be applied.
Also worth noting that while individual member states don't have a veto on the deal, the European Parliament does.
The Article 50 Exit Agreement is by QMV + approval of the EU Parliament. Any additional treaty changes are ratified unanimously. The ratification process takes at least two years after everything is agreed. The more we can get into the Exit Agreement, the better for us.
I suspect Prouza means that individual countries can hold up decision making in the European Council by challenging procedural decisions rather than allowing them to go by consensus. They can filibuster in other words.
What are views on Ashdown's suggestion there will have to be a GE as May won't be able to get Brexit through Commons - as "hardline" Eurosceptics will vote against what they see as too "soft" a deal.
I have two thoughts:
1) Surely the deal won't go to a vote in the Commons until the end of the process - ie deal can't go to a vote until deal is completely negotiated. Which would be early 2019 (ie just under two years after Article 50, assuming that's done say April 2017).
2) Surely deal would likely pass Commons given support of DUP / UUP / Carswell and almost certainly about 10 Lab MPs (ie Stuart, Howey, Field etc would vote for it). That would mean about 30 Con rebels would be required to defeat it.
Would 30 Con MPs really vote against - in the knowledge that if the vote was lost we might well end up not leaving the EU at all?
30 of the rebels might not all be hard Brexiteers though. Factor in Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry.
I've just (roughly) evened up my POTUS book by laying trump.
The LA times & surveymonkey polls have spooked me.
As the LA times African American figure falls back to its long term average so it will continue to narrow.
If people have been thinking Trump has this locked up due to the LA Times tracker then that is very hasty thinking.
Yeah.
Betfair punters obviously don't take the LA times poll seriously, but the direction of travel is still a useful data point. Interestingly, punters also discount Trump's 538 win probability by 10 percentage points. I think it's likely this *arb* will hold right until November the 8th.
If Clinton does win, it'll be at short odds.
If Trump wins, he'll be value right until the very end.
I'm reasonably certain the debates will shake bettors up. Clinton winning the debates is clearly priced in at the moment.
As is a decent Blue GOTV operation vs. a potentially haphazard, inconsistent and unsupported Trump GOTV.
I had the same thought as @pulpstar when he highlighted texas as possibly value on @shadsy 's first-state-to-go-blue list
@Alistair The debates are quite likely to prove very confusing because the two candidates will be trying to do very different things. Hillary Clinton will be trying to win a conventional political debate. Donald Trump will be trying to give a spellbinding theatrical performance.
Both might well succeed in their aims. But it is unclear which is going to be clinching in the ballot box.
Trump needs to come across as presidential, which he can[t do while playing to the crowd. He also need to prevent coming across as a racist misogynist and lying too badly, as a live fact check from the moderator will come across badly.
At the same time, his expectation level is lower, though that didn't help Palin vs Biden 8 years ago
Using Nate Silver's state guide, I tentatively price up the "firewall" market as follows
TX 12.08 MT 16.76 GA 10.42 AZ 14.67 IA 10.5 OH 12.95 NC 26.96 FL 49.47 NV 43.05 NH 8.5 CO 129.68 PA 18.03 MI 8764.99 VA 21.05 NM 45.36 NJ 13.56 MD 8.87 None 295
No, I am not offering 8763-1 on Michigan
Higher up the list = More surity on the pricing.
But aren't you failing there to take account of the fact that the states are correlated rather than independent probabilities? That means that the upper and lower bands are more likely than you suggest, because, if there is a swing from now towards or away from Clinton, that will shift a chunk of states to or from her column.
What are views on Ashdown's suggestion there will have to be a GE as May won't be able to get Brexit through Commons - as "hardline" Eurosceptics will vote against what they see as too "soft" a deal.
I have two thoughts:
1) Surely the deal won't go to a vote in the Commons until the end of the process - ie deal can't go to a vote until deal is completely negotiated. Which would be early 2019 (ie just under two years after Article 50, assuming that's done say April 2017).
2) Surely deal would likely pass Commons given support of DUP / UUP / Carswell and almost certainly about 10 Lab MPs (ie Stuart, Howey, Field etc would vote for it). That would mean about 30 Con rebels would be required to defeat it.
Would 30 Con MPs really vote against - in the knowledge that if the vote was lost we might well end up not leaving the EU at all?
If the deal is voted down we exit via hard Brexit to WTO terms. The clock doesn't stop if the deal is lost.
@Alistair The debates are quite likely to prove very confusing because the two candidates will be trying to do very different things. Hillary Clinton will be trying to win a conventional political debate. Donald Trump will be trying to give a spellbinding theatrical performance.
Both might well succeed in their aims. But it is unclear which is going to be clinching in the ballot box.
Trump is more likely to benefit, I think. He's quick on his feet, and Hillary isn't. He just needs a few platitudes on policy - enough to get him by without sounding a complete berk - and he can torpedo what will no doubt be Hillary's well-rehearsed lines with a few devastating put-downs, which he's very good at.
