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'
I'm sure the thinking is that if you only start with 52% consent for any form of exit, it will be difficult to come up with any actual plan keeping 50% on board, once the empty promises are replaced with hard negotiation.
The two difficulties are that many remain voters don't want to go through such a divisive referendum, feel the vote has to be respected and don't feel that strongly anyway, and the doubt over whether Article 50 is reversible.
However in terms of visibility and distinctiveness for the Lib Dems it does make sense as an interim position, until there's more clarity.
Were we to leave, and then rejoining meant Euro, Schengen and no rebate - I imagine that even the Lib Dems would baulk at that point, and move on.
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?'
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.
Well we ask the people every 5 years what government they want
And I can see May delay triggering Art 50 ... indefinitely.
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.
Perhaps we should ask Mr Sarah Vine his thoughts.
More than theoretically possible. Poland thought they had agreed an opt-out on something - I forget what it was now - in order to pass the Lisbon Treaty, only for it to be struck down by the Parliament later. Nevertheless a nuclear option in this case, as they will have to pass or reject the agreement in its entirety.
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?'
"When he revealed his birth certificate. I believe I was right to ensure that the constitution was upheld."
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.
Perhaps we should ask Mr Sarah Vine his thoughts.
More than theoretically possible. Poland thought they had agreed an opt-out on something - I forget what it was now - in order to pass the Lisbon Treaty, only for it to be struck down by the Parliament later. Nevertheless a nuclear option in this case, as they will have to pass or reject the agreement in its entirety.
PS More likely Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament's link man on Brexit will have squared any potential parliamentary objections before the Council makes its final decision
Incidentally, a thought on the vagueness and poor wording that Mr. Nabavi and others have raised: this may well be entirely intentional.
Consider how much the EU likes fudge. You can't fudge when clarity reigns supreme. You need uncertainty.
It's not fudge more probably do with treaties etc have been drafted in different languages then codified/translated into a different language
This has made me want fudge. Thanks a lot.
Sugar free I hope?
Unfortunately there is no really good substitute for sugar.
I have to agree with Jezza on this one; it's a curse. I even sort of see where he's coming from on his 'no biscuits, yes thanks I'll have a shortbread'. I don't keep biscuits or cakes in the house, but I'm damned if I can refuse them when they're sitting infront of me.
@Morris_Dancer - quite right! I'm a fan of its crumbly Scottish cousin 'tablet' too. About the worst thing for you to eat though.
This must have been very stressful for the family, but the Home Office does seem to have bent over backwards at every turn, despite the couple taking the piss with the ECHR petition:
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?'
"When he revealed his birth certificate. I believe I was right to ensure that the constitution was upheld."
Trump officially accepted it just a couple of weeks back. Whether anyone still cares ...
PS More likely Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament's link man on Brexit will have squared any potential parliamentary objections before the Council makes its final decision
Depends what type of negotiator he is. He may feel his hand is strongest if he only raises his 'issues' once an overall agreement has been reached subject to EP assent. Indeed, negotiation theory in one-off negotiations would suggest that as the route to take. But of course, as in all international negotiations, there is no such thing as a one-off negotiation. Bad faith in these negotiations will impact future relations.
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.
Brexiteers go on about 'the will of the people' and 'the people have spoken'. It was actually quite close you know.
Pollster Start Date End Date Ipsos/Reuters 26/08/2016 15/09/2016
Nearly a week old. I'd expect MI to end up safely in the blue column.
Trump's route is as follows
NC, CO, NV, FL, OH
The joker in that particular pack is CO. Its high Hispanic population and liberalising demographic may do for him there. But it is nevertheless a viable route to victory that one could envisage happening.
Rumours that both campaigns have pulled their funding as they don't believe it is in play bode badly for him however.
Mr. 1983, never tried this 'tablet' to which you refer.
It's a dry, very crumbly slab (hence the name) of basically fudge that breaks off and gives you a huge sugar hit when it melts in the mouth. Often eaten with post-dinner coffee up here. It's good - how could it not be, it's sugar held together with a bit of butter.
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.
Brexiteers go on about 'the will of the people' and 'the people have spoken'. It was actually quite close you know.
Yes indeed, and that has been long forgotten by the eurosceptics (many of whom were saying prior to the vote that the issue wouldn't be settled were the vote 48-52 the other way).
An interesting fact I wasn't aware of is that Presidents are not bound by the same conflict-of-interest statute that restricts Cabinet officers and White House staff so apparently Trump could carry on as CEO of the Trump Organisation even from the Oval Office.
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.
Brexiteers go on about 'the will of the people' and 'the people have spoken'. It was actually quite close you know.
Yes indeed, and that has been long forgotten by the eurosceptics (many of whom were saying prior to the vote that the issue wouldn't be settled were the vote 48-52 the other way).
And the fact that 2 fifths of Scots voted to Leave has been totally obliterated by the Remoaners' rearguard spoiling campaign. That's politics.
An interesting fact I wasn't aware of is that Presidents are not bound by the same conflict-of-interest statute that restricts Cabinet officers and White House staff so apparently Trump could carry on as CEO of the Trump Organisation even from the Oval Office.
An interesting fact I wasn't aware of is that Presidents are not bound by the same conflict-of-interest statute that restricts Cabinet officers and White House staff so apparently Trump could carry on as CEO of the Trump Organisation even from the Oval Office.
@Morris_Dancer '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.
An interesting fact I wasn't aware of is that Presidents are not bound by the same conflict-of-interest statute that restricts Cabinet officers and White House staff so apparently Trump could carry on as CEO of the Trump Organisation even from the Oval Office.
PS More likely Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament's link man on Brexit will have squared any potential parliamentary objections before the Council makes its final decision
Depends what type of negotiator he is. He may feel his hand is strongest if he only raises his 'issues' once an overall agreement has been reached subject to EP assent. Indeed, negotiation theory in one-off negotiations would suggest that as the route to take. But of course, as in all international negotiations, there is no such thing as a one-off negotiation. Bad faith in these negotiations will impact future relations.
There's an internal dynamic as well. Verhofstadt may reckon he has most leverage with the EU negotiators by getting his favoured objectives in upfront, with a threat of vetoing the whole shebang if he doesn't get what he wants.
