Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clinton punters are getting the jitters with the Electoral Col

SystemSystem Posts: 11,020
edited November 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clinton punters are getting the jitters with the Electoral College Votes spreads slipping nine on today’s peak

Clinton dropping further on @SportingIndex https://t.co/SlmpdxLl1w … ECV spread market. Latest 311-321, down 9 on peak today

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    First like Clinton.
  • Options
    Second like Trump/Clinton*
  • Options
    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    I hope that all bettors makes loads of folding stuff tomorrow. Good luck
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,979

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we need a trade deal with India. India is about the most restrictive country in the world to deal with, we can easily wait...
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,612
    So either free money on HRC or another polling disaster.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we require a trade deal with India?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836
    Two polls today put the Republicans ahead for the House, suggesting that a better candidate could have won them all three branches of government.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,280
    Not often you see the Dow up more or less 400 points on the day.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we require a trade deal with India?
    Something to do with leaving the European Union and having to find trading partners elsewhere.
  • Options
    No jitters here: President-elect Clinton will be in place by about 4:30am.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Two polls today put the Republicans ahead for the House, suggesting that a better candidate could have won them all three branches of government.

    The Democrats were never in serious contention for the House, just the Senate.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we require a trade deal with India?
    Entirely f***** predictable. Now we will have a debate about which type of foreigner is more bearable.
  • Options
    eek said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we need a trade deal with India. India is about the most restrictive country in the world to deal with, we can easily wait...
    We haven't got time to hang around. Article 50 will be triggered in a few months.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,280
    eek said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we need a trade deal with India. India is about the most restrictive country in the world to deal with, we can easily wait...
    These developing countries export mainly goods. We export mainly services. So if we are not careful all of these 'Liam Fox' trade deals may well not be in our best interests, anyway, since enabling free trade of services is a whole lot more difficult than simply taking in tariff-free physical goods.
  • Options

    So either free money on HRC or another polling disaster.

    :+1:
  • Options
    The Hodges prediction:

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/B1ly3
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,060
    IanB2 said:

    These developing countries export mainly goods. We export mainly services. So if we are not careful all of these 'Liam Fox' trade deals may well not be in our best interests, anyway, since enabling free trade of services is a whole lot more difficult than simply taking in tariff-free physical goods.

    A services trade deal with India would have interesting consequences... A lot of white collar professionals could suddenly find themselves with much cheaper competition.
  • Options

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Friday 10 June 2016
    "Immigration is the most important factor currently determining how people say they’ll vote in the referendum, and the argument that Brexit will stop “uncontrolled immigration” is being used with increasing frequency, most notably by Boris Johnson. But, as far as I can see, either the leave campaigners misunderstand the impact Brexit would have or they have decided to wilfully mislead us."
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/10/immigration-truth-brexit-would-not-bring-it-under-control
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we require a trade deal with India?
    I'm up for a trade deal with India, but not at the expense of much looser immigration controls.

    In all honesty, the country is so cumbersome and bureaucratic I'll be surprised if anything is agreed.
  • Options

    No jitters here: President-elect Clinton will be in place by about 4:30am.

    The jitters are people playing the most risky and rewarding betting of all - the spreads.

  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,304
    edited November 2016
    May, Fox and Boris need to calmly and carefully explain to the Leave-voting WCC why increased immigration from India is in fact a good thing and ultimately to their economic benefit. It won't be enough to dismiss them as being insufficiently pro-globalization and handwave their concerns away with sneers of 'waysist'.
  • Options

    No jitters here: President-elect Clinton will be in place by about 4:30am.

    The jitters are people playing the most risky and rewarding betting of all - the spreads.

    If only I was rich enough for spreads :-)
  • Options
    Blue_rog said:

    I hope that all bettors makes loads of folding stuff tomorrow. Good luck

    Smart punters don't need luck - they've cashed in their profits already.

  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    These developing countries export mainly goods. We export mainly services. So if we are not careful all of these 'Liam Fox' trade deals may well not be in our best interests, anyway, since enabling free trade of services is a whole lot more difficult than simply taking in tariff-free physical goods.

    A services trade deal with India would have interesting consequences... A lot of white collar professionals could suddenly find themselves with much cheaper competition.
    Dunno. Indian call centres to service UK customers were all the rage 5-10 years ago.