Also, he has been given some splendid ammunition. 'Secretary Clinton thinks millions of viewers watching this debate are deplorable.'
Trump's risk is that he says something blatantly untrue and the moderators and/or media jump on it. Though after the past couple of decades, facts are hardly sacred in politics.
I need to book some flights, but it seems like Skyscanner and Momondo now have become riddled with dodgy 3rd party ticket agents who all have reputation for classic bait and switch pricing to get them to show up in the results.
Is there a price comparison site which only shows pricing from reputable sellers or where I can filter them out? And, these days is there any saving to be had versus just using Expedia / Opodo / going direct?
Once you have worked out which airlines fly your route (enter "X to Y" as a Google search to get a list and an approximation of prices), make sure to check the airlines own websites.
@Alistair The debates are quite likely to prove very confusing because the two candidates will be trying to do very different things. Hillary Clinton will be trying to win a conventional political debate. Donald Trump will be trying to give a spellbinding theatrical performance.
Both might well succeed in their aims. But it is unclear which is going to be clinching in the ballot box.
Yes, Trump won't care if he says something outrageous and ridiculous as his core strategy is simply to maximise media coverage for himself and hope to win the (sizeable) 'fuck you' vote.
That's (probably) not working at the moment, as he is doing worse with better educated white men , all minorities and women. If he does this in the national debates, he will do even worse.
I don't hope to compete with @Andy_JS in terms of money made/saved, plus I appreciate we are all super-smart, nimble cookies on here and you've all already done this...but if you haven't...
Using Nate Silver's state guide, I tentatively price up the "firewall" market as follows
TX 12.08 MT 16.76 GA 10.42 AZ 14.67 IA 10.5 OH 12.95 NC 26.96 FL 49.47 NV 43.05 NH 8.5 CO 129.68 PA 18.03 MI 8764.99 VA 21.05 NM 45.36 NJ 13.56 MD 8.87 None 295
No, I am not offering 8763-1 on Michigan
Higher up the list = More surity on the pricing.
But aren't you failing there to take account of the fact that the states are correlated rather than independent probabilities? That means that the upper and lower bands are more likely than you suggest, because, if there is a swing from now towards or away from Clinton, that will shift a chunk of states to or from her column.
No.
States all independent from each other:
12.05 TX 8.26 MT 5.84 GA 6.02 AZ 6.23 IA 8.01 OH 12.86 NC 22.53 FL 40.14 NV 61.3 NH 160.98 CO 396.65 PA 1314.75 MI 3975.75 VA 15370.18 NM 61699.53 NJ 390222.89 MD 97165499.49 None
100% correlated TX 12.05 MT 20.41 GA 12.05 AZ 19.61 IA 11.9 OH 14.49 NC 33.33 FL 62.5 NV 43.48 NH 7.35 CO 125 PA 15.38 MI inf VA 18.87 NM 38.46 NJ 11.49 MD 7.52 0 250
What are views on Ashdown's suggestion there will have to be a GE as May won't be able to get Brexit through Commons - as "hardline" Eurosceptics will vote against what they see as too "soft" a deal.
I have two thoughts:
1) Surely the deal won't go to a vote in the Commons until the end of the process - ie deal can't go to a vote until deal is completely negotiated. Which would be early 2019 (ie just under two years after Article 50, assuming that's done say April 2017).
2) Surely deal would likely pass Commons given support of DUP / UUP / Carswell and almost certainly about 10 Lab MPs (ie Stuart, Howey, Field etc would vote for it). That would mean about 30 Con rebels would be required to defeat it.
Would 30 Con MPs really vote against - in the knowledge that if the vote was lost we might well end up not leaving the EU at all?
The Brexit deal is unlikely to be "soft", so Tory Eurosceptics won't have anything to object to. A soft Brexit depends on both sides being happy to fudge, when I don't think either side is.
@Alistair The debates are quite likely to prove very confusing because the two candidates will be trying to do very different things. Hillary Clinton will be trying to win a conventional political debate. Donald Trump will be trying to give a spellbinding theatrical performance.
Both might well succeed in their aims. But it is unclear which is going to be clinching in the ballot box.
Trump is all over the shop when it comes to presentation. If you watch the video of his 'Obama was born in America. Period' "press conference" his delivery was stilted, slow, breathy - like someone with health problems.
When he gets to do some rambly free association at the rallies then his delivery improves dramatically but his content meanders dangerously -what odds he does 15 minutes on why Hispanic judges should be disbarred from hearing his case at the debates.
@Alistair The debates are quite likely to prove very confusing because the two candidates will be trying to do very different things. Hillary Clinton will be trying to win a conventional political debate. Donald Trump will be trying to give a spellbinding theatrical performance.
Both might well succeed in their aims. But it is unclear which is going to be clinching in the ballot box.