As I said down thread, I think the Exit Agreement will include the uncontroversial stuff that everyone wants - a trade deal on machinery,chemicals and possibly agriculture and maybe an agreement to maintain the European Arrest Warrant. The main negotiations will be held over until later.
They will want to hammer out a common WTO approach. British farmers stand to be clobbered by the potential removal of tariff quotas, while the UK is a very important market for EU agricultural exports that it will be reluctant to share with third countries.
PS More likely Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament's link man on Brexit will have squared any potential parliamentary objections before the Council makes its final decision
Depends what type of negotiator he is. He may feel his hand is strongest if he only raises his 'issues' once an overall agreement has been reached subject to EP assent. Indeed, negotiation theory in one-off negotiations would suggest that as the route to take. But of course, as in all international negotiations, there is no such thing as a one-off negotiation. Bad faith in these negotiations will impact future relations.
There's an internal dynamic as well. Verhofstadt may reckon he has most leverage with the EU negotiators by getting his favoured objectives in upfront, with a threat of vetoing the whole shebang if he doesn't get what he wants.
As I said down thread, I think the Exit Agreement will include the uncontroversial stuff that everyone wants - a trade deal on machinery,chemicals and possibly agriculture and maybe an agreement to maintain the European Arrest Warrant. The main negotiations will be held over until later.
They will want to hammer out a common WTO approach. British farmers stand to be clobbered by the potential removal of tariff quotas, while the UK is a very important market for EU agricultural exports that it will be reluctant to share with third countries.
I think you'll find a lot of fightback on the EAW from Brits who want a more nuanced extradition policy put back in place - once which does not assume equivalence in terms of justice systems across the EU just because the nation in question is signed up to the charter of fundamental rights.
An interesting fact I wasn't aware of is that Presidents are not bound by the same conflict-of-interest statute that restricts Cabinet officers and White House staff so apparently Trump could carry on as CEO of the Trump Organisation even from the Oval Office.
PS More likely Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament's link man on Brexit will have squared any potential parliamentary objections before the Council makes its final decision
Depends what type of negotiator he is. He may feel his hand is strongest if he only raises his 'issues' once an overall agreement has been reached subject to EP assent. Indeed, negotiation theory in one-off negotiations would suggest that as the route to take. But of course, as in all international negotiations, there is no such thing as a one-off negotiation. Bad faith in these negotiations will impact future relations.
There's an internal dynamic as well. Verhofstadt may reckon he has most leverage with the EU negotiators by getting his favoured objectives in upfront, with a threat of vetoing the whole shebang if he doesn't get what he wants.
As I said down thread, I think the Exit Agreement will include the uncontroversial stuff that everyone wants - a trade deal on machinery,chemicals and possibly agriculture and maybe an agreement to maintain the European Arrest Warrant. The main negotiations will be held over until later.
They will want to hammer out a common WTO approach. British farmers stand to be clobbered by the potential removal of tariff quotas, while the UK is a very important market for EU agricultural exports that it will be reluctant to share with third countries.
I think you'll find a lot of fightback on the EAW from Brits who want a more nuanced extradition policy put back in place - once which does not assume equivalence in terms of justice systems across the EU just because the nation in question is signed up to the charter of fundamental rights.
Then it will be parked. Leaving just a trade deal on machinery and chemicals, which favours the EU side more than us, but it's the price we pay to keep Nissan etc on these shores for a bit longer.
PS More likely Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament's link man on Brexit will have squared any potential parliamentary objections before the Council makes its final decision
Depends what type of negotiator he is. He may feel his hand is strongest if he only raises his 'issues' once an overall agreement has been reached subject to EP assent. Indeed, negotiation theory in one-off negotiations would suggest that as the route to take. But of course, as in all international negotiations, there is no such thing as a one-off negotiation. Bad faith in these negotiations will impact future relations.
There's an internal dynamic as well. Verhofstadt may reckon he has most leverage with the EU negotiators by getting his favoured objectives in upfront, with a threat of vetoing the whole shebang if he doesn't get what he wants.
As I said down thread, I think the Exit Agreement will include the uncontroversial stuff that everyone wants - a trade deal on machinery,chemicals and possibly agriculture and maybe an agreement to maintain the European Arrest Warrant. The main negotiations will be held over until later.
They will want to hammer out a common WTO approach. British farmers stand to be clobbered by the potential removal of tariff quotas, while the UK is a very important market for EU agricultural exports that it will be reluctant to share with third countries.
I think you'll find a lot of fightback on the EAW from Brits who want a more nuanced extradition policy put back in place - once which does not assume equivalence in terms of justice systems across the EU just because the nation in question is signed up to the charter of fundamental rights.
Then it will be parked. Leaving just a trade deal on machinery and chemicals, which favours the EU side more than us, but it's the price we pay to keep Nissan etc on these shores for a bit longer.
You obviously missed the announcement from Honda a couple of days ago.
Is that genuine? "So, Donald Trump used other people’s money to pay off fines via a charitable donation from his foundation. This is the kind of thing you would not do if you were serious about running for president and thus knew that perhaps your financial records would face scrutiny, as all candidate’s do — well, except for Donald Trump who has refused to release his tax returns."
"Trump also used the money to buy yet another portrait of himself (seriously?) and to buy advertisements for his hotels. If you had given money to the Trump Foundation for charity, you might be a little ticked off to see Trump using it to buy himself out of lawsuits, buy a portrait of himself and buy ads for his for-profit business."
That would sink a normal candidate, but maybe not post-truth Trump.
Is that genuine? "So, Donald Trump used other people’s money to pay off fines via a charitable donation from his foundation. This is the kind of thing you would not do if you were serious about running for president and thus knew that perhaps your financial records would face scrutiny, as all candidate’s do — well, except for Donald Trump who has refused to release his tax returns."
"Trump also used the money to buy yet another portrait of himself (seriously?) and to buy advertisements for his hotels. If you had given money to the Trump Foundation for charity, you might be a little ticked off to see Trump using it to buy himself out of lawsuits, buy a portrait of himself and buy ads for his for-profit business."