    But they pissed everyone here off, so now they are in decline.
  • Options
    Great bit of Ch4 news tonight (on again on +1 shortly). Trump threw out a latino reporter at one of his press conferences. Turns out he was THE latino news anchor, and one of the most famous hispanics in US - adored by millions of fans.

    Trump is a loser.
  • Options
    DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    Sean_F said:

    Two polls today put the Republicans ahead for the House, suggesting that a better candidate could have won them all three branches of government.

    Ditto for the Dems with a better candidate.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    Stuck on the old thread for 30 mins.. oh the humanity!
  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    These developing countries export mainly goods. We export mainly services. So if we are not careful all of these 'Liam Fox' trade deals may well not be in our best interests, anyway, since enabling free trade of services is a whole lot more difficult than simply taking in tariff-free physical goods.

    A services trade deal with India would have interesting consequences... A lot of white collar professionals could suddenly find themselves with much cheaper competition.
    Dunno. Indian call centres to service UK customers were all the rage 5-10 years ago.

    But they pissed everyone here off, so now they are in decline.
    Surely it's China we need a trade deal with. So we can buy more cheap manufactured goods and they can buy more real estate. What else would we do with it?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967

    May, Fox and Boris need to calmly and carefully explain to the Leave-voting WCC why increased immigration from India is in fact a good thing and ultimately to their economic benefit. It won't be enough to dismiss them as being insufficiently pro-globalization and handwave their concerns away with sneers of 'waysist'.

    Skilled migration from India is better than unskilled migration from Europe?
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    The PM has fashioned a rod for her own back by not simply dumping the 100,000 threshold that Cameron plucked out of thin air. There was no need for her to keep it. The main Opposition has essentially caved in to the No Borders lunacy, which leaves the field completely open for the Conservatives, and most voters do not fall into the "pull up the drawbridge" category. A plan which demonstrates that the Government will be back in control after Brexit and is restricting migration in sectors not essential for the economy or public services (i.e. moving EU agricultural labourers back onto a work permit system, and refusing entry to other categories of low skill labour and people without job offers already in place) would've been quite sufficient. Her refusal to remove university students - probably the most uncontroversial source of immigration, save perhaps for NHS workers - from the immigration statistics is also baffling.

    The reports I have heard suggest that May has provided less arduous routes for some skilled Indian workers to enter the UK, and is prepared to make further concessions if the Indian authorities will be more co-operative in taking back those in the UK illegally, which is encouraging. Hopefully a few more meetings with other world leaders and trade ministers, all or most of whom will want concessions on visas as part of future trade negotiations, will encourage May to adopt a little more flexibility (and quietly feed the Cameron target through a shredder.) It will most likely mean that the numbers won't come down as much as many people would like, but what it will do is reduce disquiet about the mass entry of low skilled workers into the UK labour market, and the impression that this causes unwelcome competition for low paying jobs, rented property and public services, particularly in more economically distressed communities.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967


    Surely it's China we need a trade deal with. So we can buy more cheap manufactured goods and they can buy more real estate. What else would we do with it?

    Welcome to PB!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    FPT:
    rpjs said:

    RobD said:

    rpjs said:

    stodge said:

    Just as an observation could the Senate end up 50 all ?

    It certainly can, in which case whoever's elected Vice-President actually has to work for his pay for once, as he'll have to preside over the Senate in person to break any ties.
    Why did they have a Senate that has an equal number of members (giving DC only one Senator would fix that). Similarly for the number of electoral votes!!
    I think the intention of the Founding Fathers was that the VP's day job was to actually preside over the Senate, but after the first VP, John Adams, took a very active role as President of the Senate, the Senate didn't much care for that and since the VP has only actively presided when the Senate's tied.

    Fun fact: The states have to have equal representation in the Senate. That's the only super-entrenched part of the Constitution - it can't be amended even by the usual amendment process.
    Interesting, how is it entrenched?

  • Options
    RobD said:


    Surely it's China we need a trade deal with. So we can buy more cheap manufactured goods and they can buy more real estate. What else would we do with it?

    Welcome to PB!
    Thank you. As befits my moniker I've been lurking in the undergrowth for quite a while.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896

    No jitters here: President-elect Clinton will be in place by about 4:30am.

    The jitters are people playing the most risky and rewarding betting of all - the spreads.

    And good luck to you all! Theres some very large cojones on here playing the EC spreads.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    edited November 2016
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/telepolitics/status/795719486687084545

    [Insert usual PB comment about how awesome matt is here]
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,612
    Scott_P said:
    Not many black or Latino voters in that line. Matt must be trying to tell us something.
  • Options

    Blue_rog said:

    I hope that all bettors makes loads of folding stuff tomorrow. Good luck

    Smart punters don't need luck - they've cashed in their profits already.

