I wonder what would happen if we had a referendum on which period of time was the best to live in, if the choices were (a) pre-1960s, (b) 1960s to 1990s, and (c) post-1990s?
I think the results would be something like (a) 20%, (b) 60%, (c) 20%. A clear win for the 1960s to the 1990s.
God no. The early to mid 60s were OK, but the 70s was the worst decade of the last half century by a long, long chalk, and the 80s were painful too, although at least things were getting better.
People will vote for the time that they, personally, had the most sex.
The EU wants the Italians to cut their excess debt (71% of GDP) by 5% a year, that is by 3.55% of GDP. So Italy either have to have a balanced budget and grow that much or, much, much more likely, pretty much zero growth and a government surplus of 3.55%.
To say this is not going to happen is an understatement. Italy has already had a decade of pretty much zero growth, this would at best give them another 20 years of the same.
The politics of this are interesting. Its in danger of become Brexit by proxy with all the usual suspects lining up to support the EU or the insurgent Italians.
Reading between the lines neither side as yet has gone past the point of no return. So does the EU actually want to go the whole hog and do the Italians ? It still has the potential for a large EU fudge.
Despite the shenanigans, Occam's Razor says all Lab will vote against and all Cons will vote for. SNP against.
So the only votes May needs to worry about are the DUP and I think she'll pull something out of the hat for them. Maybe.
The only way I see "all Cons vote for" is if those who are against May's deal take a very public stance that they will bank what we have now to ensure brexit - then work to dismantle the bits they hate, repudiating the agreement unilaterally if they have to. It gets them out a hole. Gets the DUP on board, maybe.
But would the EU then sign without further "clarifications"? Including that the PM doesn't bring a pen, but instead a chisel - to set the UK's signature on the deal in stone...
The EU wants the Italians to cut their excess debt (71% of GDP) by 5% a year, that is by 3.55% of GDP. So Italy either have to have a balanced budget and grow that much or, much, much more likely, pretty much zero growth and a government surplus of 3.55%.
To say this is not going to happen is an understatement. Italy has already had a decade of pretty much zero growth, this would at best give them another 20 years of the same.
The politics of this are interesting. Its in danger of become Brexit by proxy with all the susual suspects lining up to support the EU or the insurgent Italians.
Reading between the lines neither side as yet has gone past the point of no return. So does the EU actually want to go the whole hog and do the Italians ? It still has the potential for a large EU fudge.
Thankfully, after 31st March, it is no longer our problem. It is yet another screw up by the ECB. We have avoided the pain of our debt mountain by using QE to buy up our debt and thus keep the interest bill under control. The EU countries have had no such relief and Italy, in particular, is feeling considerable pain as a result killing growth and causing structural unemployment as demand is sucked out of the economy.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which need never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
Ireland and the EU are correct on the substantive point. If the UK diverges from the EU this creates a hard border in Ireland and because of this the creation of a customs border in the Irish Sea should be secondary to retaining a soft land border.
The UK government refused to engage seriously with the border issue: It's not a problem. It's not OUR problem - put up the border posts if you will. Who do you think you are, Ireland?
It also reneged several times on commitments it made on the border, sometimes within hours of making them. The EU is heavy handed but it has good reason for nailing the backstop down. Turn your comment the other way. If the UK were committed to a soft border, the backstop would never be needed and is therefore no big deal.
Despite the shenanigans, Occam's Razor says all Lab will vote against and all Cons will vote for. SNP against.
So the only votes May needs to worry about are the DUP and I think she'll pull something out of the hat for them. Maybe.
The only way I see "all Cons vote for" is if those who are against May's deal take a very public stance that they will bank what we have now to ensure brexit - then work to dismantle the bits they hate, repudiating the agreement unilaterally if they have to. It gets them out a hole. Gets the DUP on board, maybe.
But would the EU then sign without further "clarifications"? Including that the PM doesn't bring a pen, but instead a chisel - to set the UK's signature on the deal in stone...
I think the line will emerge that although not perfect this deal (notwithstanding what Liz Truss thinks) gets us or of the EU. Which it does, obvs.
The island of Reunion is on lock down due to riots against Macrons government's increase in fuel prices. The government has closed its offices and the riot police are moving in.
I wonder what would happen if we had a referendum on which period of time was the best to live in, if the choices were (a) pre-1960s, (b) 1960s to 1990s, and (c) post-1990s?
I think the results would be something like (a) 20%, (b) 60%, (c) 20%. A clear win for the 1960s to the 1990s.
God no. The early to mid 60s were OK, but the 70s was the worst decade of the last half century by a long, long chalk, and the 80s were painful too, although at least things were getting better.
People will vote for the time that they, personally, had the most sex.
It really is that simple.
I know that was a joke, and a good one. But it is literally true in my case.
I wonder what would happen if we had a referendum on which period of time was the best to live in, if the choices were (a) pre-1960s, (b) 1960s to 1990s, and (c) post-1990s?
I think the results would be something like (a) 20%, (b) 60%, (c) 20%. A clear win for the 1960s to the 1990s.
God no. The early to mid 60s were OK, but the 70s was the worst decade of the last half century by a long, long chalk, and the 80s were painful too, although at least things were getting better.
People will vote for the time that they, personally, had the most sex.
It really is that simple.
A fortnight in 1986 it is then.
If we are talking the same fortnight, there's a good chance we've had sex.
A50 would only be extended if there was to be a GE or a #peoplesvote
I wonder if that's true. I mean, the EU side had tactical reasons to want the deadline to pressure the UK into taking a deal on their terms, but now the negotiations are done, and the deal is still worse for them than the status quo, while No Deal is still terrible for everyone, albeit terribler for the UK.
Once the deal is decided and it's clear that it's not going to be renegotiated, it's not obvious that there's a downside to the UK hanging around the lobby in basically the same state as membership, but with no influence because they're leaving.
I know unanimity is a high bar, but politicians wouldn't be thanked for causing needless problems for their voters, and an avoidable car-crash brexit would cause a lot of needless problems.
If we are heading for the cliff the clamour to do something will be impossible to resist. The only options I can see are A50 extension, a public vote, or a second vote to agree the WA after all.
I come back to the point on A50 extension - why would the EU agree to it? The only difference from where we are now is it allows the UK to get their ducks in a row for No Deal. By saying Non! the EU have us where they want us - having to make a decision, and presuming that No Deal is not feasible because we haven't planned for it.