That would sink a normal candidate, but maybe not post-truth Trump.
Well the lawsuits paying thing is illegal so more than stupidity from Crooked Donald
PS More likely Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament's link man on Brexit will have squared any potential parliamentary objections before the Council makes its final decision
Depends what type of negotiator he is. He may feel his hand is strongest if he only raises his 'issues' once an overall agreement has been reached subject to EP assent. Indeed, negotiation theory in one-off negotiations would suggest that as the route to take. But of course, as in all international negotiations, there is no such thing as a one-off negotiation. Bad faith in these negotiations will impact future relations.
There's an internal dynamic as well. Verhofstadt may reckon he has most leverage with the EU negotiators by getting his favoured objectives in upfront, with a threat of vetoing the whole shebang if he doesn't get what he wants.
As I said down thread, I think the Exit Agreement will include the uncontroversial stuff that everyone wants - a trade deal on machinery,chemicals and possibly agriculture and maybe an agreement to maintain the European Arrest Warrant. The main negotiations will be held over until later.
They will want to hammer out a common WTO approach. British farmers stand to be clobbered by the potential removal of tariff quotas, while the UK is a very important market for EU agricultural exports that it will be reluctant to share with third countries.
I think you'll find a lot of fightback on the EAW from Brits who want a more nuanced extradition policy put back in place - once which does not assume equivalence in terms of justice systems across the EU just because the nation in question is signed up to the charter of fundamental rights.
Then it will be parked. Leaving just a trade deal on machinery and chemicals, which favours the EU side more than us, but it's the price we pay to keep Nissan etc on these shores for a bit longer.
You're far too pessimistic. The EEA agreement is incredibly complex - any trade deal will have to be based on it for it to succeed in the two year timetable. Almost certainly that will mean EFTA memberhip.
The first priority for the UK should be to make sure that we bring a good deal to EFTA so that we can rejoin seamlessly.
PS More likely Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament's link man on Brexit will have squared any potential parliamentary objections before the Council makes its final decision
Depends what type of negotiator he is. He may feel his hand is strongest if he only raises his 'issues' once an overall agreement has been reached subject to EP assent. Indeed, negotiation theory in one-off negotiations would suggest that as the route to take. But of course, as in all international negotiations, there is no such thing as a one-off negotiation. Bad faith in these negotiations will impact future relations.
There's an internal dynamic as well. Verhofstadt may reckon he has most leverage with the EU negotiators by getting his favoured objectives in upfront, with a threat of vetoing the whole shebang if he doesn't get what he wants.
As I said down thread, I think the Exit Agreement will include the uncontroversial stuff that everyone wants - a trade deal on machinery,chemicals and possibly agriculture and maybe an agreement to maintain the European Arrest Warrant. The main negotiations will be held over until later.
They will want to hammer out a common WTO approach. British farmers stand to be clobbered by the potential removal of tariff quotas, while the UK is a very important market for EU agricultural exports that it will be reluctant to share with third countries.
I think you'll find a lot of fightback on the EAW from Brits who want a more nuanced extradition policy put back in place - once which does not assume equivalence in terms of justice systems across the EU just because the nation in question is signed up to the charter of fundamental rights.
Then it will be parked. Leaving just a trade deal on machinery and chemicals, which favours the EU side more than us, but it's the price we pay to keep Nissan etc on these shores for a bit longer.
You obviously missed the announcement from Honda a couple of days ago.
He's outed himself as a delusional EUphile already with his "middle rank" comments earlier today. His comments can be safely ignored from now on.
Mr. 1983, never tried this 'tablet' to which you refer.
It's a dry, very crumbly slab (hence the name) of basically fudge that breaks off and gives you a huge sugar hit when it melts in the mouth. Often eaten with post-dinner coffee up here. It's good - how could it not be, it's sugar held together with a bit of butter.
Oh, tablet is a marvellous confection. Knocks fudge into a cocked hat. Jeremy Corbyn would heartily disapprove (given his reply to the biscuit question).
This is a truly surreal time in the USA. Clinton should clearly be in jail for her dishonesty and cavalier disregard of national security and now it turns out that Trump should be too. Have there ever been 2 more disreputable candidates for the White House in the same election?
Nixon must be looking down (or possibly up) and lamenting the collapse of standards. Do you want a crook in the Whitehouse? Well, which one?
PS More likely Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament's link man on Brexit will have squared any potential parliamentary objections before the Council makes its final decision
Depends what type of negotiator he is. He may feel his hand is strongest if he only raises his 'issues' once an overall agreement has been reached subject to EP assent. Indeed, negotiation theory in one-off negotiations would suggest that as the route to take. But of course, as in all international negotiations, there is no such thing as a one-off negotiation. Bad faith in these negotiations will impact future relations.
There's an internal dynamic as well. Verhofstadt may reckon he has most leverage with the EU negotiators by getting his favoured objectives in upfront, with a threat of vetoing the whole shebang if he doesn't get what he wants.
As I said down thread, I think the Exit Agreement will include the uncontroversial stuff that everyone wants - a trade deal on machinery,chemicals and possibly agriculture and maybe an agreement to maintain the European Arrest Warrant. The main negotiations will be held over until later.
They will want to hammer out a common WTO approach. British farmers stand to be clobbered by the potential removal of tariff quotas, while the UK is a very important market for EU agricultural exports that it will be reluctant to share with third countries.
I think you'll find a lot of fightback on the EAW from Brits who want a more nuanced extradition policy put back in place - once which does not assume equivalence in terms of justice systems across the EU just because the nation in question is signed up to the charter of fundamental rights.
Then it will be parked. Leaving just a trade deal on machinery and chemicals, which favours the EU side more than us, but it's the price we pay to keep Nissan etc on these shores for a bit longer.
You obviously missed the announcement from Honda a couple of days ago.
He's outed himself as a delusional EUphile already with his "middle rank" comments earlier today. His comments can be safely ignored from now on.
Agree. Actually ban him; we need a safe space for Brexiteers.