    Then I'm not smart.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Good evening.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Not quite, I read the Standard on the tube and it made clear May would not be expanding visas beyond maybe some selected Indian businessmen and in return she wanted India's help in returning to India those whose visas had expired
  • Options

    Blue_rog said:

    I hope that all bettors makes loads of folding stuff tomorrow. Good luck

    Smart punters don't need luck - they've cashed in their profits already.

    Then I'm not smart.
    Running to the end might make sense in probability terms. But if you've done well, and the cash out value is substantially more than you would have ever bet, then better to take one in the hand than 1.13 in the bush.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    RobD said:

    May, Fox and Boris need to calmly and carefully explain to the Leave-voting WCC why increased immigration from India is in fact a good thing and ultimately to their economic benefit. It won't be enough to dismiss them as being insufficiently pro-globalization and handwave their concerns away with sneers of 'waysist'.

    Skilled migration from India is better than unskilled migration from Europe?
    Not if numbers are your concern. Indian's tend to bring extended families whereas Europeans usually come alone.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,280

    Scott_P said:
    Not many black or Latino voters in that line. Matt must be trying to tell us something.
    Don't you think there is something about those slightly slouched and weather-worn people waiting to vote that simply screams 'Brits' and is very hard to relate to the US presidential election?
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,334
    That PA poll has to worry Clinton, as do those House polls showing the GOP surging, but nearly all the other polls look fairly good. I still think she's winning, but I'm not going anywhere near the spread bets, as weird results seem perfectly possible either way.

    Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers. But one shouldn't generalise beyond that. The instinct to control your destiny more effectively by national sovereignty is entirely understandable, even if (as I personally think) it's largely illusory in today's world.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/telepolitics/status/795719486687084545

    Not many black or Latino voters in that line. Matt must be trying to tell us something.
    Don't you think there is something about those slightly slouched and weather-worn people waiting to vote that simply screams 'Brits' and is very hard to relate to the US presidential election?
    It probably doesn't help that Matt is a UK-based cartoonist, mainly publishing cartoons relevant to the UK!

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995

    May, Fox and Boris need to calmly and carefully explain to the Leave-voting WCC why increased immigration from India is in fact a good thing and ultimately to their economic benefit. It won't be enough to dismiss them as being insufficiently pro-globalization and handwave their concerns away with sneers of 'waysist'.

    I read the same article you did and May made clear she would not be relaxing visa restrictions from India, the only exceptions for some businessmen would come if India helped return those whose visas had expired
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050

    Blue_rog said:

    I hope that all bettors makes loads of folding stuff tomorrow. Good luck

    Smart punters don't need luck - they've cashed in their profits already.

    Then I'm not smart.
    I'm not either Casino...I wouldn't worry about it too much..

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    edited November 2016
    HYUFD said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Not quite, I read the Standard on the tube and it made clear May would not be expanding visas beyond maybe some selected Indian businessmen and in return she wanted India's help in returning to India those whose visas had expired
    Which makes good sense. I know a few Indian businessmen and they have to jump through hoops at the moment to get even a visit visa for the UK, let alone a resident or investor visa. Entrepreneurs are the very first group we should be encouraging to set up in the UK.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    That PA poll has to worry Clinton, as do those House polls showing the GOP surging, but nearly all the other polls look fairly good. I still think she's winning, but I'm not going anywhere near the spread bets, as weird results seem perfectly possible either way.

    Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers. But one shouldn't generalise beyond that. The instinct to control your destiny more effectively by national sovereignty is entirely understandable, even if (as I personally think) it's largely illusory in today's world.

    I haven't seen this poll. What were the numbers?
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,979
    edited November 2016
    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    May, Fox and Boris need to calmly and carefully explain to the Leave-voting WCC why increased immigration from India is in fact a good thing and ultimately to their economic benefit. It won't be enough to dismiss them as being insufficiently pro-globalization and handwave their concerns away with sneers of 'waysist'.

    Skilled migration from India is better than unskilled migration from Europe?
    Not if numbers are your concern. Indian's tend to bring extended families whereas Europeans usually come alone.
    My concern would be how skilled the labour actually was. I've seen far too many instances of the skills I thought were coming on shore bearing no relation to the skills the person who arrives actually does (not) have.