That may be why it would need to be accompanied by a decision to hold a Remain/Deal vote.
The EU wants the Italians to cut their excess debt (71% of GDP) by 5% a year, that is by 3.55% of GDP. So Italy either have to have a balanced budget and grow that much or, much, much more likely, pretty much zero growth and a government surplus of 3.55%.
To say this is not going to happen is an understatement. Italy has already had a decade of pretty much zero growth, this would at best give them another 20 years of the same.
The politics of this are interesting. Its in danger of become Brexit by proxy with all the susual suspects lining up to support the EU or the insurgent Italians.
Reading between the lines neither side as yet has gone past the point of no return. So does the EU actually want to go the whole hog and do the Italians ? It still has the potential for a large EU fudge.
Thankfully, after 31st March, it is no longer our problem. It is yet another screw up by the ECB. We have avoided the pain of our debt mountain by using QE to buy up our debt and thus keep the interest bill under control. The EU countries have had no such relief and Italy, in particular, is feeling considerable pain as a result killing growth and causing structural unemployment as demand is sucked out of the economy.
as Robert pointed out on his blog yesterday, until the Germans start spending, Europe is screwed.
I read recently Italys economy needs a 9% devaluation to restore competitiveness whereas Germany is enjoying an 11% undervaluation. Until Germany starts spending eveyone is in trouble and short term if the Euro falls due to uncertainty the German overcompetitivesness problem just gets worse.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which need never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
Ireland and the EU are correct on the substantive point. If the UK diverges from the EU this creates a hard border in Ireland and because of this the creation of a customs border in the Irish Sea should be secondary to retaining a soft land border.
The UK government refused to engage seriously with the border issue: It's not a problem. It's not OUR problem - put up the border posts if you will. Who do you think you are, Ireland?
It also reneged several times on commitments it made on the border, sometimes within hours of making them. The EU is heavy handed but it has good reason for nailing the backstop down. Turn your comment the other way. If the UK were committed to a soft border, the backstop would never be needed and is therefore no big deal.
No the Irish government pulled the plug on the border as a political wheeze and now its stuck with the consequences. Anyone imagining Varadkar gives a toss about the Nordies is deluded.
I wonder what would happen if we had a referendum on which period of time was the best to live in, if the choices were (a) pre-1960s, (b) 1960s to 1990s, and (c) post-1990s?
I think the results would be something like (a) 20%, (b) 60%, (c) 20%. A clear win for the 1960s to the 1990s.
God no. The early to mid 60s were OK, but the 70s was the worst decade of the last half century by a long, long chalk, and the 80s were painful too, although at least things were getting better.
People will vote for the time that they, personally, had the most sex.
It really is that simple.
I know that was a joke, and a good one. But it is literally true in my case.
If Mrs May cannot get a Brexit deal through parliament she will ask for an Article 50 extension, and then resign.
The resigning part seems kind of out of character. Maybe she'd just ask for an article 50 extension, then go on and on.
She won't resign if it doesn't pass. Next stop after that is A50 extension and #peoplesvote.
The extension is mega problematic because of the European elections..that is why end of March was picked.
That seems merely problematic, or at a stretch kilo-problematic. Just have the elections, the MEPs show up for a few months, then assuming Brexit happens after that they leave. The EU has had adjustments partway through the term before when new member states have joined, and the Commission has already made a plan for how they'd handle it if it proves necessary.
I turn out to be about as left-wing as Bernie Sanders but exactly on the populist/anti-populist axis.
4 hexes down and one to the right of the crosshairs, exactly halfway between macron and merkel. which looks like being in Bonn, but I'll tweak that to Cologne as it sounds more interesting.
I turn out to be about as left-wing as Bernie Sanders but exactly on the populist/anti-populist axis.
I got closest to Merkel, furthest from Sanders
It is slightly weird. I was closest to Obama which I don't see as a bad thing. But the strange bit was that in spite of saying I strongly disapprove of both the Left and Socialism I was to the left of the line on the results.
Blimey the bad news for the GOP just keeps coming, seems Mia Love in UT4 was actually defeated.
The final house count will end up 235 Dem, 200 GOP.
200 was my benchmark for whether it was a mildly bad or very bad night for the GOP. Looks like they've just escaped the very bad category by the narrowest margin.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which need never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
Ireland and the EU are correct on the substantive point. If the UK diverges from the EU this creates a hard border in Ireland and because of this the creation of a customs border in the Irish Sea should be secondary to retaining a soft land border.
The UK government refused to engage seriously with the border issue: It's not a problem. It's not OUR problem - put up the border posts if you will. Who do you think you are, Ireland?
It also reneged several times on commitments it made on the border, sometimes within hours of making them. The EU is heavy handed but it has good reason for nailing the backstop down. Turn your comment the other way. If the UK were committed to a soft border, the backstop would never be needed and is therefore no big deal.
Whatever the legal status of the Irish border, if both sides choose not to monitor/police it at all doesn't it remain a soft border anyway?
After May's deal has been rejected and the vote of no confidece in her government has failed a deal which involves Brexit in name only will be presented and because by a majority of 5-1 Parliament would prefer not to leave that will probably carry the day.........
The whole sorry tale has unearthed things about us that would have been better kept hidden. There will be few who will refer to our great qualites of inclusion and toleration again and the oft repeated saying "it could never have happened here" will ring pretty hollow.
Some of these anti-deal leavers are so stupid. By arguing that the deal is no better than remain, they are effectively creating a huge majority against leave. One of the main arguments against another referendum (particularly multi option versions)is that it would split the leave vote whilst not doing the same to remain. But by bracketing the deal with remain they are undermining that leaving the alternatives as a rump.
I turn out to be about as left-wing as Bernie Sanders but exactly on the populist/anti-populist axis.
I got closest to Merkel, furthest from Sanders
It is slightly weird. I was closest to Obama which I don't see as a bad thing. But the strange bit was that in spite of saying I strongly disapprove of both the Left and Socialism I was to the left of the line on the results.
I expect it's picking up social issues like gay marraige and gay adoption, and applying those to 'the left'. so being pro-those issues, pushing you leftwards, the same with the environment.
The EU wants the Italians to cut their excess debt (71% of GDP) by 5% a year, that is by 3.55% of GDP. So Italy either have to have a balanced budget and grow that much or, much, much more likely, pretty much zero growth and a government surplus of 3.55%.