PS More likely Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament's link man on Brexit will have squared any potential parliamentary objections before the Council makes its final decision
Depends what type of negotiator he is. He may feel his hand is strongest if he only raises his 'issues' once an overall agreement has been reached subject to EP assent. Indeed, negotiation theory in one-off negotiations would suggest that as the route to take. But of course, as in all international negotiations, there is no such thing as a one-off negotiation. Bad faith in these negotiations will impact future relations.
There's an internal dynamic as well. Verhofstadt may reckon he has most leverage with the EU negotiators by getting his favoured objectives in upfront, with a threat of vetoing the whole shebang if he doesn't get what he wants.
As I said down thread, I think the Exit Agreement will include the uncontroversial stuff that everyone wants - a trade deal on machinery,chemicals and possibly agriculture and maybe an agreement to maintain the European Arrest Warrant. The main negotiations will be held over until later.
They will want to hammer out a common WTO approach. British farmers stand to be clobbered by the potential removal of tariff quotas, while the UK is a very important market for EU agricultural exports that it will be reluctant to share with third countries.
I think you'll find a lot of fightback on the EAW from Brits who want a more nuanced extradition policy put back in place - once which does not assume equivalence in terms of justice systems across the EU just because the nation in question is signed up to the charter of fundamental rights.
Then it will be parked. Leaving just a trade deal on machinery and chemicals, which favours the EU side more than us, but it's the price we pay to keep Nissan etc on these shores for a bit longer.
You're far too pessimistic. The EEA agreement is incredibly complex - any trade deal will have to be based on it for it to succeed in the two year timetable. Almost certainly that will mean EFTA memberhip.
The first priority for the UK should be to make sure that we bring a good deal to EFTA so that we can rejoin seamlessly.
Then we are back to fudge. ie the Brexit vote was a marker. We aim to be out, but we are going to carry on more or less as at present for the time being. Both parties will need to join in the pretence. I can see the benefit of it, but I don't think anyone is in the frame of mind for it.
Not being able to watch Tim Farron's speech live as I have a job and a life, I've just read it (text is on libdemvoice). Good barnstorming traditional Farron stuff - indeed, some of it recycled Farron stuff but not bad nevertheless.
On Europe, the commitment to a referendum on the A50 negotiation outcome remains but as I said this morning, I have serious doubts about this. At no point has Farron said what would happen if the public reject the A50 negotiation outcome - we would be in wholly uncharted waters.
My view remains the A50 negotiations have to be conducted and the post-EU economic future made a lot clearer. In 2019, we formally exit the EU and the following year we have a General Election where those opposed to the A50 plan can state their alternatives whether it be a re-negotiation to change either Single Market or Freedom of Movement.
Otherwise, we know the rest - success will be measured in terms of local Government seats gained or re-gained just as it was after 1970 and the activist base built or re-built.
Not a game-changing speech by any means but a competent second speech after a tumultuous year. I do think the 2017 County Council elections will be significant - will we see an LD recovery and will that mask a Conservative advance on the back of a UKIP decline ?
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.
Brexiteers go on about 'the will of the people' and 'the people have spoken'. It was actually quite close you know.
Not being able to watch Tim Farron's speech live as I have a job and a life, I've just read it (text is on libdemvoice). Good barnstorming traditional Farron stuff - indeed, some of it recycled Farron stuff but not bad nevertheless.
On Europe, the commitment to a referendum on the A50 negotiation outcome remains but as I said this morning, I have serious doubts about this. At no point has Farron said what would happen if the public reject the A50 negotiation outcome - we would be in wholly uncharted waters.
My view remains the A50 negotiations have to be conducted and the post-EU economic future made a lot clearer. In 2019, we formally exit the EU and the following year we have a General Election where those opposed to the A50 plan can state their alternatives whether it be a re-negotiation to change either Single Market or Freedom of Movement.
Otherwise, we know the rest - success will be measured in terms of local Government seats gained or re-gained just as it was after 1970 and the activist base built or re-built.
Not a game-changing speech by any means but a competent second speech after a tumultuous year. I do think the 2017 County Council elections will be significant - will we see an LD recovery and will that mask a Conservative advance on the back of a UKIP decline ?
The Tories are overdue a bad election. It might come in 2017. When it comes there will be serious losses and an opportunity for the Lib Dems.
PS More likely Guy Verhofstadt, the Parliament's link man on Brexit will have squared any potential parliamentary objections before the Council makes its final decision
Depends what type of negotiator he is. He may feel his hand is strongest if he only raises his 'issues' once an overall agreement has been reached subject to EP assent. Indeed, negotiation theory in one-off negotiations would suggest that as the route to take. But of course, as in all international negotiations, there is no such thing as a one-off negotiation. Bad faith in these negotiations will impact future relations.
There's an internal dynamic as well. Verhofstadt may reckon he has most leverage with the EU negotiators by getting his favoured objectives in upfront, with a threat of vetoing the whole shebang if he doesn't get what he wants.
As I said down thread, I think the Exit Agreement will include the uncontroversial stuff that everyone wants - a trade deal on machinery,chemicals and possibly agriculture and maybe an agreement to maintain the European Arrest Warrant. The main negotiations will be held over until later.
They will want to hammer out a common WTO approach. British farmers stand to be clobbered by the potential removal of tariff quotas, while the UK is a very important market for EU agricultural exports that it will be reluctant to share with third countries.
I think you'll find a lot of fightback on the EAW from Brits who want a more nuanced extradition policy put back in place - once which does not assume equivalence in terms of justice systems across the EU just because the nation in question is signed up to the charter of fundamental rights.
Then it will be parked. Leaving just a trade deal on machinery and chemicals, which favours the EU side more than us, but it's the price we pay to keep Nissan etc on these shores for a bit longer.
You obviously missed the announcement from Honda a couple of days ago.
He's outed himself as a delusional EUphile already with his "middle rank" comments earlier today. His comments can be safely ignored from now on.
Agree. Actually ban him; we need a safe space for Brexiteers.
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.
Well we ask the people every 5 years what government they want
And I can see May delay triggering Art 50 ... indefinitely.
My view is that May wants to delay Art 50 until the centre of political gravity within the EU comes her way on freedom of movement.
She can then do a more balanced free trade / migration deal for the UK.