Yes, Trump won't care if he says something outrageous and ridiculous as his core strategy is simply to maximise media coverage for himself and hope to win the (sizeable) 'fuck you' vote.
I don't agree. Trump won the primaries by dominating the policy arguments while disorientating his opponents with curve-ball attacks. He needs the debate to highlight the dividing lines on trade, foreign policy, nation building, immigration and identity politics.
What are views on Ashdown's suggestion there will have to be a GE as May won't be able to get Brexit through Commons - as "hardline" Eurosceptics will vote against what they see as too "soft" a deal.
I have two thoughts:
1) Surely the deal won't go to a vote in the Commons until the end of the process - ie deal can't go to a vote until deal is completely negotiated. Which would be early 2019 (ie just under two years after Article 50, assuming that's done say April 2017).
2) Surely deal would likely pass Commons given support of DUP / UUP / Carswell and almost certainly about 10 Lab MPs (ie Stuart, Howey, Field etc would vote for it). That would mean about 30 Con rebels would be required to defeat it.
Would 30 Con MPs really vote against - in the knowledge that if the vote was lost we might well end up not leaving the EU at all?
The Brexit deal is unlikely to be "soft", so Tory Eurosceptics won't have anything to object to. A soft Brexit depends on both sides being happy to fudge, when I don't think either side is.
The only softness about a Brexit deal will be the degree of free movement of people. The degree of free movement of people will depend on the EU's pragmatism. Of course rhetoric to date has suggested that they might not be pragmatic at all but that's a different matter to the cold hard facts presented to them by the likes of DD (with Tezza's hand shoved up his a**e of course).
I would love to know what DD thinks is appropriate if it's not visas and an end to single market membership.
@Alistair The debates are quite likely to prove very confusing because the two candidates will be trying to do very different things. Hillary Clinton will be trying to win a conventional political debate. Donald Trump will be trying to give a spellbinding theatrical performance.
Both might well succeed in their aims. But it is unclear which is going to be clinching in the ballot box.
Trump is more likely to benefit, I think. He's quick on his feet, and Hillary isn't. He just needs a few platitudes on policy - enough to get him by without sounding a complete berk - and he can torpedo what will no doubt be Hillary's well-rehearsed lines with a few devastating put-downs, which he's very good at.
Also, he has been given some splendid ammunition. 'Secretary Clinton thinks millions of viewers watching this debate are deplorable.'
Trump's risk is that he says something blatantly untrue and the moderators and/or media jump on it. Though after the past couple of decades, facts are hardly sacred in politics.
I think after Last Friday, the media will be more of a 'call him a liar when he lies' mood
I'm really not convinced polling is "good enough" to tell about the last couple fo % in an election.
Brexit, Tory Maj, Netanyahu - the polling "sort of" worked for them all - but Trump/Clinton is once again in that grey area where we know that both will probably both get above 45, though who wins is anyones guess.
Also, he has been given some splendid ammunition. 'Secretary Clinton thinks millions of viewers watching this debate are deplorable.'
"Mr Trump, given that you think Obama was born in the USA would you take this opportunity to tell the 60% of your supporters that think he wasn't that they are wrong?"
I'm really not convinced polling is "good enough" to tell about the last couple fo % in an election.
Brexit, Tory Maj, Netanyahu - the polling "sort of" worked for them all - but Trump/Clinton is once again in that grey area where we know that both will probably both get above 45, though who wins is anyones guess.
The question this time is going to be is which polling will be the most accurate? State wide polling or national polling.
@Alistair The debates are quite likely to prove very confusing because the two candidates will be trying to do very different things. Hillary Clinton will be trying to win a conventional political debate. Donald Trump will be trying to give a spellbinding theatrical performance.
Both might well succeed in their aims. But it is unclear which is going to be clinching in the ballot box.
Yes, Trump won't care if he says something outrageous and ridiculous as his core strategy is simply to maximise media coverage for himself and hope to win the (sizeable) 'fuck you' vote.
I don't agree. Trump won the primaries by dominating the policy arguments while disorientating his opponents with curve-ball attacks. He needs the debate to highlight the dividing lines on trade, foreign policy, nation building, immigration and identity politics.
I think his opponents were also not as prepared for him as Clinton will be, and they had no massive dividing lines they were willing to attack him for.
If Trump brings up deplorables, Clinton can bring up the David Dukes who support him and ask him what he thinks about them.
Note to Farron: by definition, you can't prevent an inevitability.
Also, the 'democrat' part of the party's name seems rather contrary to his views of preventing the UK leaving the EU.
And his view on a second referendum, as many of us have said, makes no sense whatsoever.
Tim will respect the result of a second referendum, NORMAN made that very clear on the radio this morning.
The potential issue is that once Art 50. is invoked then the position needs to be changed (It has echoes of Hague/Lisbon treaty) - because a rejection at that point becomes not only a UK matter but an EU wide matter.