To say this is not going to happen is an understatement. Italy has already had a decade of pretty much zero growth, this would at best give them another 20 years of the same.
The politics of this are interesting. Its in danger of become Brexit by proxy with all the susual suspects lining up to support the EU or the insurgent Italians.
Reading between the lines neither side as yet has gone past the point of no return. So does the EU actually want to go the whole hog and do the Italians ? It still has the potential for a large EU fudge.
Thankfully, after 31st March, it is no longer our problem. It is yet another screw up by the ECB. We have avoided the pain of our debt mountain by using QE to buy up our debt and thus keep the interest bill under control. The EU countries have had no such relief and Italy, in particular, is feeling considerable pain as a result killing growth and causing structural unemployment as demand is sucked out of the economy.
as Robert pointed out on his blog yesterday, until the Germans start spending, Europe is screwed.
I read recently Italys economy needs a 9% devaluation to restore competitiveness whereas Germany is enjoying an 11% undervaluation. Until Germany starts spending eveyone is in trouble and short term if the Euro falls due to uncertainty the German overcompetitivesness problem just gets worse.
Morning all,
If (when?) we rejoin, should we actually leave, we must not touch the euro with a bargepole.
The EU wants the Italians to cut their excess debt (71% of GDP) by 5% a year, that is by 3.55% of GDP. So Italy either have to have a balanced budget and grow that much or, much, much more likely, pretty much zero growth and a government surplus of 3.55%.
To say this is not going to happen is an understatement. Italy has already had a decade of pretty much zero growth, this would at best give them another 20 years of the same.
The politics of this are interesting. Its in danger of become Brexit by proxy with all the susual suspects lining up to support the EU or the insurgent Italians.
Reading between the lines neither side as yet has gone past the point of no return. So does the EU actually want to go the whole hog and do the Italians ? It still has the potential for a large EU fudge.
Thankfully, after 31st March, it is no longer our problem. It is yet another screw up by the ECB. We have avoided the pain of our debt mountain by using QE to buy up our debt and thus keep the interest bill under control. The EU countries have had no such relief and Italy, in particular, is feeling considerable pain as a result killing growth and causing structural unemployment as demand is sucked out of the economy.
as Robert pointed out on his blog yesterday, until the Germans start spending, Europe is screwed.
I read recently Italys economy needs a 9% devaluation to restore competitiveness whereas Germany is enjoying an 11% undervaluation. Until Germany starts spending eveyone is in trouble and short term if the Euro falls due to uncertainty the German overcompetitivesness problem just gets worse.
Morning all,
If (when?) we rejoin, should we actually leave, we must not touch the euro with a bargepole.
if the UK had been in the euro in 2008/9 I suspect our resulting pain would have crashed the entire currency
Via @robfordmancs, good thread on whether the May-Barnier deal could pass on the TARP model of "fails to pass, markets freak out, try again and it passes"
The EU wants the Italians to cut their excess debt (71% of GDP) by 5% a year, that is by 3.55% of GDP. So Italy either have to have a balanced budget and grow that much or, much, much more likely, pretty much zero growth and a government surplus of 3.55%.
To say this is not going to happen is an understatement. Italy has already had a decade of pretty much zero growth, this would at best give them another 20 years of the same.
The politics of this are interesting. Its in danger of become Brexit by proxy with all the susual suspects lining up to support the EU or the insurgent Italians.
Reading between the lines neither side as yet has gone past the point of no return. So does the EU actually want to go the whole hog and do the Italians ? It still has the potential for a large EU fudge.
Thankfully, after 31st March, it is no longer our problem. It is yet another screw up by the ECB. We have avoided the pain of our debt mountain by using QE to buy up our debt and thus keep the interest bill under control. The EU countries have had no such relief and Italy, in particular, is feeling considerable pain as a result killing growth and causing structural unemployment as demand is sucked out of the economy.
as Robert pointed out on his blog yesterday, until the Germans start spending, Europe is screwed.
I read recently Italys economy needs a 9% devaluation to restore competitiveness whereas Germany is enjoying an 11% undervaluation. Until Germany starts spending eveyone is in trouble and short term if the Euro falls due to uncertainty the German overcompetitivesness problem just gets worse.
Morning all,
If (when?) we rejoin, should we actually leave, we must not touch the euro with a bargepole.
Remainers have to be careful and not push their hand too much. There's amazingly a opportunity here for them, but they need to make sure any referendum is won. Tying Euro entry to it would be very very stupid of them.
In much the same way are the brexiteers, their passion is at risk of blinding them if they push it too far.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which need never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
Ireland and the EU are correct on the substantive point. If the UK diverges from the EU this creates a hard border in Ireland and because of this the creation of a customs border in the Irish Sea should be secondary to retaining a soft land border.
The UK government refused to engage seriously with the border issue: It's not a problem. It's not OUR problem - put up the border posts if you will. Who do you think you are, Ireland?
It also reneged several times on commitments it made on the border, sometimes within hours of making them. The EU is heavy handed but it has good reason for nailing the backstop down. Turn your comment the other way. If the UK were committed to a soft border, the backstop would never be needed and is therefore no big deal.
Whatever the legal status of the Irish border, if both sides choose not to monitor/police it at all doesn't it remain a soft border anyway?
The border issue needs to be locked down (no pun intended). There cannot be a situation whereby a border could be instituted (via WTO challenge for example).
That simple fact has informed the whole WA negotiation.
Via @robfordmancs, good thread on whether the May-Barnier deal could pass on the TARP model of "fails to pass, markets freak out, try again and it passes"
The political dynamics of TARP and the financial crisis had almost nothing in common with Brexit. What was the “let’s call the whole thing off” option?
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which need never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
Ireland and the EU are correct on the substantive point. If the UK diverges from the EU this creates a hard border in Ireland and because of this the creation of a customs border in the Irish Sea should be secondary to retaining a soft land border.
The UK government refused to engage seriously with the border issue: It's not a problem. It's not OUR problem - put up the border posts if you will. Who do you think you are, Ireland?
It also reneged several times on commitments it made on the border, sometimes within hours of making them. The EU is heavy handed but it has good reason for nailing the backstop down. Turn your comment the other way. If the UK were committed to a soft border, the backstop would never be needed and is therefore no big deal.
Whatever the legal status of the Irish border, if both sides choose not to monitor/police it at all doesn't it remain a soft border anyway?
The border issue needs to be locked down (no pun intended). There cannot be a situation whereby a border could be instituted (via WTO challenge for example).
