Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sherrod Brown, victor in Ohio last November, looks increasingl

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited January 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sherrod Brown, victor in Ohio last November, looks increasingly like a good bet for WH2016

I’ve had quite a few long shot bets on the next White House Race but the one I am becoming increasingly confident about is Sherrod Brown Who last November held his Ohio senate seat by a margin of 6%. What makes this striking is that at WH2016 Trump took the state with a margin of 8 points. If anyone can win the rust belt back for the Democrats then it’s Brown.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    2016?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756
    edited January 2019
    First like...SHERROD?

    Bugger, second like DONALD I hope.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Terrible prediction Mike ;)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    The rustbelt went for Trump by tiny margins after Hillary forgot to campaign there. I'd be wary of overstating its devotion to The Donald and the difficulty for the even West Coast Democrats.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    First like...SHERROD?

    Klobuchar surely?

    With the first primary still a year away, it is a marathon not a sprint.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    It's hardly a fresh observation, and given the nature of the country probably inevitable, but the prolonged and presumably hugely expensive path to becoming a presidential nominee just seems so bloody tiresome. I get bored by the US primaries well before the result occurs, I get all politics'd out.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited January 2019

    I had a look at the average of the Republican primary polls on 27 January 2015 - the same period in the election cycle four years ago.

    https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

    Jeb Bush 14%
    Ben Carson 9%
    Mike Huckabee 9%
    Scott Walker 9%
    Rand Paul 8%
    Ted Cruz 5%
    Chris Christie 5%
    Marco Rubio 4%
    John Kasich 2%
    Donald J Trump ZERO!

    It may well be that the final Democrat Presidential candidate will be someone we couldn't possibly imagine today!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    There's a YEAR before the primaries? The way people were carrying on I thought they started next week!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    kle4 said:

    It's hardly a fresh observation, and given the nature of the country probably inevitable, but the prolonged and presumably hugely expensive path to becoming a presidential nominee just seems so bloody tiresome. I get bored by the US primaries well before the result occurs, I get all politics'd out.

    Later entrants are not nessecarily disadvantaged.

    Trump didn't announce he was rumnning until June 2015 for example.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    brendan16 said:


    I had a look at the average of the Republican primary polls on 27 January 2015 - the same period in the election cycle four years ago.

    https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

    Jeb Bush 14%
    Ben Carson 9%
    Mike Huckabee 9%
    Scott Walker 9%
    Rand Paul 8%
    Ted Cruz 5%
    Chris Christie 5%
    Marco Rubio 4%
    John Kasich 2%
    Donald J Trump ZERO!

    It may well be that the final Democrat Presidential candidate will be someone we couldn't possibly imagine today!

    It will, perhaps, be a great shame if we are denied a similarly wacky assortment of Republicans as that for the Democrats.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    It's hardly a fresh observation, and given the nature of the country probably inevitable, but the prolonged and presumably hugely expensive path to becoming a presidential nominee just seems so bloody tiresome. I get bored by the US primaries well before the result occurs, I get all politics'd out.

    Later entrants are not nessecarily disadvantaged.

    Trump didn't announce he was rumnning until June 2015 for example.
    Even that is a damn long process though!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    The rustbelt went for Trump by tiny margins after Hillary forgot to campaign there. I'd be wary of overstating its devotion to The Donald and the difficulty for the even West Coast Democrats.

    Yes, and while the Rustbelt matters, so too do Florida, North Carolina, Arizona etc.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Foxy said:

    First like...SHERROD?

    Klobuchar surely?

    With the first primary still a year away, it is a marathon not a sprint.
    Will the UK have left the EU before the Iowa caucuses begin on 3 February 2020?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Interesting suggestion. I've got enough in the 2020 market already, I feel, to really want to back anyone else. If that weren't the case, I'd be giving this a closer look.

    Dr. Foxy, that may also be a function of the number of candidates (which is also expected to be large for the Democrats, of course).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    edited January 2019
    brendan16 said:


    I had a look at the average of the Republican primary polls on 27 January 2015 - the same period in the election cycle four years ago.

    https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

    Jeb Bush 14%
    Ben Carson 9%
    Mike Huckabee 9%
    Scott Walker 9%
    Rand Paul 8%
    Ted Cruz 5%
    Chris Christie 5%
    Marco Rubio 4%
    John Kasich 2%
    Donald J Trump ZERO!