T May has not yet invoked Art 50 though, so the Lib Dem position is a sensible one to take, for now (As is always thus in politics)
Once May triggers Art 50, the facts will have changed mind as a rejection of a deal puts us into WTO territory - or we rejoin.
Also, he has been given some splendid ammunition. 'Secretary Clinton thinks millions of viewers watching this debate are deplorable.'
"Mr Trump, given that you think Obama was born in the USA would you take this opportunity to tell the 60% of your supporters that think he wasn't that they are wrong?"
What are views on Ashdown's suggestion there will have to be a GE as May won't be able to get Brexit through Commons - as "hardline" Eurosceptics will vote against what they see as too "soft" a deal.
I have two thoughts:
1) Surely the deal won't go to a vote in the Commons until the end of the process - ie deal can't go to a vote until deal is completely negotiated. Which would be early 2019 (ie just under two years after Article 50, assuming that's done say April 2017).
2) Surely deal would likely pass Commons given support of DUP / UUP / Carswell and almost certainly about 10 Lab MPs (ie Stuart, Howey, Field etc would vote for it). That would mean about 30 Con rebels would be required to defeat it.
Would 30 Con MPs really vote against - in the knowledge that if the vote was lost we might well end up not leaving the EU at all?
The Brexit deal is unlikely to be "soft", so Tory Eurosceptics won't have anything to object to. A soft Brexit depends on both sides being happy to fudge, when I don't think either side is.
The only softness about a Brexit deal will be the degree of free movement of people. The degree of free movement of people will depend on the EU's pragmatism. Of course rhetoric to date has suggested that they might not be pragmatic at all but that's a different matter to the cold hard facts presented to them by the likes of DD (with Tezza's hand shoved up his a**e of course).
I would love to know what DD thinks is appropriate if it's not visas and an end to single market membership.
I don't think there is either the will or the time to negotiate anything much. By that, I mean trading stuff that you are not very keen on to get something you really want. Uncontroversial stuff that is in everyone's interest will go through. From the UK government's point of view, if they are not getting a trade for FoM they might as well be hardline about immigration. That's how I interpret Philip Hammond's position, at least.
Mr. Pulpstar, I am unpersuaded that Farron's seeming belief that we can negotiate a deal before invoking Article 50. Why do the Lib Dems think that will happen?
Also, why does the second referendum result matter but the first one doesn't? And why do the Lib Dems even want a second referendum give their preference is to stay in but the only options will be whatever the PM negotiates versus a WTO terms withdrawal?
I don't hope to compete with @Andy_JS in terms of money made/saved, plus I appreciate we are all super-smart, nimble cookies on here and you've all already done this...but if you haven't...
Saved £1000?!? I have a four bedroom detached house and I don't pay that in total.
What are views on Ashdown's suggestion there will have to be a GE as May won't be able to get Brexit through Commons - as "hardline" Eurosceptics will vote against what they see as too "soft" a deal.
I have two thoughts:
1) Surely the deal won't go to a vote in the Commons until the end of the process - ie deal can't go to a vote until deal is completely negotiated. Which would be early 2019 (ie just under two years after Article 50, assuming that's done say April 2017).
2) Surely deal would likely pass Commons given support of DUP / UUP / Carswell and almost certainly about 10 Lab MPs (ie Stuart, Howey, Field etc would vote for it). That would mean about 30 Con rebels would be required to defeat it.
Would 30 Con MPs really vote against - in the knowledge that if the vote was lost we might well end up not leaving the EU at all?
The Brexit deal is unlikely to be "soft", so Tory Eurosceptics won't have anything to object to. A soft Brexit depends on both sides being happy to fudge, when I don't think either side is.
The only softness about a Brexit deal will be the degree of free movement of people. The degree of free movement of people will depend on the EU's pragmatism. Of course rhetoric to date has suggested that they might not be pragmatic at all but that's a different matter to the cold hard facts presented to them by the likes of DD (with Tezza's hand shoved up his a**e of course).
I would love to know what DD thinks is appropriate if it's not visas and an end to single market membership.
I don't think there is either the will or the time to negotiate anything much. By that, I mean trading stuff that you are not very keen on to get something you really want. Uncontroversial stuff that is in everyone's interest will go through. From the UK government's point of view, if they are not getting a trade for FoM they might as well be hardline about immigration. That's how I interpret Philip Hammond's position, at least.
Yes, I think immigration controls is the red line, rightly given the referendat result, and therefore everything and anything else will be sacrificed for that.
'Also, why does the second referendum result matter but the first one doesn't? '
Beacuse a few days after the referendum Farron addressed 70 people in a Church Hall in Preston who had voted Leave, but according to Farron some were having second thoughts.
A novel way to develop policy and a massive threat to polling companies.
Also, he has been given some splendid ammunition. 'Secretary Clinton thinks millions of viewers watching this debate are deplorable.'