    Not naming any outsource firms but take your pick....
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    May, Fox and Boris need to calmly and carefully explain to the Leave-voting WCC why increased immigration from India is in fact a good thing and ultimately to their economic benefit. It won't be enough to dismiss them as being insufficiently pro-globalization and handwave their concerns away with sneers of 'waysist'.

    Skilled migration from India is better than unskilled migration from Europe?
    Not if numbers are your concern. Indian's tend to bring extended families whereas Europeans usually come alone.
    Although the pool of skilled migrants is probably smaller than the pool of unskilled migrants!
  • Options

    Blue_rog said:

    I hope that all bettors makes loads of folding stuff tomorrow. Good luck

    Smart punters don't need luck - they've cashed in their profits already.

    "Only smart people are Brilliant at Betting."
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967
    AndyJS said:

    That PA poll has to worry Clinton, as do those House polls showing the GOP surging, but nearly all the other polls look fairly good. I still think she's winning, but I'm not going anywhere near the spread bets, as weird results seem perfectly possible either way.

    Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers. But one shouldn't generalise beyond that. The instinct to control your destiny more effectively by national sovereignty is entirely understandable, even if (as I personally think) it's largely illusory in today's world.

    I haven't seen this poll. What were the numbers?
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4lhKxf9pMiteE9pZkcwQnZ3TVk/view
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,060
    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    May, Fox and Boris need to calmly and carefully explain to the Leave-voting WCC why increased immigration from India is in fact a good thing and ultimately to their economic benefit. It won't be enough to dismiss them as being insufficiently pro-globalization and handwave their concerns away with sneers of 'waysist'.

    Skilled migration from India is better than unskilled migration from Europe?
    Not if numbers are your concern. Indian's tend to bring extended families whereas Europeans usually come alone.
    Although the pool of skilled migrants is probably smaller than the pool of unskilled migrants!
    The top 10% of the Indian population is still 120 million people.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    AndyJS said:

    That PA poll has to worry Clinton, as do those House polls showing the GOP surging, but nearly all the other polls look fairly good. I still think she's winning, but I'm not going anywhere near the spread bets, as weird results seem perfectly possible either way.

    Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers. But one shouldn't generalise beyond that. The instinct to control your destiny more effectively by national sovereignty is entirely understandable, even if (as I personally think) it's largely illusory in today's world.

    I haven't seen this poll. What were the numbers?
    Trump +1
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,967

    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    RobD said:

    May, Fox and Boris need to calmly and carefully explain to the Leave-voting WCC why increased immigration from India is in fact a good thing and ultimately to their economic benefit. It won't be enough to dismiss them as being insufficiently pro-globalization and handwave their concerns away with sneers of 'waysist'.

    Skilled migration from India is better than unskilled migration from Europe?
    Not if numbers are your concern. Indian's tend to bring extended families whereas Europeans usually come alone.
    Although the pool of skilled migrants is probably smaller than the pool of unskilled migrants!
    The top 10% of the Indian population is still 120 million people.
    I'm going to hazard a guess here and say that will not happen. For starters, there aren't 120 million vacancies in the UK.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,836

    Sean_F said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we require a trade deal with India?
    Something to do with leaving the European Union and having to find trading partners elsewhere.
    But, we already trade with India and will continue trading with the EU.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    IanB2 said:

    Not often you see the Dow up more or less 400 points on the day.

    Every trading day.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    That PA poll has to worry Clinton, as do those House polls showing the GOP surging, but nearly all the other polls look fairly good. I still think she's winning, but I'm not going anywhere near the spread bets, as weird results seem perfectly possible either way.

    Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers. But one shouldn't generalise beyond that. The instinct to control your destiny more effectively by national sovereignty is entirely understandable, even if (as I personally think) it's largely illusory in today's world.

    I haven't seen this poll. What were the numbers?
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4lhKxf9pMiteE9pZkcwQnZ3TVk/view
    Thanks.
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050

    Blue_rog said:

    I hope that all bettors makes loads of folding stuff tomorrow. Good luck

    Smart punters don't need luck - they've cashed in their profits already.