That simple fact has informed the whole WA negotiation.
There can't be a WTO challenge if the EU signs a trade deal with the UK that involves an open border. It's their refusal to engage in substantive talks over trade that have caused this risk.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which need never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
Ireland and the EU are correct on the substantive point. If the UK diverges from the EU this creates a hard border in Ireland and because of this the creation of a customs border in the Irish Sea should be secondary to retaining a soft land border.
The UK government refused to engage seriously with the border issue: It's not a problem. It's not OUR problem - put up the border posts if you will. Who do you think you are, Ireland?
It also reneged several times on commitments it made on the border, sometimes within hours of making them. The EU is heavy handed but it has good reason for nailing the backstop down. Turn your comment the other way. If the UK were committed to a soft border, the backstop would never be needed and is therefore no big deal.
Whatever the legal status of the Irish border, if both sides choose not to monitor/police it at all doesn't it remain a soft border anyway?
The border issue needs to be locked down (no pun intended). There cannot be a situation whereby a border could be instituted (via WTO challenge for example).
That simple fact has informed the whole WA negotiation.
And completely unnecessarily. There was no requirement under the GFA for this to be an issue nut it was turned into one by May and the EU. If it does scupper the deal they will be responsible for having made matters far worse in NI than they need have been.
After May's deal has been rejected and the vote of no confidece in her government has failed a deal which involves Brexit in name only will be presented and because by a majority of 5-1 Parliament would prefer not to leave that will probably carry the day.........
The whole sorry tale has unearthed things about us that would have been better kept hidden. There will be few who will refer to our great qualites of inclusion and toleration again and the oft repeated saying "it could never have happened here" will ring pretty hollow.
I wonder what would happen if we had a referendum on which period of time was the best to live in, if the choices were (a) pre-1960s, (b) 1960s to 1990s, and (c) post-1990s?
I think the results would be something like (a) 20%, (b) 60%, (c) 20%. A clear win for the 1960s to the 1990s.
God no. The early to mid 60s were OK, but the 70s was the worst decade of the last half century by a long, long chalk, and the 80s were painful too, although at least things were getting better.
People will vote for the time that they, personally, had the most sex.
It really is that simple.
A fortnight in 1986 it is then.
If we are talking the same fortnight, there's a good chance we've had sex.
So many faces, so few names... My not so modest hope is that a good time was had by all.
I turn out to be about as left-wing as Bernie Sanders but exactly on the populist/anti-populist axis.
I got closest to Merkel, furthest from Sanders
It is slightly weird. I was closest to Obama which I don't see as a bad thing. But the strange bit was that in spite of saying I strongly disapprove of both the Left and Socialism I was to the left of the line on the results.
I expect it's picking up social issues like gay marriage and gay adoption, and applying those to 'the left'. so being pro-those issues, pushing you leftwards, the same with the environment.
I think you are right. It is a sign perhaps of how outdated these 'left' and 'right' designations are.
The EU wants the Italians to cut their excess debt (71% of GDP) by 5% a year, that is by 3.55% of GDP. So Italy either have to have a balanced budget and grow that much or, much, much more likely, pretty much zero growth and a government surplus of 3.55%.
To say this is not going to happen is an understatement. Italy has already had a decade of pretty much zero growth, this would at best give them another 20 years of the same.
The politics of this are interesting. Its in danger of become Brexit by proxy with all the susual suspects lining up to support the EU or the insurgent Italians.
Reading between the lines neither side as yet has gone past the point of no return. So does the EU actually want to go the whole hog and do the Italians ? It still has the potential for a large EU fudge.
Thankfully, after 31st March, it is no longer our problem. It is yet another screw up by the ECB. We have avoided the pain of our debt mountain by using QE to buy up our debt and thus keep the interest bill under control. The EU countries have had no such relief and Italy, in particular, is feeling considerable pain as a result killing growth and causing structural unemployment as demand is sucked out of the economy.
as Robert pointed out on his blog yesterday, until the Germans start spending, Europe is screwed.
I read recently Italys economy needs a 9% devaluation to restore competitiveness whereas Germany is enjoying an 11% undervaluation. Until Germany starts spending eveyone is in trouble and short term if the Euro falls due to uncertainty the German overcompetitivesness problem just gets worse.
Morning all,
If (when?) we rejoin, should we actually leave, we must not touch the euro with a bargepole.
if the UK had been in the euro in 2008/9 I suspect our resulting pain would have crashed the entire currency
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which need never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
Ireland and the EU are correct on the substantive point. If the UK diverges from the EU this creates a hard border in Ireland and because of this the creation of a customs border in the Irish Sea should be secondary to retaining a soft land border.
The UK government refused to engage seriously with the border issue: It's not a problem. It's not OUR problem - put up the border posts if you will. Who do you think you are, Ireland?
It also reneged several times on commitments it made on the border, sometimes within hours of making them. The EU is heavy handed but it has good reason for nailing the backstop down. Turn your comment the other way. If the UK were committed to a soft border, the backstop would never be needed and is therefore no big deal.
Whatever the legal status of the Irish border, if both sides choose not to monitor/police it at all doesn't it remain a soft border anyway?
The border issue needs to be locked down (no pun intended). There cannot be a situation whereby a border could be instituted (via WTO challenge for example).
That simple fact has informed the whole WA negotiation.
And completely unnecessarily. There was no requirement under the GFA for this to be an issue nut it was turned into one by May and the EU. If it does scupper the deal they will be responsible for having made matters far worse in NI than they need have been.
Via @robfordmancs, good thread on whether the May-Barnier deal could pass on the TARP model of "fails to pass, markets freak out, try again and it passes"
The political dynamics of TARP and the financial crisis had almost nothing in common with Brexit. What was the “let’s call the whole thing off” option?
Well money's basically a spreadsheet so they could have gone in there and typed it back in
After May's deal has been rejected and the vote of no confidece in her government has failed a deal which involves Brexit in name only will be presented and because by a majority of 5-1 Parliament would prefer not to leave that will probably carry the day.........
The whole sorry tale has unearthed things about us that would have been better kept hidden. There will be few who will refer to our great qualites of inclusion and toleration again and the oft repeated saying "it could never have happened here" will ring pretty hollow.
We’re the most tolerant nation in Europe.
And funnily enough Roger has emerged as one of the less tolerant amongst us. He should hide those mirrors for fear of seeing his shame.