"Mr Trump, given that you think Obama was born in the USA would you take this opportunity to tell the 60% of your supporters that think he wasn't that they are wrong?"
"Yes".
'Mr Trump, when did you decide Obama was born in the USA? and do you think you owe Obama and the country an apology for doubting his birthplace for all these years?'
What are views on Ashdown's suggestion there will have to be a GE as May won't be able to get Brexit through Commons - as "hardline" Eurosceptics will vote against what they see as too "soft" a deal.
I have two thoughts:
1) Surely the deal won't go to a vote in the Commons until the end of the process - ie deal can't go to a vote until deal is completely negotiated. Which would be early 2019 (ie just under two years after Article 50, assuming that's done say April 2017).
2) Surely deal would likely pass Commons given support of DUP / UUP / Carswell and almost certainly about 10 Lab MPs (ie Stuart, Howey, Field etc would vote for it). That would mean about 30 Con rebels would be required to defeat it.
Would 30 Con MPs really vote against - in the knowledge that if the vote was lost we might well end up not leaving the EU at all?
The Brexit deal is unlikely to be "soft", so Tory Eurosceptics won't have anything to object to. A soft Brexit depends on both sides being happy to fudge, when I don't think either side is.
The only softness about a Brexit deal will be the degree of free movement of people. The degree of free movement of people will depend on the EU's pragmatism. Of course rhetoric to date has suggested that they might not be pragmatic at all but that's a different matter to the cold hard facts presented to them by the likes of DD (with Tezza's hand shoved up his a**e of course).
I would love to know what DD thinks is appropriate if it's not visas and an end to single market membership.
Suppose that a deal is done that the 28 governments can agree to but it is then voted down in the EU parliament. What happens then? I'd assume that it would be back to WTO rules and all the negotiation effort would be for nothing.
Note to Farron: by definition, you can't prevent an inevitability.
Also, the 'democrat' part of the party's name seems rather contrary to his views of preventing the UK leaving the EU.
And his view on a second referendum, as many of us have said, makes no sense whatsoever.
Once May triggers Art 50, the facts will have changed mind as a rejection of a deal puts us into WTO territory - or we rejoin.
Is there not the option of just withdrawing Article 50 notification and staying in the EU?
Utterly humiliating for the UK but still...
I think a theoretical second referendum has to take place before Art 50 is triggered, but once negotiations have finished between ourselves and the EU.
Art 50 is a "no return" 2 year corridor so far as I understand, and given the EU's negotiators they have I don't think anything substantive should be left unnegotiated before Art 50 is triggered.
Of course the EU says they won't talk before Art 50 is triggered - which is a massive bind and problem for May.
I don't hope to compete with @Andy_JS in terms of money made/saved, plus I appreciate we are all super-smart, nimble cookies on here and you've all already done this...but if you haven't...
Saved £1000?!? I have a four bedroom detached house and I don't pay that in total.
I wish I was in a position to spend £1000 more than needed on my utility bills...
Also, he has been given some splendid ammunition. 'Secretary Clinton thinks millions of viewers watching this debate are deplorable.'
"Mr Trump, given that you think Obama was born in the USA would you take this opportunity to tell the 60% of your supporters that think he wasn't that they are wrong?"
"Yes".
'Mr Trump, when did you decide Obama was born in the USA? and do you think you owe Obama and the country an apology for doubting his birthplace for all these years?'
"No - I feel that Hillary Clinton should apologise for not stamping out this rumour when her campaign team released it in 2008."
Also, he has been given some splendid ammunition. 'Secretary Clinton thinks millions of viewers watching this debate are deplorable.'
"Mr Trump, given that you think Obama was born in the USA would you take this opportunity to tell the 60% of your supporters that think he wasn't that they are wrong?"
"Yes".
'Mr Trump, when did you decide Obama was born in the USA? and do you think you owe Obama and the country an apology for doubting his birthplace for all these years?'
C'mon, he's no idiot. He'd reply something like 'I think the people who should be apologising are the President and Secretary Clinton for destroying jobs, wrecking great American industries, damaging our security, and lying to the American people."
In addition, the moderators can't really ask questions like that without asking equally searching questions to Hillary about her little local difficulty with email servers.
Yep - Trump is no free trader. We might get a deal of some kind from him, but if he does what he threatens to do with the likes of China and the EU then we may well be asked to take sides.
Also, he has been given some splendid ammunition. 'Secretary Clinton thinks millions of viewers watching this debate are deplorable.'
"Mr Trump, given that you think Obama was born in the USA would you take this opportunity to tell the 60% of your supporters that think he wasn't that they are wrong?"
"Yes".
'Mr Trump, when did you decide Obama was born in the USA? and do you think you owe Obama and the country an apology for doubting his birthplace for all these years?'
C'mon, he's no idiot. He'd reply something like 'I think the people who should be apologising are the President and Secretary Clinton for destroying jobs, wrecking great American industries, damaging our security, and lying to the American people."