    Yeah right OGH....I get that 12 times winnings you've got is already getting ploughed back in somewhere. Something tells me Mike, you are not going to sit out the night without something at stake.....
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,612
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Not quite, I read the Standard on the tube and it made clear May would not be expanding visas beyond maybe some selected Indian businessmen and in return she wanted India's help in returning to India those whose visas had expired
    Which makes good sense. I know a few Indian businessmen and they have to jump through hoops at the moment to get even a visit visa for the UK, let alone a resident or investor visa. Entrepreneurs are the very first group we should be encouraging to set up in the UK.
    I know a couple of Indian chaps who are part of this elite fast track scheme. They can get through passport control at LHR faster than Brits.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    It looks like Florida could be as close as it was in the year 2000. The question is whether the election will have already been decided elsewhere.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,760


    Surely it's China we need a trade deal with. So we can buy more cheap manufactured goods and they can buy more real estate. What else would we do with it?

    Welcome to the party, pal
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    edited November 2016
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we require a trade deal with India?
    Something to do with leaving the European Union and having to find trading partners elsewhere.
    But, we already trade with India and will continue trading with the EU.
    A reduction in tariffs on UK imports to India (mainly cars and planes) makes sense for us - and benefits companies like JLR with their Indian shareholders. In exchange we will open up our education sector and fast track visas for genuine investors and HNWs, as long as India accepts deported overstayers without too much fuss.

    This is exactly the sort of deal we should be doing!

    To go even further, one thing I suggested previously on here would be for the NHS to open medical colleges / teaching hospitals in places like Mumbai and Manila, working to British educational standards with lower local costs, and able to offer work places in the UK for the cream of the graduates while providing free or subsidised treatment to the local populations. Another win/win.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,612
    AndyJS said:

    It looks like Florida could be as close as it was in the year 2000. The question is whether the election will have already been decided elsewhere.

    Is being called Chad still a hanging offence in Florida?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Not quite, I read the Standard on the tube and it made clear May would not be expanding visas beyond maybe some selected Indian businessmen and in return she wanted India's help in returning to India those whose visas had expired
    Which makes good sense. I know a few Indian businessmen and they have to jump through hoops at the moment to get even a visit visa for the UK, let alone a resident or investor visa. Entrepreneurs are the very first group we should be encouraging to set up in the UK.
    Yes, nothing wrong with encouraging hard working entrepreneurs
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers.

    Funny, I thought that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Nationalists (and most of their voters) were all in favour of staying in. And they aren't all sweetness and light by a long chalk. Much of the Scottish Nationalist vanguard is vitriolic and pitilessly cruel to its opponents, and has been for years. Elements of Irish Nationalism went around brutally murdering people.

    I have my own pet theory, which is that distaste for the English is so ingrained in left-wing thinking that it is expressed freely without any conscious thought. Have you noticed, for example, how Wales is almost always conveniently forgotten when distressed Remain-supporting commentators lash out at stereotypical Leave voters and Leave-voting areas, even though the Welsh also decided that they had had enough of the EU?

    Voters are not deaf, dumb and stupid. They pick up on the fact that the Labour leadership is dominated by people who celebrated those who sought to murder us (some of those nastier kinds of nationalist I mentioned earlier) and they turn their backs on it in droves accordingly. Given this and other facts, it's small wonder that Labour is so comprehensively fucked in the majority of England, now is it?
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,710

    Sean_F said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we require a trade deal with India?
    I'm up for a trade deal with India, but not at the expense of much looser immigration controls.

    In all honesty, the country is so cumbersome and bureaucratic I'll be surprised if anything is agreed.
    Which is the only reason the EU doesn't have a trade deal with India.
  • Options

    Great bit of Ch4 news tonight (on again on +1 shortly). Trump threw out a latino reporter at one of his press conferences. Turns out he was THE latino news anchor, and one of the most famous hispanics in US - adored by millions of fans.

    Trump is a loser.

    Geraldo Rivera ?
  • Options
    YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    edited November 2016
    Sean_F said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we require a trade deal with India?
    Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,760

    Blue_rog said:

    I hope that all bettors makes loads of folding stuff tomorrow. Good luck

    Smart punters don't need luck - they've cashed in their profits already.

    "Nobody ever lost money taking a profit.", Bernard Baruch
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050

    Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers.

    Funny, I thought that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Nationalists (and most of their voters) were all in favour of staying in. And they aren't all sweetness and light by a long chalk. Much of the Scottish Nationalist vanguard is vitriolic and pitilessly cruel to its opponents, and has been for years. Elements of Irish Nationalism went around brutally murdering people.