Personally I think she'll try to hold off until Oct/Nov 2017, once many EU states national elections have subjected them to the same pressures she is under.
He's outed himself as a delusional EUphile already with his "middle rank" comments earlier today. His comments can be safely ignored from now on.
I thought my comments were interesting. Maybe they didn't quite hold up when tested, but I learnt something from the reaction they generated. A more sophisticated point perhaps is that as a country we don't deploy well the power and influence we do have. We really dislike multilateralism but that's the context a middle ranking power like us can influence the most. Bilateralism is for superpowers like the US, China and the EU in its eternal relations: Your choice: (a) Take it. (b) Leave it. When dealing with those three we are at the receiving end of that choice.
This is a truly surreal time in the USA. Clinton should clearly be in jail for her dishonesty and cavalier disregard of national security and now it turns out that Trump should be too. Have there ever been 2 more disreputable candidates for the White House in the same election?
Nixon must be looking down (or possibly up) and lamenting the collapse of standards. Do you want a crook in the Whitehouse? Well, which one?
The social worker who was supposed to be helping Liam Fee has been struck off. She was also accused of neglecting 15 other children in her supposed care over 33 months. That is obviously bad but what upsets me is the statement from the Council:
""While we cannot discuss the details of current or former employees, we would reassure that the practice highlighted in this case is historic in nature and was dealt with robustly at the time.
"The case was first reported by the council to the SSSC, over three years ago and this week's hearing is the conclusion of that referral.
"This case does not reflect our current practice or the high standard of professionalism which we expect and receive from our social work staff."
"Robustly at the time?" Does that mean her line manager was sacked, her line manager's supervisor demoted as clearly being incompetent or explain how she was able to accrue such a collection of chaos over an extended period without anyone apparently noticing? I suspect not.
This woman was 60. For just how long was she incompetent and putting children at risk? And what did her managers do about it?
This is a truly surreal time in the USA. Clinton should clearly be in jail for her dishonesty and cavalier disregard of national security and now it turns out that Trump should be too. Have there ever been 2 more disreputable candidates for the White House in the same election?
Nixon must be looking down (or possibly up) and lamenting the collapse of standards. Do you want a crook in the Whitehouse? Well, which one?
Nixon is probably taking credit for trailblazing.
Nixon has had a remarkable career since office. The subject of so many movies. Remarkable.
Not being able to watch Tim Farron's speech live as I have a job and a life, I've just read it (text is on libdemvoice). Good barnstorming traditional Farron stuff - indeed, some of it recycled Farron stuff but not bad nevertheless.
On Europe, the commitment to a referendum on the A50 negotiation outcome remains but as I said this morning, I have serious doubts about this. At no point has Farron said what would happen if the public reject the A50 negotiation outcome - we would be in wholly uncharted waters.
My view remains the A50 negotiations have to be conducted and the post-EU economic future made a lot clearer. In 2019, we formally exit the EU and the following year we have a General Election where those opposed to the A50 plan can state their alternatives whether it be a re-negotiation to change either Single Market or Freedom of Movement.
Otherwise, we know the rest - success will be measured in terms of local Government seats gained or re-gained just as it was after 1970 and the activist base built or re-built.
Not a game-changing speech by any means but a competent second speech after a tumultuous year. I do think the 2017 County Council elections will be significant - will we see an LD recovery and will that mask a Conservative advance on the back of a UKIP decline ?
Poor LibDems. Give their Leader's speech on the day Brad and Angelina split....
This is a truly surreal time in the USA. Clinton should clearly be in jail for her dishonesty and cavalier disregard of national security and now it turns out that Trump should be too. Have there ever been 2 more disreputable candidates for the White House in the same election?
Nixon must be looking down (or possibly up) and lamenting the collapse of standards. Do you want a crook in the Whitehouse? Well, which one?
Nixon is probably taking credit for trailblazing.
Nixon has had a remarkable career since office. The subject of so many movies. Remarkable.
Perhaps Hillary's legacy will be providing roles for over-the-hill actresses.
I suspect there's a Trump Mafia story going to break between now and November.
His supporters don't care. They think America is on the decline because Mexicans and Muslims they will vote for him no matter what. Hillary needs to enthuase the Obama coalition or she loses. Simple as that.
He's outed himself as a delusional EUphile already with his "middle rank" comments earlier today. His comments can be safely ignored from now on.
I thought my comments were interesting. Maybe they didn't quite hold up when tested, but I learnt something from the reaction they generated. A more sophisticated point perhaps is that as a country we don't deploy well the power and influence we do have. We really dislike multilateralism but that's the context a middle ranking power like us can influence the most. Bilateralism is for superpowers like the US, China and the EU in its eternal relations: Your choice: (a) Take it. (b) Leave it. When dealing with those three we are at the receiving end of that choice.
We on our own perhaps but a bloc of UK, Canada, Australia, Canada and all dependent territories (which would be bigger than Russia and have a similar population) less so.
He's outed himself as a delusional EUphile already with his "middle rank" comments earlier today. His comments can be safely ignored from now on.
I thought my comments were interesting. Maybe they didn't quite hold up when tested, but I learnt something from the reaction they generated. A more sophisticated point perhaps is that as a country we don't deploy well the power and influence we do have. We really dislike multilateralism but that's the context a middle ranking power like us can influence the most. Bilateralism is for superpowers like the US, China and the EU in its eternal relations: Your choice: (a) Take it. (b) Leave it. When dealing with those three we are at the receiving end of that choice.
We on our own perhaps but a bloc of UK, Canada, Australia, Canada and all dependent territories (which would be bigger than Russia and have a similar population) less so.
I see you've erased the US and South Africa from your club. Progress.
Excellent article. I could have written it myself! The unions are, of course, key. They will do for Corbyn in the end. I am looking at 2018, unless there is a general election before that.
I know some PBers have been interested in parallels between Trump and Brexit. Larry Sabato's not so convinced:
"Brexit isn’t necessarily a great parallel for our election, both because it was a ballot issue while ours is a choice among candidates, and because the British Brexit electorate (6% nonwhite) and the U.S. presidential electorate (approaching 30% nonwhite) are dramatically different."