The EU wants the Italians to cut their excess debt (71% of GDP) by 5% a year, that is by 3.55% of GDP. So Italy either have to have a balanced budget and grow that much or, much, much more likely, pretty much zero growth and a government surplus of 3.55%.
To say this is not going to happen is an understatement. Italy has already had a decade of pretty much zero growth, this would at best give them another 20 years of the same.
The politics of this are interesting. Its in danger of become Brexit by proxy with all the susual suspects lining up to support the EU or the insurgent Italians.
Reading between the lines neither side as yet has gone past the point of no return. So does the EU actually want to go the whole hog and do the Italians ? It still has the potential for a large EU fudge.
Thankfully, after 31st March, it is no longer our problem. It is yet another screw up by the ECB. We have avoided the pain of our debt mountain by using QE to buy up our debt and thus keep the interest bill under control. The EU countries have had no such relief and Italy, in particular, is feeling considerable pain as a result killing growth and causing structural unemployment as demand is sucked out of the economy.
as Robert pointed out on his blog yesterday, until the Germans start spending, Europe is screwed.
I read recently Italys economy needs a 9% devaluation to restore competitiveness whereas Germany is enjoying an 11% undervaluation. Until Germany starts spending eveyone is in trouble and short term if the Euro falls due to uncertainty the German overcompetitivesness problem just gets worse.
Morning all,
If (when?) we rejoin, should we actually leave, we must not touch the euro with a bargepole.
if the UK had been in the euro in 2008/9 I suspect our resulting pain would have crashed the entire currency
Indeed.
The Italians are going to have a go now though.
maybe yes maybe no
currently both parties are posturing, theres still lots of room for a eurofudge with victory being proclaimed by all sides
If the EU can find a way of cutting the Italians some slack but stopping everyone else jumping on the bandwagon then a deal will get done.
Despite the shenanigans, Occam's Razor says all Lab will vote against and all Cons will vote for. SNP against.
So the only votes May needs to worry about are the DUP and I think she'll pull something out of the hat for them. Maybe.
The only way I see "all Cons vote for" is if those who are against May's deal take a very public stance that they will bank what we have now to ensure brexit - then work to dismantle the bits they hate, repudiating the agreement unilaterally if they have to. It gets them out a hole. Gets the DUP on board, maybe.
But would the EU then sign without further "clarifications"? Including that the PM doesn't bring a pen, but instead a chisel - to set the UK's signature on the deal in stone...
My view has always been that as soon as the cabinet accept a deal, it will get through by sheer political inertia.
Not accepting the deal risks years more uncertainty, just as certainty has been offered. I can’t see politicians accepting that.
The Daily Mail has been transformed into a pro TM very anti ERG paper and you do wonder if this is having an effect.
It is a popular newspaper and my wife loves the puzzles. We receive the £9.99 per month on line edition and it arrives on our tablets just after 11.00pm. It has a lot of different sections with many designed for women readers
If the conservative mps take down this deal they are going to receive a real pasting. Some may not care but a lot of their conservative voters will
The Daily Mail has been transformed into a pro TM very anti ERG paper and you do wonder if this is having an effect.
It is a popular newspaper and my wife loves the puzzles. We receive the £9.99 per month on line edition and it arrives on our tablets just after 11.00pm. It has a lot of different sections with many designed for women readers
If the conservative mps take down this deal they are going to receive a real pasting. Some may not care but a lot of their conservative voters will
Especially if the consequence is a GE and a Corbyn labour government.
Mr. NorthWales, point of order: Conservative MPs can neither pass nor reject the deal. They have no majority. Regardless of how they vote, it's the approach taken by other parties/MPs that will determine whether any deal gets through.
Mr. NorthWales, point of order: Conservative MPs can neither pass nor reject the deal. They have no majority. Regardless of how they vote, it's the approach taken by other parties/MPs that will determine whether any deal gets through.
First up though the Government should carry its own backbenchers. The bar is higher for them than the other parties, one of the *perks* of government.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which need never be triggered. As a result there is a high chance of them losing €38bn, causing severe damage to their own economies, wrecking the Irish economy, and forcing themselves (by their own logic) to put up, in a few weeks time, the hard border which they claim was the thing they were absolutely trying to avoid.
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
Ireland and the EU are correct on the substantive point. If the UK diverges from the EU this creates a hard border in Ireland and because of this the creation of a customs border in the Irish Sea should be secondary to retaining a soft land border.
The UK government refused to engage seriously with the border issue: It's not a problem. It's not OUR problem - put up the border posts if you will. Who do you think you are, Ireland?
It also reneged several times on commitments it made on the border, sometimes within hours of making them. The EU is heavy handed but it has good reason for nailing the backstop down. Turn your comment the other way. If the UK were committed to a soft border, the backstop would never be needed and is therefore no big deal.
Whatever the legal status of the Irish border, if both sides choose not to monitor/police it at all doesn't it remain a soft border anyway?
The border issue needs to be locked down (no pun intended). There cannot be a situation whereby a border could be instituted (via WTO challenge for example).
That simple fact has informed the whole WA negotiation.
And completely unnecessarily. There was no requirement under the GFA for this to be an issue nut it was turned into one by May and the EU. If it does scupper the deal they will be responsible for having made matters far worse in NI than they need have been.
No requirement for what? No border?
There was no requirement under the GFA for there to be no border. At least not in the way it has been interpreted by May and the EU. Hence the reason the previous Irish Government was working with the British for the technical solution.
After May's deal has been rejected and the vote of no confidece in her government has failed a deal which involves Brexit in name only will be presented and because by a majority of 5-1 Parliament would prefer not to leave that will probably carry the day.........
The whole sorry tale has unearthed things about us that would have been better kept hidden. There will be few who will refer to our great qualites of inclusion and toleration again and the oft repeated saying "it could never have happened here" will ring pretty hollow.
We’re the most tolerant nation in Europe.
A buzzing that exists only in the head of people like you and Jacob Rees Mogg. The Farages have come to terms with themselves
Tories were always going to stuff Scotland and give away the fish. All those numpties in the NE that believed their lies yet again. Will they ever learn.
After May's deal has been rejected and the vote of no confidece in her government has failed a deal which involves Brexit in name only will be presented and because by a majority of 5-1 Parliament would prefer not to leave that will probably carry the day.........