In addition, the moderators can't really ask questions like that without asking equally searching questions to Hillary about her little local difficulty with email servers.
And anyway I don't think that the birther issue is one of the topics released for discussion in the first debate.
Note to Farron: by definition, you can't prevent an inevitability.
Also, the 'democrat' part of the party's name seems rather contrary to his views of preventing the UK leaving the EU.
And his view on a second referendum, as many of us have said, makes no sense whatsoever.
Once May triggers Art 50, the facts will have changed mind as a rejection of a deal puts us into WTO territory - or we rejoin.
Is there not the option of just withdrawing Article 50 notification and staying in the EU?
Utterly humiliating for the UK but still...
Art 50 is a "no return" 2 year corridor so far as I understand, and given the EU's negotiators they have I don't think anything substantive should be left unnegotiated before Art 50 is triggered.
There does seem to be some debate as to its reversibility
I assume that this is the basis of Farron's position, a sort of 'in theory the people want to leave the EU but when presented with the reality they don't'
What are views on Ashdown's suggestion there will have to be a GE as May won't be able to get Brexit through Commons - as "hardline" Eurosceptics will vote against what they see as too "soft" a deal.
I have two thoughts:
1) Surely the deal won't go to a vote in the Commons until the end of the process - ie deal can't go to a vote until deal is completely negotiated. Which would be early 2019 (ie just under two years after Article 50, assuming that's done say April 2017).
2) Surely deal would likely pass Commons given support of DUP / UUP / Carswell and almost certainly about 10 Lab MPs (ie Stuart, Howey, Field etc would vote for it). That would mean about 30 Con rebels would be required to defeat it.
Would 30 Con MPs really vote against - in the knowledge that if the vote was lost we might well end up not leaving the EU at all?
The Brexit deal is unlikely to be "soft", so Tory Eurosceptics won't have anything to object to. A soft Brexit depends on both sides being happy to fudge, when I don't think either side is.
The only softness about a Brexit deal will be the degree of free movement of people. The degree of free movement of people will depend on the EU's pragmatism. Of course rhetoric to date has suggested that they might not be pragmatic at all but that's a different matter to the cold hard facts presented to them by the likes of DD (with Tezza's hand shoved up his a**e of course).
I would love to know what DD thinks is appropriate if it's not visas and an end to single market membership.
Suppose that a deal is done that the 28 governments can agree to but it is then voted down in the EU parliament. What happens then? I'd assume that it would be back to WTO rules and all the negotiation effort would be for nothing.
Correct. And they will also have a big say on what our "WTO rules" are as well.
What are views on Ashdown's suggestion there will have to be a GE as May won't be able to get Brexit through Commons - as "hardline" Eurosceptics will vote against what they see as too "soft" a deal.
I have two thoughts:
1) Surely the deal won't go to a vote in the Commons until the end of the process - ie deal can't go to a vote until deal is completely negotiated. Which would be early 2019 (ie just under two years after Article 50, assuming that's done say April 2017).
2) Surely deal would likely pass Commons given support of DUP / UUP / Carswell and almost certainly about 10 Lab MPs (ie Stuart, Howey, Field etc would vote for it). That would mean about 30 Con rebels would be required to defeat it.
Would 30 Con MPs really vote against - in the knowledge that if the vote was lost we might well end up not leaving the EU at all?
The Brexit deal is unlikely to be "soft", so Tory Eurosceptics won't have anything to object to. A soft Brexit depends on both sides being happy to fudge, when I don't think either side is.
The only softness about a Brexit deal will be the degree of free movement of people. The degree of free movement of people will depend on the EU's pragmatism. Of course rhetoric to date has suggested that they might not be pragmatic at all but that's a different matter to the cold hard facts presented to them by the likes of DD (with Tezza's hand shoved up his a**e of course).
I would love to know what DD thinks is appropriate if it's not visas and an end to single market membership.
Suppose that a deal is done that the 28 governments can agree to but it is then voted down in the EU parliament. What happens then? I'd assume that it would be back to WTO rules and all the negotiation effort would be for nothing.
Of course. But there is an illogicality there analagous to the notion that Dave's deal would be struck down.
You are saying that Tezza would negotiate with the EU27, reach an agreement, and then the EU Parliament would vote it down?
Theoretically possible but bonkers and I can't see it happening.
I don't hope to compete with @Andy_JS in terms of money made/saved, plus I appreciate we are all super-smart, nimble cookies on here and you've all already done this...but if you haven't...
Saved £1000?!? I have a four bedroom detached house and I don't pay that in total.
I wish I was in a position to spend £1000 more than needed on my utility bills...
You want to check out the "standard" tariffs that energy companies put you onto once your fixed term deal has expired.
Note to Farron: by definition, you can't prevent an inevitability. Also, the 'democrat' part of the party's name seems rather contrary to his views of preventing the UK leaving the EU. And his view on a second referendum, as many of us have said, makes no sense whatsoever.