Part of an interesting article on changes to toss-up states in recent week. Still HRC, but less certain:
Excellent article. I could have written it myself! The unions are, of course, key. They will do for Corbyn in the end. I am looking at 2018, unless there is a general election before that.
Yes, I think the men in grey boiler suits will arrive, once it is clear their members and their own dreams of having a say over union legislation, workers rights etc are all dust under a new forthcoming Tory landslide.
Unions vs momentum - will be fascinating come 2018/19.
Mr. Borough, I'm perplexed by this view that white Americans and Britons are basically the same, and non-white Americans and Britons are basically the same.
I'm also unsure why skin colour matters when it comes to voting on the EU.
I know some PBers have been interested in parallels between Trump and Brexit. Larry Sabato's not so convinced:
"Brexit isn’t necessarily a great parallel for our election, both because it was a ballot issue while ours is a choice among candidates, and because the British Brexit electorate (6% nonwhite) and the U.S. presidential electorate (approaching 30% nonwhite) are dramatically different."
Part of an interesting article on changes to toss-up states in recent week. Still HRC, but less certain:
Interestingly blinkered view on his part that he takes it as a given that white/non white ratio is critical. Overall I think he is right though - the USA is far too different from us to read across from one to the other, and the shared language just obscures that fact.
I suspect there's a Trump Mafia story going to break between now and November.
His supporters don't care. They think America is on the decline because Mexicans and Muslims they will vote for him no matter what. Hillary needs to enthuase the Obama coalition or she loses. Simple as that.
I no longer make bold predictions about US politics, having learned my lesson last time around. All I'll say is that Trump does look like a real possibility now. That may turn out to be his biggest problem as however dedicated his true believers are, they are a minority. Trump needs to make it all about Hillary. She needs to do the opposite. She has more ammunition, he is better at deploying what he does have. What a mess. If Trump wins, I think the US is worth avoiding for a few months until things settle down. The streets are going to be very angry in a lot of cities.
I know some PBers have been interested in parallels between Trump and Brexit. Larry Sabato's not so convinced:
"Brexit isn’t necessarily a great parallel for our election, both because it was a ballot issue while ours is a choice among candidates, and because the British Brexit electorate (6% nonwhite) and the U.S. presidential electorate (approaching 30% nonwhite) are dramatically different."
Part of an interesting article on changes to toss-up states in recent week. Still HRC, but less certain:
Maybe common themes of anti-globalisation and alienation. The big difference is in personalities. If Donald Trump wins, it will be because Middle America decided, here's someone who cares about me, who is dealing with things that matter to me, is on my side, and will make America great again.
He's outed himself as a delusional EUphile already with his "middle rank" comments earlier today. His comments can be safely ignored from now on.
I thought my comments were interesting. Maybe they didn't quite hold up when tested, but I learnt something from the reaction they generated. A more sophisticated point perhaps is that as a country we don't deploy well the power and influence we do have. We really dislike multilateralism but that's the context a middle ranking power like us can influence the most. Bilateralism is for superpowers like the US, China and the EU in its eternal relations: Your choice: (a) Take it. (b) Leave it. When dealing with those three we are at the receiving end of that choice.
We on our own perhaps but a bloc of UK, Canada, Australia, Canada and all dependent territories (which would be bigger than Russia and have a similar population) less so.
I see you've erased the US and South Africa from your club. Progress.
Counting Canada twice won't work though.
Places like South Africa and Singapore will join in due course but a bit of a stretch on day 1.
If you use the existing instution of the commonwealth then they would be already in- sort of.
But all states would be free to be members of whichever new commonwealth institutes they wish to join providing others dont object.
So COFMA (Commonwealth Free Movement Area) will likely have rules limiting benefits unless equivalent reciprocal in place and can only move to other countries if appointed to a suitable job) etc so probably just places like CANZUK, Singapore, Malaysia and possibly SA
However COTFA (Commonwealth Tariff Free Area) will likely have quite wider membership.
COSC (Commonwealth Single Currency) wont be happening as it would destroy the institution.
Sumilarly CC and CP (Commonwealth Commission and Commonwealth Parliament) wont either as not only would it be a disaster but it would create a bureaucratic monolith. Commonwealth is a free association of Sovereign States not a bossy proto superstate.
As the EU becomes ever more of a basket case, other EU members may wish to leave the EU and join the Commonwealth instead. As we are currently sharing soveriegnty with them they would qualify.
I think we will need a more Dynamic Sectretary General though. Boris Perhaps.
He's outed himself as a delusional EUphile already with his "middle rank" comments earlier today. His comments can be safely ignored from now on.
I thought my comments were interesting. Maybe they didn't quite hold up when tested, but I learnt something from the reaction they generated. A more sophisticated point perhaps is that as a country we don't deploy well the power and influence we do have. We really dislike multilateralism but that's the context a middle ranking power like us can influence the most. Bilateralism is for superpowers like the US, China and the EU in its eternal relations: Your choice: (a) Take it. (b) Leave it. When dealing with those three we are at the receiving end of that choice.
We on our own perhaps but a bloc of UK, Canada, Australia, Canada and all dependent territories (which would be bigger than Russia and have a similar population) less so.
I see you've erased the US and South Africa from your club. Progress.
Counting Canada twice won't work though.
So COFMA (Commonwealth Free Movement Area) will likely have rules limiting benefits unless equivalent reciprocal in place and can only move to other countries if appointed to a suitable job) etc so probably just places like CANZUK, Singapore, Malaysia and possibly SA
How about a single currency - the Commonwealth Monetary Area, or COMA?
He's outed himself as a delusional EUphile already with his "middle rank" comments earlier today. His comments can be safely ignored from now on.
I thought my comments were interesting. Maybe they didn't quite hold up when tested, but I learnt something from the reaction they generated. A more sophisticated point perhaps is that as a country we don't deploy well the power and influence we do have. We really dislike multilateralism but that's the context a middle ranking power like us can influence the most. Bilateralism is for superpowers like the US, China and the EU in its eternal relations: Your choice: (a) Take it. (b) Leave it. When dealing with those three we are at the receiving end of that choice.