The whole sorry tale has unearthed things about us that would have been better kept hidden. There will be few who will refer to our great qualites of inclusion and toleration again and the oft repeated saying "it could never have happened here" will ring pretty hollow.
We’re the most tolerant nation in Europe.
A buzzing that exists only in the head of people like you and Jacob Rees Mogg. The Farages have come to terms with themselves
After May's deal has been rejected and the vote of no confidece in her government has failed a deal which involves Brexit in name only will be presented and because by a majority of 5-1 Parliament would prefer not to leave that will probably carry the day.........
The whole sorry tale has unearthed things about us that would have been better kept hidden. There will be few who will refer to our great qualites of inclusion and toleration again and the oft repeated saying "it could never have happened here" will ring pretty hollow.
We’re the most tolerant nation in Europe.
This is a bit like the old saying that to escape being eaten by a lion you don't need to be faster than the lion only faster than someone else running away from the lion.
We certainly aren't as tolerant as we like to think we are. Nor a lot of other things we tell ourselves to feel better about ourselves while the country behaves in a dreadful way.
But then, arguably self-delusion is a necessary survival trait.
I turn out to be about as left-wing as Bernie Sanders but exactly on the populist/anti-populist axis.
I got closest to Merkel, furthest from Sanders
It is slightly weird. I was closest to Obama which I don't see as a bad thing. But the strange bit was that in spite of saying I strongly disapprove of both the Left and Socialism I was to the left of the line on the results.
I got Obama as well. Think it might be a bit broken...
That story pretty much encapsulates what's wrong with modern Britain. Utterly depressing.
38% profit margin (if you treat the >£400m paid to senior directors as profit).
If, as a country, we reduced the amount of money spent on gambling - say halved it - that would surely do a lot of good.
The liberalisation of gambling laws under New Labour was one of their worst errors.
she created an incredibly successful company from scratch without the need to go public so the owners can keep all the profits. the company will pay a lot of tax. i'm sure she will pay a lot of tax. if not then the tax system needs changing.
The EU really have messed things up with their brain-dead Irish backstop. Not sure how they extricate themselves from the mess TBH.
Unfortunately, if they can't, we'll be collateral damage. And Ireland even more so, of course. What's the Irish for schadenfreude?
I don't think the EU messed up. Your lot did.
They are blocking a deal by insisting on a backstop which need never be triggered. As a resul
In what conceivable world is that not messing up? It wasn't the UK government which insisted on this ludicrous sequencing of the negotiations.
Ireland and the EU are correct on the substantive point. If the UK
The UK government refused to engage seriously with the border issue: It's not a problem. It's not OUR problem - put up the border posts if you will. Who do you think you are, Ireland?
It also reneged several times on commitments it made on the border, sometimes within hours of making them. The EU is heavy handed but it has good reason for nailing the backstop down. Turn your comment the other way. If the UK were committed to a soft border, the backstop would never be needed and is therefore no big deal.
Whatever the legal status of the Irish border, if both sides choose not to monitor/police it at all doesn't it remain a soft border anyway?
The border issue needs to be locked down (no pun intended). There cannot be a situation whereby a border could be instituted (via WTO challenge for example).
That simple fact has informed the whole WA negotiation.
And completely unnecessarily. There was no requirement under the GFA for this to be an issue nut it was turned into one by May and the EU. If it does scupper the deal they will be responsible for having made matters far worse in NI than they need have been.
No requirement for what? No border?
There was no requirement under the GFA for there to be no border. At least not in the way it has been interpreted by May and the EU. Hence the reason the previous Irish Government was working with the British for the technical solution.
Whatever was in the text of the GFA it is the spirit that is important as articulated many times by Theresa May.
If you are saying because it wasn't explicitly in the GFA text then a hard border is fine, then you are fundamentally misunderstanding the situation in NI.
That story pretty much encapsulates what's wrong with modern Britain. Utterly depressing.
38% profit margin (if you treat the >£400m paid to senior directors as profit).
If, as a country, we reduced the amount of money spent on gambling - say halved it - that would surely do a lot of good.
The liberalisation of gambling laws under New Labour was one of their worst errors.
she created an incredibly successful company from scratch without the need to go public so the owners can keep all the profits. the company will pay a lot of tax. i'm sure she will pay a lot of tax. if not then the tax system needs changing.
It was paid/will be paid through PAYE iirc so lots of tax and NI for the exchequer.
At the risk of boring people to death by carrying on with yesterday's discussion and of losing my anonymity for anyone sad enough to pull together all the data I have recently posted about myself here and what I am about to post below, I am going to try and give you a story of why selection at 11 is so bad.
You have pointed out that children can transfer from the Secondary Modern to the Grammar school at 16 to do their A levels and I pointed out that is exactly what I did, but you seemed to miss the point that all that was ok for me (I studied Applied Maths, Pure Maths, Physics and Chemistry) which were taught at the Secondary Modern to O level but that didn't work for someone skilled in Languages, Literature, Art, Music, etc which weren't. The focus was on vocational stuff, which by the way all the Grammar school kids missed out on.
So to set the scene one of the boys I took my A levels with studied English Literature and related A levels. I didn't know him that well, but I'm guessing that he was an average A level student. The reason I say average was after a few weeks at the school I was selected with a few other boys to be fast tracked to take an A level early (after 1 year) and I'm pretty sure he wasn't one of us.
So you can see it would not have been inconceivable for our roles to have been reversed. He could easily have come from the Secondary School. The trouble is he wouldn't have been able to because the Secondary school, as I have said, didn't teach literature or languages so the opportunity would not have arisen.
Still that boy could still go onto to become an excellent plumber maybe (after all there was plenty of opportunity in the Secondary Modern to do that) or work as a cashier in a bank getting in with what I assume was an excellent English Language O level.
But sadly we wouldn't now have the Nobel Laurette Kazuo Ishiguro with whom I took my A levels.
So how many other Kazuo Ishiguro's have we lost by deciding at 11 what they may or may not be good at?
After May's deal has been rejected and the vote of no confidece in her government has failed a deal which involves Brexit in name only will be presented and because by a majority of 5-1 Parliament would prefer not to leave that will probably carry the day.........
The whole sorry tale has unearthed things about us that would have been better kept hidden. There will be few who will refer to our great qualites of inclusion and toleration again and the oft repeated saying "it could never have happened here" will ring pretty hollow.
We’re the most tolerant nation in Europe.
This is a bit like the old saying that to escape being eaten by a lion you don't need to be faster than the lion only faster than someone else running away from the lion.