    I have my own pet theory, which is that distaste for the English is so ingrained in left-wing thinking that it is expressed freely without any conscious thought. Have you noticed, for example, how Wales is almost always conveniently forgotten when distressed Remain-supporting commentators lash out at stereotypical Leave voters and Leave-voting areas, even though the Welsh also decided that they had had enough of the EU?

    Voters are not deaf, dumb and stupid. They pick up on the fact that the Labour leadership is dominated by people who celebrated those who sought to murder us (some of those nastier kinds of nationalist I mentioned earlier) and they turn their backs on it in droves accordingly. Given this and other facts, it's small wonder that Labour is so comprehensively fucked in the majority of England, now is it?
    It won't come as a surprise Blacky that I disagree. I think all nationalism is nasty and insidious, plays on populism and base emotions..it is all on a spectrum.

    I really dislike English nationalists...Brexit for instance.. and I despise Trump, Le Pen, Grillo, the Serbs under Milosevic, Hitler, Mussolini...and the Scots and Welsh nationalists.

    You are all narrow minded bigots who do not see the bigger picture...some of you are simply more extreme than others...but nationalism is the problem in my book.


  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    edited November 2016

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Not quite, I read the Standard on the tube and it made clear May would not be expanding visas beyond maybe some selected Indian businessmen and in return she wanted India's help in returning to India those whose visas had expired
    Which makes good sense. I know a few Indian businessmen and they have to jump through hoops at the moment to get even a visit visa for the UK, let alone a resident or investor visa. Entrepreneurs are the very first group we should be encouraging to set up in the UK.
    I know a couple of Indian chaps who are part of this elite fast track scheme. They can get through passport control at LHR faster than Brits.
    Interesting, thanks. I wasn't even aware that such a scheme existed already. The PM's trip to India is getting a lot of publicity here in the sandpit, I'll point my Indian friends in the direction of looking for the fast track visas.
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050

    Sean_F said:

    Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.

    Why do we require a trade deal with India?
    Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.
    I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States

    Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
    “This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
    The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    AndyJS said:

    It looks like Florida could be as close as it was in the year 2000. The question is whether the election will have already been decided elsewhere.

    Been browsing

    "A study earlier this year by YouGov and the political scientist Philip Cowley found that telling voters they will be better or worse off by as little as £10 a week, was enough to alter the outcome of both the Scottish referendum and the upcoming EU referendum. Interestingly, the actual amount of theoretical monetary loss or gain made little difference. All that mattered was the idea that voting one way or another would hit voters' pockets."

    Hmm....
  • Options
    Daily Mash calls it for Trump:

    "World to enjoy its last day of relative sanity 
"

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/world-to-enjoy-its-last-day-of-relative-sanity-
  • Options
    peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,875
    edited November 2016
    Hillary has actually slipped 11 ECVs from her peak today, i.e. from 322-332 to 311-321 currently.

    Incidentally, there's was a riveting 10 minute interview featuring former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani just after the start of Lou Dobbs Tonight on the Fox Business Channel yesterday as linked to below and well worth watching. I can't imagine that anything remotely as strong as this would ever be allowed on our TV networks.

    Not that we'd ever be allowed have a right of centre broadcaster in the first place.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DETe_cEckVA
  • Options
    weejonnie said:

    AndyJS said:

    It looks like Florida could be as close as it was in the year 2000. The question is whether the election will have already been decided elsewhere.

    Been browsing

    "A study earlier this year by YouGov and the political scientist Philip Cowley found that telling voters they will be better or worse off by as little as £10 a week, was enough to alter the outcome of both the Scottish referendum and the upcoming EU referendum. Interestingly, the actual amount of theoretical monetary loss or gain made little difference. All that mattered was the idea that voting one way or another would hit voters' pockets."

    Hmm....
    It's an interesting study, but it tells you nothing about politics.

    Nobody is ever guaranteed £10, and the vast majority of people assume things will get worse regardless.
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    On bbc 4 at 9pm - Rich hall's presidential grudge - An examination of the sordid machinations involved in becoming US president.
  • Options

    Daily Mash calls it for Trump:

    "World to enjoy its last day of relative sanity 
"

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/world-to-enjoy-its-last-day-of-relative-sanity-

    Unfortunately for the Daily Mash satire is superfluous when we can read stories like this:

    The US says it is "deeply concerned" about the electoral process in Nicaragua a day after Daniel Ortega, the left-wing leader, won a third consecutive presidential term.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-37903647
  • Options
    RobD said:

    FPT:

    rpjs said:

    RobD said:

    rpjs said:

    stodge said:

    Just as an observation could the Senate end up 50 all ?