We on our own perhaps but a bloc of UK, Canada, Australia, Canada and all dependent territories (which would be bigger than Russia and have a similar population) less so.
I see you've erased the US and South Africa from your club. Progress.
Counting Canada twice won't work though.
Places like South Africa and Singapore will join in due course but a bit of a stretch on day 1.
If you use the existing instution of the commonwealth then they would be already in- sort of.
But all states would be free to be members of whichever new commonwealth institutes they wish to join providing others dont object.
So COFMA (Commonwealth Free Movement Area) will likely have rules limiting benefits unless equivalent reciprocal in place and can only move to other countries if appointed to a suitable job) etc so probably just places like CANZUK, Singapore, Malaysia and possibly SA
However COTFA (Commonwealth Tariff Free Area) will likely have quite wider membership.
COSC (Commonwealth Single Currency) wont be happening as it would destroy the institution.
Sumilarly CC and CP (Commonwealth Commission and Commonwealth Parliament) wont either as not only would it be a disaster but it would create a bureaucratic monolith. Commonwealth is a free association of Sovereign States not a bossy proto superstate.
As the EU becomes ever more of a basket case, other EU members may wish to leave the EU and join the Commonwealth instead. As we are currently sharing soveriegnty with them they would qualify.
I think we will need a more Dynamic Sectretary General though. Boris Perhaps.
Will the British government allow visa free travel to the UK for Commonwealth countries like India is demanding ? Or, will it just be for Canada, Australia, New Zealand for obvious reasons.
Mr. 43, jein. It's not a referendum on liking Trump, but a choice between him and Clinton. Were he facing someone who wasn't so lacking in trust the Democratic candidate would likely be miles ahead.
He's outed himself as a delusional EUphile already with his "middle rank" comments earlier today. His comments can be safely ignored from now on.
I thought my comments were interesting. Maybe they didn't quite hold up when tested, but I learnt something from the reaction they generated. A more sophisticated point perhaps is that as a country we don't deploy well the power and influence we do have. We really dislike multilateralism but that's the context a middle ranking power like us can influence the most. Bilateralism is for superpowers like the US, China and the EU in its eternal relations: Your choice: (a) Take it. (b) Leave it. When dealing with those three we are at the receiving end of that choice.
We on our own perhaps but a bloc of UK, Canada, Australia, Canada and all dependent territories (which would be bigger than Russia and have a similar population) less so.
I see you've erased the US and South Africa from your club. Progress.
Counting Canada twice won't work though.
So COFMA (Commonwealth Free Movement Area) will likely have rules limiting benefits unless equivalent reciprocal in place and can only move to other countries if appointed to a suitable job) etc so probably just places like CANZUK, Singapore, Malaysia and possibly SA
How about a single currency - the Commonwealth Monetary Area, or COMA?
Poor LibDems. Give their Leader's speech on the day Brad and Angelina split....
I did think it was a bit unfair that Farron didn't make any of the 6 o'clock headlines - the LibDems are still one of the 4 main parties.But at least Brangelina (whoever they might be) were bottom of the list...
I know some PBers have been interested in parallels between Trump and Brexit. Larry Sabato's not so convinced:
"Brexit isn’t necessarily a great parallel for our election, both because it was a ballot issue while ours is a choice among candidates, and because the British Brexit electorate (6% nonwhite) and the U.S. presidential electorate (approaching 30% nonwhite) are dramatically different."
Part of an interesting article on changes to toss-up states in recent week. Still HRC, but less certain:
The big issue in both campaigns is anti immigration and anti globalisation and especially the disenchantment of the white working class which was capitalised on by Leave and is being exploited by Trump. It may be demographics which allow Hillary to scrape over the line in the US, with UK demographics Trump would now almost certainly win
Excellent article. I could have written it myself! The unions are, of course, key. They will do for Corbyn in the end. I am looking at 2018, unless there is a general election before that.
Yes, I think the men in grey boiler suits will arrive, once it is clear their members and their own dreams of having a say over union legislation, workers rights etc are all dust under a new forthcoming Tory landslide.
Unions vs momentum - will be fascinating come 2018/19.
2019 is shaping up to be a very interesting year. End of 2 year Art50 period, implementation of all the new boundaries, mass deselections and a possible recession (normal cycle).
Comments
The two difficulties are that many remain voters don't want to go through such a divisive referendum, feel the vote has to be respected and don't feel that strongly anyway, and the doubt over whether Article 50 is reversible.
However in terms of visibility and distinctiveness for the Lib Dems it does make sense as an interim position, until there's more clarity.
Were we to leave, and then rejoining meant Euro, Schengen and no rebate - I imagine that even the Lib Dems would baulk at that point, and move on.
And I can see May delay triggering Art 50 ... indefinitely.
Trump 44
Clinton 43
Tie in a must win for Trump
I do wonder what happens if we get to mid-2018 and May hasn't triggered Article 50. Could be a challenge to her.
Nate rates them B+ though.
Trump 44
Clinton 44
Tie in a must win for Clinton
I have to agree with Jezza on this one; it's a curse. I even sort of see where he's coming from on his 'no biscuits, yes thanks I'll have a shortbread'. I don't keep biscuits or cakes in the house, but I'm damned if I can refuse them when they're sitting infront of me.
@Morris_Dancer - quite right! I'm a fan of its crumbly Scottish cousin 'tablet' too. About the worst thing for you to eat though.
Ipsos/Reuters 26/08/2016 15/09/2016
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-37421599
They have a very odd projection for Vermont ;
http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/
Average has Clinton 0.8% behind trump in this state
I'm not one for cherry picking polls mind, and I think the debates are going to be crucial.
No I don't think VT is going red
It was actually quite close you know.
This one could be really bad for him if it goes to the TV news. He is paying his company's legal bills from charity donations!
Trump's route is as follows
NC, CO, NV, FL, OH
The joker in that particular pack is CO. Its high Hispanic population and liberalising demographic may do for him there. But it is nevertheless a viable route to victory that one could envisage happening.
Rumours that both campaigns have pulled their funding as they don't believe it is in play bode badly for him however.