We certainly aren't as tolerant as we like to think we are. Nor a lot of other things we tell ourselves to feel better about ourselves while the country behaves in a dreadful way.
But then, arguably self-delusion is a necessary survival trait.
We're not as good as we can be, and we're not as bad as we fear.
The Daily Mail has been transformed into a pro TM very anti ERG paper and you do wonder if this is having an effect.
It is a popular newspaper and my wife loves the puzzles. We receive the £9.99 per month on line edition and it arrives on our tablets just after 11.00pm. It has a lot of different sections with many designed for women readers
If the conservative mps take down this deal they are going to receive a real pasting. Some may not care but a lot of their conservative voters will
The maths doesn't really work on that one. Conservative votes in 2017 were around 13.6m, Daily Mail circulation is around 1.3m. So that just leaves the other 90% of Tory voters to persuade!
That story pretty much encapsulates what's wrong with modern Britain. Utterly depressing.
38% profit margin (if you treat the >£400m paid to senior directors as profit).
If, as a country, we reduced the amount of money spent on gambling - say halved it - that would surely do a lot of good.
The liberalisation of gambling laws under New Labour was one of their worst errors.
she created an incredibly successful company from scratch without the need to go public so the owners can keep all the profits. the company will pay a lot of tax. i'm sure she will pay a lot of tax. if not then the tax system needs changing.
It was paid/will be paid through PAYE iirc so lots of tax and NI for the exchequer.
maybe the guardian should add a question about her pay to their "which politician are you" questionnaire.
Mr. Stodge, was surprised the gambling story didn't make the news.
I do wonder if that's partly driven by lootboxes in videogames. Not my kind of game so I'm not au fait with all the detail, but it seems like this: 1) you spend a small amount on a lootbox, containing a small number of randomised items 2) these vary from very common to rare and can be cosmetic or have gameplay advantages 3) they can be resold (I think) through other sites for real world 4) it smells rather like gambling...
I'm not fond of multiplayer games, DLC generally or microtransactions in particular, so it's not my area, but my understanding of it makes me less than approving.
Mr. NorthWales, point of order: Conservative MPs can neither pass nor reject the deal. They have no majority. Regardless of how they vote, it's the approach taken by other parties/MPs that will determine whether any deal gets through.
Indeed - but the more conservative mps vote for it the more likely it will pass
The story about the BET365 lady paying herself £265 million really demostrates that the Government needs to get a hold of these companies. On Saturday I was refused a £2e/w bet on a horse that was 33/1 by BET365 citing a trading decision. The horse came nowhere and mine is a losing account. All they want is for you to play their rigged casino games as they know they can do what they like as the Gambling Commission is completely useless.
Mr. Stodge, was surprised the gambling story didn't make the news.
I do wonder if that's partly driven by lootboxes in videogames. Not my kind of game so I'm not au fait with all the detail, but it seems like this: 1) you spend a small amount on a lootbox, containing a small number of randomised items 2) these vary from very common to rare and can be cosmetic or have gameplay advantages 3) they can be resold (I think) through other sites for real world 4) it smells rather like gambling...
I'm not fond of multiplayer games, DLC generally or microtransactions in particular, so it's not my area, but my understanding of it makes me less than approving.
it was lead item on our local bbc breakfast news (yorkshire). what it sounded like they were describing were games where you pay to spin a wheel to decide your prize. which they compared to a roulette wheel.
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Mr. Stodge, was surprised the gambling story didn't make the news.
I do wonder if that's partly driven by lootboxes in videogames. Not my kind of game so I'm not au fait with all the detail, but it seems like this: 1) you spend a small amount on a lootbox, containing a small number of randomised items 2) these vary from very common to rare and can be cosmetic or have gameplay advantages 3) they can be resold (I think) through other sites for real world 4) it smells rather like gambling...
I'm not fond of multiplayer games, DLC generally or microtransactions in particular, so it's not my area, but my understanding of it makes me less than approving.
I'm not sure if the figures they're quoting include that kind of microtransaction in gaming. Certainly Fornite PuBG etc etc make a lot of money from it.
That story pretty much encapsulates what's wrong with modern Britain. Utterly depressing.
38% profit margin (if you treat the >£400m paid to senior directors as profit).
If, as a country, we reduced the amount of money spent on gambling - say halved it - that would surely do a lot of good.
The liberalisation of gambling laws under New Labour was one of their worst errors.
Just back from business trip to USA and listened to Robert’s video which summed up all I see. Bet 365 is a company that helps our current account deficit. We soon are going to need all such companies even if they sell guns or tobacco. There is still a wilfull arrogance about the British and especially the English which as a Scot I see as the 1966 mentality. We think we are better than we are.
I am waiting for any politician to talk about increasing business investment levels which is going the wrong way fast. I will vote for whoever first comes up with a sensible plan to address this problem
Mr. Stodge, was surprised the gambling story didn't make the news.
I do wonder if that's partly driven by lootboxes in videogames. Not my kind of game so I'm not au fait with all the detail, but it seems like this: 1) you spend a small amount on a lootbox, containing a small number of randomised items 2) these vary from very common to rare and can be cosmetic or have gameplay advantages 3) they can be resold (I think) through other sites for real world 4) it smells rather like gambling...
I'm not fond of multiplayer games, DLC generally or microtransactions in particular, so it's not my area, but my understanding of it makes me less than approving.
Bring back the days of buying a game and that's it.
Glad the rumours of the death of 2nd hand game discs haven't yet come true, at least.
Mr. NorthWales, point of order: Conservative MPs can neither pass nor reject the deal. They have no majority. Regardless of how they vote, it's the approach taken by other parties/MPs that will determine whether any deal gets through.
Indeed - but the more conservative mps vote for it the more likely it will pass
Well, not if the tally only rises from 160 to 180.....
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Maybe it would be better if the betting laws aren't liberalised in the USA, given the wide range of social problems they already have over there.
Comments
Reading between the lines neither side as yet has gone past the point of no return. So does the EU actually want to go the whole hog and do the Italians ? It still has the potential for a large EU fudge.
But would the EU then sign without further "clarifications"? Including that the PM doesn't bring a pen, but instead a chisel - to set the UK's signature on the deal in stone...
The UK government refused to engage seriously with the border issue: It's not a problem. It's not OUR problem - put up the border posts if you will. Who do you think you are, Ireland?