    It may well be that the final Democrat Presidential candidate will be someone we couldn't possibly imagine today!

    Those early polls were right. With the possible exception of Cruz, every one of those was a better candidate than Trump.

    As a matter of interest, has anyone announced for the Republican primaries?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756
    edited January 2019

    The rustbelt went for Trump by tiny margins after Hillary forgot to campaign there. I'd be wary of overstating its devotion to The Donald and the difficulty for the even West Coast Democrats.

    Are the economies of the rust belt states looking up? I guess it'll all depend on that. Also I believe they suffer disproportionally from the effects of the opioid epidemic. I seem to recall that Trump was going to do something effective to counter this, has this gone the way of gun control, N.Korea, the wall etc?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm. I saw a bit of discussion about this previously, and the comments were that it would be impossible to reinstate (or rather instate) the Withdrawal Agreement once we had left.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Foxy said:

    brendan16 said:


    I had a look at the average of the Republican primary polls on 27 January 2015 - the same period in the election cycle four years ago.

    https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

    Jeb Bush 14%
    Ben Carson 9%
    Mike Huckabee 9%
    Scott Walker 9%
    Rand Paul 8%
    Ted Cruz 5%
    Chris Christie 5%
    Marco Rubio 4%
    John Kasich 2%
    Donald J Trump ZERO!

    It may well be that the final Democrat Presidential candidate will be someone we couldn't possibly imagine today!

    Those early polls were right. With the possible exception of Cruz, every one of those was a better candidate than Trump.

    As a matter of interest, has anyone announced for the Republican primaries?
    Clearly Republican primary voters and caucus goers thought different - and they make the decision.

    No other Republican candidates have announced they are running - and the RNC has already endorsed Trump as the party candidate. I expect there will be other minor candidates but no one serious unless he decides not to run for a second term. Kasich, Flake and Sasse have been rumoured - but there is an easier life as a commentator or presenter on cable news (which is what Kasich and Flake are rumoured to be focusing on).
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm. I saw a bit of discussion about this previously, and the comments were that it would be impossible to reinstate (or rather instate) the Withdrawal Agreement once we had left.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Brown would likely be a good bet for the general election as he comes from a key swing state and the rustbelt Midwest and has obviously already shown he can appeal to the blue collar voters there the Democrats have to win back from Trump to win the Electoral College. His problems will be convincing Democratic primary voters he shares their core priorities
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    The rustbelt went for Trump by tiny margins after Hillary forgot to campaign there. I'd be wary of overstating its devotion to The Donald and the difficulty for the even West Coast Democrats.

    Are the economies of the rust belt states looking up? I guess it'll all depend on that. Also I believe they suffer disproportionally from the effects of the opioid epidemic. I seem to recall that Trump was going to do something effective to counter this, has this gone the way of gun control, N.Korea, the wall etc?
    If the economies or attitudes are different you might not see it reported in the media. If they have improved Trump could possibly do better there are worse elsewhere.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    The rustbelt went for Trump by tiny margins after Hillary forgot to campaign there. I'd be wary of overstating its devotion to The Donald and the difficulty for the even West Coast Democrats.

    Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania for the Republicans for the first time since 1988, it would also be a mistake to understate his appeal to the rustbelt
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm. I saw a bit of discussion about this previously, and the comments were that it would be impossible to reinstate (or rather instate) the Withdrawal Agreement once we had left.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Foxy said:

    brendan16 said:


    I had a look at the average of the Republican primary polls on 27 January 2015 - the same period in the election cycle four years ago.

    https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

    Jeb Bush 14%
    Ben Carson 9%
    Mike Huckabee 9%
    Scott Walker 9%
    Rand Paul 8%
    Ted Cruz 5%
    Chris Christie 5%
    Marco Rubio 4%
    John Kasich 2%
    Donald J Trump ZERO!

    It may well be that the final Democrat Presidential candidate will be someone we couldn't possibly imagine today!

    Those early polls were right. With the possible exception of Cruz, every one of those was a better candidate than Trump.