    It certainly can, in which case whoever's elected Vice-President actually has to work for his pay for once, as he'll have to preside over the Senate in person to break any ties.
    Why did they have a Senate that has an equal number of members (giving DC only one Senator would fix that). Similarly for the number of electoral votes!!
    I think the intention of the Founding Fathers was that the VP's day job was to actually preside over the Senate, but after the first VP, John Adams, took a very active role as President of the Senate, the Senate didn't much care for that and since the VP has only actively presided when the Senate's tied.

    Fun fact: The states have to have equal representation in the Senate. That's the only super-entrenched part of the Constitution - it can't be amended even by the usual amendment process.
    Interesting, how is it entrenched?

    Article 5 of the US Constitution covers the mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended. It specifically prohibits any amendment to the Constitution which deprives a state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    AndyJS said:

    "Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States

    Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
    “This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
    The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states

    Isn't there a two-year period of negotiation of transfer of power?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    AndyJS said:

    "Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States

    Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
    “This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
    The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states

    Damn right! Let Her Majesty appoint the new Govenor General and be done with it. The Septics have proven themselves to be incapable of selecting anyone sensible to run their country, so they should forfeit the right to do so!
    ;)
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    RobD said:

    FPT:

    rpjs said:

    RobD said:

    rpjs said:

    stodge said:

    Just as an observation could the Senate end up 50 all ?

    It certainly can, in which case whoever's elected Vice-President actually has to work for his pay for once, as he'll have to preside over the Senate in person to break any ties.
    Why did they have a Senate that has an equal number of members (giving DC only one Senator would fix that). Similarly for the number of electoral votes!!
    I think the intention of the Founding Fathers was that the VP's day job was to actually preside over the Senate, but after the first VP, John Adams, took a very active role as President of the Senate, the Senate didn't much care for that and since the VP has only actively presided when the Senate's tied.

    Fun fact: The states have to have equal representation in the Senate. That's the only super-entrenched part of the Constitution - it can't be amended even by the usual amendment process.
    Interesting, how is it entrenched?

    Article 5 of the US Constitution covers the mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended. It specifically prohibits any amendment to the Constitution which deprives a state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent.
    This itself can of course be amended.
  • Options

    Hillary has actually slipped 11 ECVs from her peak today, i.e. from 322-332 to 311-321 currently.

    Incidentally, there's was a riveting 10 minute interview featuring former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani just after the start of Lou Dobbs Tonight on the Fox Business Channel yesterday as linked to below and well worth watching. I can't imagine that anything remotely as strong as this would ever be allowed on our TV networks.

    Not that we'd ever be allowed have a right of centre broadcaster in the first place.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DETe_cEckVA

    Is it any wonder America is so divided. Giuliani beginning to look like a desperate man who knows he has backed a dud.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Great bit of Ch4 news tonight (on again on +1 shortly). Trump threw out a latino reporter at one of his press conferences. Turns out he was THE latino news anchor, and one of the most famous hispanics in US - adored by millions of fans.

    Trump is a loser.

    He had a 15 min unchallenged interview on radio4 on Sunday morning. He was talking over another journalist in a q&a and refused to shut up when asked to.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,612
    weejonnie said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States

    Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
    “This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
    The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states

    Isn't there a two-year period of negotiation of transfer of power?
    Does the US Constitution have an Article 50?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,119
    AndyJS said:

    "Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States

    Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
    “This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
    The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states

    Remarkably similar to a post I've made on pb.com within the past month.

    Just sayin'....
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    tyson said:

    Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers.

    Funny, I thought that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Nationalists (and most of their voters) were all in favour of staying in. And they aren't all sweetness and light by a long chalk. Much of the Scottish Nationalist vanguard is vitriolic and pitilessly cruel to its opponents, and has been for years. Elements of Irish Nationalism went around brutally murdering people.

    I have my own pet theory, which is that distaste for the English is so ingrained in left-wing thinking that it is expressed freely without any conscious thought. Have you noticed, for example, how Wales is almost always conveniently forgotten when distressed Remain-supporting commentators lash out at stereotypical Leave voters and Leave-voting areas, even though the Welsh also decided that they had had enough of the EU?