It also reneged several times on commitments it made on the border, sometimes within hours of making them. The EU is heavy handed but it has good reason for nailing the backstop down. Turn your comment the other way. If the UK were committed to a soft border, the backstop would never be needed and is therefore no big deal.
Battle of course might commence thereafter.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2018/11/22/01016-20181122LIVWWW00014-en-direct-gilets-jaunes-blocages-impots-fiscalite-carburant-taxes-gouvernement-ras-le-bol-fiscal-pouvoir-d-achat.php
https://youtu.be/Kybyy1EkoOE
I read recently Italys economy needs a 9% devaluation to restore competitiveness whereas Germany is enjoying an 11% undervaluation. Until Germany starts spending eveyone is in trouble and short term if the Euro falls due to uncertainty the German overcompetitivesness problem just gets worse.
"Dead centre on the vertical axis. Probably about right."
Me too - almost exactly on the cross-hairs, boring and a little cynical.
Post 2014 then..
Took part in the guardian political questions .
It seems I'm closely politically aligned to Obama and well away from Trumpism ;-)
Who would have thought that ;-)
Looks like I need to buy an alpaca
The whole sorry tale has unearthed things about us that would have been better kept hidden. There will be few who will refer to our great qualites of inclusion and toleration again and the oft repeated saying "it could never have happened here" will ring pretty hollow.
If (when?) we rejoin, should we actually leave, we must not touch the euro with a bargepole.
https://twitter.com/aeggers/status/1065530281153712129
In much the same way are the brexiteers, their passion is at risk of blinding them if they push it too far.
That simple fact has informed the whole WA negotiation.
My not so modest hope is that a good time was had by all.
The Italians are going to have a go now though.
(12) Palestinian angling to administrate division.
currently both parties are posturing, theres still lots of room for a eurofudge with victory being proclaimed by all sides
If the EU can find a way of cutting the Italians some slack but stopping everyone else jumping on the bandwagon then a deal will get done.
Not accepting the deal risks years more uncertainty, just as certainty has been offered. I can’t see politicians accepting that.
It is a popular newspaper and my wife loves the puzzles. We receive the £9.99 per month on line edition and it arrives on our tablets just after 11.00pm. It has a lot of different sections with many designed for women readers
If the conservative mps take down this deal they are going to receive a real pasting. Some may not care but a lot of their conservative voters will
But that,
"My working assumption is that a bloc of Labour MPs will support Theresa May’s package and push it over the top in December."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/11/21/theresa-mays-culpable-naivety-means-explosive-brexit-showdown/
There is a vast unrepresented lacuna somewhere in the middle of British politics.
a) The deal is emphatically not a disaster, unfortunately journalists do not work for exporters etc.
b) The deal will fail to get through the house.
NB: The relevant betfair market refers in the small print to an 'In/Out EU Referendum'.
Meaning that if we get one where the choice is between exit with the deal vs exit with no deal then that will settle as no 2nd referendum.
If, as a country, we reduced the amount of money spent on gambling - say halved it - that would surely do a lot of good.
The liberalisation of gambling laws under New Labour was one of their worst errors.
We certainly aren't as tolerant as we like to think we are. Nor a lot of other things we tell ourselves to feel better about ourselves while the country behaves in a dreadful way.
But then, arguably self-delusion is a necessary survival trait.
How about some real issues to chew over?
First, 55,000 children have been identified as "problem gamblers" via online gaming, purchasing of smart cards or playing fruit machines.
Second, 7,000 under-25 people have type 2 diabetes.
This is what Government should be about - challenging addictions and providing comprehensive health information aimed at changing behaviours?
For me, it's less about freedom TO and more about freedom FROM.
If you are saying because it wasn't explicitly in the GFA text then a hard border is fine, then you are fundamentally misunderstanding the situation in NI.
At the risk of boring people to death by carrying on with yesterday's discussion and of losing my anonymity for anyone sad enough to pull together all the data I have recently posted about myself here and what I am about to post below, I am going to try and give you a story of why selection at 11 is so bad.
You have pointed out that children can transfer from the Secondary Modern to the Grammar school at 16 to do their A levels and I pointed out that is exactly what I did, but you seemed to miss the point that all that was ok for me (I studied Applied Maths, Pure Maths, Physics and Chemistry) which were taught at the Secondary Modern to O level but that didn't work for someone skilled in Languages, Literature, Art, Music, etc which weren't. The focus was on vocational stuff, which by the way all the Grammar school kids missed out on.
So to set the scene one of the boys I took my A levels with studied English Literature and related A levels. I didn't know him that well, but I'm guessing that he was an average A level student. The reason I say average was after a few weeks at the school I was selected with a few other boys to be fast tracked to take an A level early (after 1 year) and I'm pretty sure he wasn't one of us.
So you can see it would not have been inconceivable for our roles to have been reversed. He could easily have come from the Secondary School. The trouble is he wouldn't have been able to because the Secondary school, as I have said, didn't teach literature or languages so the opportunity would not have arisen.
Still that boy could still go onto to become an excellent plumber maybe (after all there was plenty of opportunity in the Secondary Modern to do that) or work as a cashier in a bank getting in with what I assume was an excellent English Language O level.
But sadly we wouldn't now have the Nobel Laurette Kazuo Ishiguro with whom I took my A levels.
So how many other Kazuo Ishiguro's have we lost by deciding at 11 what they may or may not be good at?
The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was.
I do wonder if that's partly driven by lootboxes in videogames. Not my kind of game so I'm not au fait with all the detail, but it seems like this:
1) you spend a small amount on a lootbox, containing a small number of randomised items
2) these vary from very common to rare and can be cosmetic or have gameplay advantages
3) they can be resold (I think) through other sites for real world
4) it smells rather like gambling...
I'm not fond of multiplayer games, DLC generally or microtransactions in particular, so it's not my area, but my understanding of it makes me less than approving.
Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
I am waiting for any politician to talk about increasing business investment levels which is going the wrong way fast. I will vote for whoever first comes up with a sensible plan to address this problem
Glad the rumours of the death of 2nd hand game discs haven't yet come true, at least.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/here-are-all-the-tory-mps-who-have-indicated-so-far-that
Number of DUP MPs against: 10
Number of SNP MPs against: 35
Let's offset that against May's hope that Lab/Lib waverers will come to her rescue:
Number of Labour MPs currently declared in favour: 0
Number of Lib Dem MPs currently declared in favour: 1