Is it confectionary day on PB?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/president-trumps-first-term
I was just making the little 'un some rice, when I noticed on the instructions "...Tear open, tip out and fluff with a fork."
Now, I may be an innocent, but surely fluffing with a fork would not quite have the desired effect?
And to think my son nearly read it. I hope in this post-Brexit world such smut would be removed from our shelves. Won't anyone think of the children?
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr)
September 20, 2016
Europe’s Rape Epidemic: Western Women Will Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Mass Migration https://t.co/BkguApQqvQ via @BreitbartNews
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/20/donald-trump-busted-self-dealing-money-foundation-settle-lawsuits.html
As I said down thread, I think the Exit Agreement will include the uncontroversial stuff that everyone wants - a trade deal on machinery,chemicals and possibly agriculture and maybe an agreement to maintain the European Arrest Warrant. The main negotiations will be held over until later.
They will want to hammer out a common WTO approach. British farmers stand to be clobbered by the potential removal of tariff quotas, while the UK is a very important market for EU agricultural exports that it will be reluctant to share with third countries.
"So, Donald Trump used other people’s money to pay off fines via a charitable donation from his foundation. This is the kind of thing you would not do if you were serious about running for president and thus knew that perhaps your financial records would face scrutiny, as all candidate’s do — well, except for Donald Trump who has refused to release his tax returns."
"Trump also used the money to buy yet another portrait of himself (seriously?) and to buy advertisements for his hotels. If you had given money to the Trump Foundation for charity, you might be a little ticked off to see Trump using it to buy himself out of lawsuits, buy a portrait of himself and buy ads for his for-profit business."
That would sink a normal candidate, but maybe not post-truth Trump.
The first priority for the UK should be to make sure that we bring a good deal to EFTA so that we can rejoin seamlessly.
Nixon must be looking down (or possibly up) and lamenting the collapse of standards. Do you want a crook in the Whitehouse? Well, which one?
Not being able to watch Tim Farron's speech live as I have a job and a life, I've just read it (text is on libdemvoice). Good barnstorming traditional Farron stuff - indeed, some of it recycled Farron stuff but not bad nevertheless.
On Europe, the commitment to a referendum on the A50 negotiation outcome remains but as I said this morning, I have serious doubts about this. At no point has Farron said what would happen if the public reject the A50 negotiation outcome - we would be in wholly uncharted waters.
My view remains the A50 negotiations have to be conducted and the post-EU economic future made a lot clearer. In 2019, we formally exit the EU and the following year we have a General Election where those opposed to the A50 plan can state their alternatives whether it be a re-negotiation to change either Single Market or Freedom of Movement.
Otherwise, we know the rest - success will be measured in terms of local Government seats gained or re-gained just as it was after 1970 and the activist base built or re-built.
Not a game-changing speech by any means but a competent second speech after a tumultuous year. I do think the 2017 County Council elections will be significant - will we see an LD recovery and will that mask a Conservative advance on the back of a UKIP decline ?
'Ho, ho, Mr Zims! You are a hoot!'
You obviously missed the opening part of his rant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3604081/Donald-Trump-s-hidden-business-dealings-Mafia-boss-Fat-Tony-Report-unearths-legal-papers-GOP-frontrunner-paid-mob-speed-building-Trump-Tower-keeping-unions-quiet.html
She can then do a more balanced free trade / migration deal for the UK.
Personally I think she'll try to hold off until Oct/Nov 2017, once many EU states national elections have subjected them to the same pressures she is under.
The social worker who was supposed to be helping Liam Fee has been struck off. She was also accused of neglecting 15 other children in her supposed care over 33 months. That is obviously bad but what upsets me is the statement from the Council:
""While we cannot discuss the details of current or former employees, we would reassure that the practice highlighted in this case is historic in nature and was dealt with robustly at the time.
"The case was first reported by the council to the SSSC, over three years ago and this week's hearing is the conclusion of that referral.
"This case does not reflect our current practice or the high standard of professionalism which we expect and receive from our social work staff."
"Robustly at the time?" Does that mean her line manager was sacked, her line manager's supervisor demoted as clearly being incompetent or explain how she was able to accrue such a collection of chaos over an extended period without anyone apparently noticing? I suspect not.
This woman was 60. For just how long was she incompetent and putting children at risk? And what did her managers do about it?
https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/opinion/adrian-mcmenamin-what-makes-corbyn-so-confident
Counting Canada twice won't work though.
"Brexit isn’t necessarily a great parallel for our election, both because it was a ballot issue while ours is a choice among candidates, and because the British Brexit electorate (6% nonwhite) and the U.S. presidential electorate (approaching 30% nonwhite) are dramatically different."
Part of an interesting article on changes to toss-up states in recent week. Still HRC, but less certain:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-trump-surge/
Unions vs momentum - will be fascinating come 2018/19.
Mr. Borough, I'm perplexed by this view that white Americans and Britons are basically the same, and non-white Americans and Britons are basically the same.
I'm also unsure why skin colour matters when it comes to voting on the EU.
Berlusconi on steriods.
If you use the existing instution of the commonwealth then they would be already in- sort of.
But all states would be free to be members of whichever new commonwealth institutes they wish to join providing others dont object.
So COFMA (Commonwealth Free Movement Area) will likely have rules limiting benefits unless equivalent reciprocal in place and can only move to other countries if appointed to a suitable job) etc so probably just places like CANZUK, Singapore, Malaysia and possibly SA
However COTFA (Commonwealth Tariff Free Area) will likely have quite wider membership.
COSC (Commonwealth Single Currency) wont be happening as it would destroy the institution.
Sumilarly CC and CP (Commonwealth Commission and Commonwealth Parliament) wont either as not only would it be a disaster but it would create a bureaucratic monolith. Commonwealth is a free association of Sovereign States not a bossy proto superstate.
As the EU becomes ever more of a basket case, other EU members may wish to leave the EU and join the Commonwealth instead. As we are currently sharing soveriegnty with them they would qualify.
I think we will need a more Dynamic Sectretary General though. Boris Perhaps.
Gazza’s 21st-century show trial should worry us all
Tim Farron "Defeat and disappointment are in my blood." Good new slogan for the Lib Dems, that is