Mr Dancer. The Referendum you refer to was a choice between two complete unknowns. On the one hand, Tory leaders like Cameron and Osborne were promising and threatening all manner of thunder and brimstone. One the other hand, a different groups of Tories, Johnson, Davies, Fox, Gove, Leadsome and Farrage, were promising all kinds of wonders, starting with 350 million per week for the NHS. We are still waiting for that....
Neither band of Conservative ministers spelled out a clear choice of what the two alternatives were. So both sides, really, lost the Referendum. And the leading Conservatives either scuttled away, or had the problem of sorting things out dumped on them by Mrs May.
Labour, effectively, just washed their hands and walked away from the whole business.
What the Lib Dems are offering, as I understand it, is to give the country a real choice - between what may be negotiated by Mrs May through her three most incompetent ministers, or to continue in the EU as it is, or to reject any kind of negotiation and compromise which would lead the country total ruination.
It would have been better, of course, if Cameron had been even half-competent and made a decent show of negotiations before the Referendum, and turned to the electorate to seek support for that. But Cameron was an arrogant incompetent and he didn`t do that.
We don`t know what Mrs May`s three stooges and going to come up with, not when, nor when she will decide to invoke Article 50, not if it would be legal for her to do so without the consent of Parliament.
This means that Tim Farron and the Lib Dems have to prepare their ground now to take the fightback to the Conservative incompetents, even though nobody knows precisely what ground the Tories will choose to fight on.
Mr. Clipp, the Lib Dems want the moon on a stick, and are asking for a referendum where the choices are a ham sandwich and slight knee ache.
Their preferred option is nowhere to be seen. Their desire for a referendum is nonsensical.
Once Article 50 is invoked, a deal is negotiated, then we leave after 2 years or agree an extension to negotiations.
A party with the word 'Democrats' in the title should have more respect for the will of the people instead of asking them to vote again. It's particularly stupid when the two options on offer will be what the Lib Dems don't want, and what the Lib Dems *really* don't want.
Comments
Both might well succeed in their aims. But it is unclear which is going to be clinching in the ballot box.
That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
What if they don't agree? And does the 'consent' have to be obtained right at the end (i.e. a veto on the final deal), or can the parliament 'consent' in general terms at an earlier stage?
It's a complete dog's breakfast, which is one significant risk in the whole Brexit process. We might end up crashing out in a chaotic fashion almost by accident.
'Liberal Democrats will raise taxes'
That's the Tory video clips for the next general election campaign sorted out.
Don has all the credibility of Comical Ali, fighting American M1 tanks with his imaginary divisions. It's time for Don to take a very long nap in a very dark room.
TX 12.08
MT 16.76
GA 10.42
AZ 14.67
IA 10.5
OH 12.95
NC 26.96
FL 49.47
NV 43.05
NH 8.5
CO 129.68
PA 18.03
MI 8764.99
VA 21.05
NM 45.36
NJ 13.56
MD 8.87
None 295
No, I am not offering 8763-1 on Michigan
Higher up the list = More surity on the pricing.
Also, he has been given some splendid ammunition. 'Secretary Clinton thinks millions of viewers watching this debate are deplorable.'
On a slightly related point - I had the same thought as @pulpstar when he highlighted texas as possibly value on @shadsy 's first-state-to-go-blue list.
@20/1 it's worth a punt, IMO.
I suspect Prouza means that individual countries can hold up decision making in the European Council by challenging procedural decisions rather than allowing them to go by consensus. They can filibuster in other words.
At the same time, his expectation level is lower, though that didn't help Palin vs Biden 8 years ago
Big standing ovation as an emotional Farron attacks government for not helping refugees. "Those children could be our children" #ldconf
Just switched my gas & electricity via Uswitch.
Saved just under £1,000!
I don't hope to compete with @Andy_JS in terms of money made/saved, plus I appreciate we are all super-smart, nimble cookies on here and you've all already done this...but if you haven't...
States all independent from each other:
12.05 TX
8.26 MT
5.84 GA
6.02 AZ
6.23 IA
8.01 OH
12.86 NC
22.53 FL
40.14 NV
61.3 NH
160.98 CO
396.65 PA
1314.75 MI
3975.75 VA
15370.18 NM
61699.53 NJ
390222.89 MD
97165499.49 None
100% correlated
TX 12.05
MT 20.41
GA 12.05
AZ 19.61
IA 11.9
OH 14.49
NC 33.33
FL 62.5
NV 43.48
NH 7.35
CO 125
PA 15.38
MI inf
VA 18.87
NM 38.46
NJ 11.49
MD 7.52
0 250
Sky News has just given up and gone to Obama at the UN.
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/778238475111952385
When he gets to do some rambly free association at the rallies then his delivery improves dramatically but his content meanders dangerously -what odds he does 15 minutes on why Hispanic judges should be disbarred from hearing his case at the debates.