    Voters are not deaf, dumb and stupid. They pick up on the fact that the Labour leadership is dominated by people who celebrated those who sought to murder us (some of those nastier kinds of nationalist I mentioned earlier) and they turn their backs on it in droves accordingly. Given this and other facts, it's small wonder that Labour is so comprehensively fucked in the majority of England, now is it?
    It won't come as a surprise Blacky that I disagree. I think all nationalism is nasty and insidious, plays on populism and base emotions..it is all on a spectrum.

    I really dislike English nationalists...Brexit for instance.. and I despise Trump, Le Pen, Grillo, the Serbs under Milosevic, Hitler, Mussolini...and the Scots and Welsh nationalists.

    You are all narrow minded bigots who do not see the bigger picture...some of you are simply more extreme than others...but nationalism is the problem in my book.
    My objection to what the poster to whom I was replying said was, in essence, to do with the selective criticism that was implied: one kind of nasty nationalism was highlighted, and others conveniently ignored. There is all too often in this kind of discussion a hyper-sensitivity to the flaws of one side of the argument, coupled with a complete blindness to those of the other. I also think that my criticism of the Labour Party is entirely valid. The biggest difference between the party of Attlee and the party of Corbyn is, arguably, patriotism - a trait which ran through the DNA of the former, yet which is largely absent from the latter.

    Personally, I regard myself as patriotic rather than nationalist. I do not take a "my country, right or wrong" attitude and nor do I consider it to be inherently superior to all others, but I do reserve the right to regard it as both special and worth preserving. Make of that what you will.
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050

    Hillary has actually slipped 11 ECVs from her peak today, i.e. from 322-332 to 311-321 currently.

    Incidentally, there's was a riveting 10 minute interview featuring former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani just after the start of Lou Dobbs Tonight on the Fox Business Channel yesterday as linked to below and well worth watching. I can't imagine that anything remotely as strong as this would ever be allowed on our TV networks.

    Not that we'd ever be allowed have a right of centre broadcaster in the first place.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DETe_cEckVA


    The fact that you can watch this kind of baloney and would want something in the UK says something about you quite frankly...

    Would you want a radical left mainstream TV presence? Silly me....people like you already think that is the BBC. What a numpty I am.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited November 2016


    Not that we'd ever be allowed have a right of centre broadcaster in the first place.

    Andrew Neil retired then, has he, along with Dimbleby?
  • Options

    weejonnie said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States

    Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
    “This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
    The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states

    Isn't there a two-year period of negotiation of transfer of power?
    Does the US Constitution have an Article 50?
    Actually there are strong legal arguments that no American state can secede from the United States. Once you join, you can never leave.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,432
    edited November 2016
    On topic, God this is exciting.
  • Options

    AndyJS said:

    "Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States

    Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
    “This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
    The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states

    Remarkably similar to a post I've made on pb.com within the past month.

    Just sayin'....
    I've seen the joke made every year for the last decade!
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,612

    weejonnie said:

    AndyJS said:

    "Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States

    Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
    “This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
    The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states

    Isn't there a two-year period of negotiation of transfer of power?
    Does the US Constitution have an Article 50?
    Actually there are strong legal arguments that no American state can secede from the United States. Once you join, you can never leave.
    I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
  • Options
    @Tyson I've taken a week off the internet ( and thus PB ) as I found Brexit ( but especially the Brexit hiatus ) too depressing. I'm sure I wasn't adding anything to the PB debate which in any case was jog jammed. PB has a colossal over representition of globalising free trade Brexiteers who are in venial denial about what they did in creating then validating the Leave Campaign. It's curious many Remainers seem to better understand the cultural landmark that was Leave better than many on here who voted for it.

    But that's an aside. Nothing new has happened. Even the A50 court case is largely theatrics. From the very beginning by allowing leapfrogging and clearering Supreme Court diaries in December they have stuck to May's original timetable. It was May not the courts who extended the deadline to March 31st in her Conference interview. It's hardly surprising the poor woman has bought us a few extra months to sort through this clusterfuck**k but fundamentally nothing has happened. IMHO the courts are helping here by allowing frothers to ignore the fact it's the government who is voluntarily delaying things.

    The whole issue is in hiatus until we have a government policy on the Big Ticket stuff. In the meantime we just have to wait. Let the devaluation work through to inflation. Let the complexities refuse to go away. Let them own it a few more months. Let the poison work through the body politic a bit further. Let the bed wetting liberal Brexiters sweat a bit. We'll see what the state of play is in mid January when no one has been paid yet and everything is grimly the same as it was. As it was always going to be.
This discussion has been closed.