Farron bleating about isolation from Europe.
He just said joining the Lib Dems was a big risk. Well, quite.
I would love to know what DD thinks is appropriate if it's not visas and an end to single market membership.
Brexit, Tory Maj, Netanyahu - the polling "sort of" worked for them all - but Trump/Clinton is once again in that grey area where we know that both will probably both get above 45, though who wins is anyones guess.
Also, the 'democrat' part of the party's name seems rather contrary to his views of preventing the UK leaving the EU.
And his view on a second referendum, as many of us have said, makes no sense whatsoever.
It is a potential get out for the pollsters.
If Trump brings up deplorables, Clinton can bring up the David Dukes who support him and ask him what he thinks about them.
The potential issue is that once Art 50. is invoked then the position needs to be changed (It has echoes of Hague/Lisbon treaty) - because a rejection at that point becomes not only a UK matter but an EU wide matter.
T May has not yet invoked Art 50 though, so the Lib Dem position is a sensible one to take, for now (As is always thus in politics)
Once May triggers Art 50, the facts will have changed mind as a rejection of a deal puts us into WTO territory - or we rejoin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/upshot/why-a-president-trump-could-start-a-trade-war-with-surprising-ease.html?rref=upshot
'Farron bleating about isolation from Europe.
He just said joining the Lib Dems was a big risk. Well, quite.'
Looks like a diversity free zone with its old,grey,white audience, like watching a mini version of a Tory conference in the 90's.
trump foundation uses charity's money to pay his other companies legal bills.
crooked donald
Also, why does the second referendum result matter but the first one doesn't? And why do the Lib Dems even want a second referendum give their preference is to stay in but the only options will be whatever the PM negotiates versus a WTO terms withdrawal?
It makes no sense whatsoever.
Utterly humiliating for the UK but still...
'Also, why does the second referendum result matter but the first one doesn't? '
Beacuse a few days after the referendum Farron addressed 70 people in a Church Hall in Preston who had voted Leave, but according to Farron some were having second thoughts.
A novel way to develop policy and a massive threat to polling companies.
Art 50 is a "no return" 2 year corridor so far as I understand, and given the EU's negotiators they have I don't think anything substantive should be left unnegotiated before Art 50 is triggered.
Of course the EU says they won't talk before Art 50 is triggered - which is a massive bind and problem for May.
In addition, the moderators can't really ask questions like that without asking equally searching questions to Hillary about her little local difficulty with email servers.
#Brexpitt
Or die quickly.
It's the shilly-shallying that's so undignified:
https://youtu.be/pt-VzpLNNHM?t=2m27s
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-50-trigger-brexit-eu-revoke-economic-plan-legal-trade-agreement-a7231446.html
I assume that this is the basis of Farron's position, a sort of 'in theory the people want to leave the EU but when presented with the reality they don't'
You are saying that Tezza would negotiate with the EU27, reach an agreement, and then the EU Parliament would vote it down?
Theoretically possible but bonkers and I can't see it happening.
Perhaps we should ask Mr Sarah Vine his thoughts.
Consider how much the EU likes fudge. You can't fudge when clarity reigns supreme. You need uncertainty.
Neither band of Conservative ministers spelled out a clear choice of what the two alternatives were. So both sides, really, lost the Referendum. And the leading Conservatives either scuttled away, or had the problem of sorting things out dumped on them by Mrs May.
Labour, effectively, just washed their hands and walked away from the whole business.
What the Lib Dems are offering, as I understand it, is to give the country a real choice - between what may be negotiated by Mrs May through her three most incompetent ministers, or to continue in the EU as it is, or to reject any kind of negotiation and compromise which would lead the country total ruination.
It would have been better, of course, if Cameron had been even half-competent and made a decent show of negotiations before the Referendum, and turned to the electorate to seek support for that. But Cameron was an arrogant incompetent and he didn`t do that.
We don`t know what Mrs May`s three stooges and going to come up with, not when, nor when she will decide to invoke Article 50, not if it would be legal for her to do so without the consent of Parliament.
This means that Tim Farron and the Lib Dems have to prepare their ground now to take the fightback to the Conservative incompetents, even though nobody knows precisely what ground the Tories will choose to fight on.
Who gets Brad?
Trump's path must go through one of them.
And they are all his "last" state (in theory)
Their preferred option is nowhere to be seen. Their desire for a referendum is nonsensical.
Once Article 50 is invoked, a deal is negotiated, then we leave after 2 years or agree an extension to negotiations.
A party with the word 'Democrats' in the title should have more respect for the will of the people instead of asking them to vote again. It's particularly stupid when the two options on offer will be what the Lib Dems don't want, and what the Lib Dems *really* don't want.
Mr. Eagles, perhaps. But these are still points that could be a lot clearer (order of events, how a veto works etc).