    As a matter of interest, has anyone announced for the Republican primaries?
    TRUMP
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm. I saw a bit of discussion about this previously, and the comments were that it would be impossible to reinstate (or rather instate) the Withdrawal Agreement once we had left.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    The other risk is that instead of breaking the "escalation of commitment" cycle, it would just carry on and people would start calling for military action.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm. I saw a bit of discussion about this previously, and the comments were that it would be impossible to reinstate (or rather instate) the Withdrawal Agreement once we had left.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Should any candidate in an open field be below 5 at this stage? Kamala Harris’s price looks absurdly short now, even though she looks like a very decent candidate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    PPP last November had Brown beating Trump by 6% in Ohio, Biden beating Trump by 4%, Sanders beating Trump by 1% and Trump beating Warren in the state by 5%

    https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2018/11/think-sherrod-brown-should-run-for-president-you-might-like-this-2020-poll.html
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,858
    Interesting but my mind is closed on this. 'Kamala for the people'. I'm all in.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm. I saw a bit of discussion about this previously, and the comments were that it would be impossible to reinstate (or rather instate) the Withdrawal Agreement once we had left.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there's any reason why all the practical aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't be adopted following a No Deal withdrawal, if both parties decided it would be to their advantage.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,858
    HYUFD said:

    Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania for the Republicans for the first time since 1988, it would also be a mistake to understate his appeal to the rustbelt

    Sure, but ... no let's not.

    :-)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    brendan16 said:


    I had a look at the average of the Republican primary polls on 27 January 2015 - the same period in the election cycle four years ago.

    https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

    Jeb Bush 14%
    Ben Carson 9%
    Mike Huckabee 9%
    Scott Walker 9%
    Rand Paul 8%
    Ted Cruz 5%
    Chris Christie 5%
    Marco Rubio 4%
    John Kasich 2%
    Donald J Trump ZERO!

    It may well be that the final Democrat Presidential candidate will be someone we couldn't possibly imagine today!

    Trump announced his Presidential campaign on June 15th 2015 and took the lead in Republican primary polls that same month

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006

    The rustbelt went for Trump by tiny margins after Hillary forgot to campaign there. I'd be wary of overstating its devotion to The Donald and the difficulty for the even West Coast Democrats.

    Are the economies of the rust belt states looking up? I guess it'll all depend on that. Also I believe they suffer disproportionally from the effects of the opioid epidemic. I seem to recall that Trump was going to do something effective to counter this, has this gone the way of gun control, N.Korea, the wall etc?
    If the economies or attitudes are different you might not see it reported in the media. If they have improved Trump could possibly do better there are worse elsewhere.
    I think the US is most certainly a more prosperous place than it was a few years ago. Trump will take the credit for that. They too are having a jobs miracle.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    There's a YEAR before the primaries? The way people were carrying on I thought they started next week!

    That’s the Democrats’ biggest problem. They really should be getting them out of the way this year, we are going to see a dozen or more candidates spend a year tearing lumps out of each other instead of their actual opponent.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited January 2019
    Caller on C-Span on BBC Parliament just called Trump 'the best leader in world history.'

    He clearly still has his fans
  • Should any candidate in an open field be below 5 at this stage? Kamala Harris’s price looks absurdly short now, even though she looks like a very decent candidate.

    In prior elections the eventual winner was in the top three, even at this stage. But at the moment we have Sanders, Warren and Biden gathering a lot of poll 'votes' even though two are yet to stand and Warren looks like an uninspiring choice but is better known.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    HYUFD said:

    Caller on C-Span on BBC Parliament just called Trump 'the best leader in world history.'

    He clearly still has his fans

    Not that I truly expect people engaging in hyperbole to take an actual assessment of world leaders, but I'd be curious how they would rate other famous historical leaders vs Trump.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    HYUFD said:

    PPP last November had Brown beating Trump by 6% in Ohio, Biden beating Trump by 4%, Sanders beating Trump by 1% and Trump beating Warren in the state by 5%

    https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2018/11/think-sherrod-brown-should-run-for-president-you-might-like-this-2020-poll.html

    Polls are fine but it is worth remembering that the final 2016 poll in Wisconsin had Clinton up by 8% - with a rolling average lead of 7%.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Should any candidate in an open field be below 5 at this stage? Kamala Harris’s price looks absurdly short now, even though she looks like a very decent candidate.

    Same rules as the next Con leader market, lay the favourite? (Unless it’s Gove or Biden)
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    The rustbelt went for Trump by tiny margins after Hillary forgot to campaign there. I'd be wary of overstating its devotion to The Donald and the difficulty for the even West Coast Democrats.

    Trump lost votes compared to Romney in some rust belt states.

    The "cult of Donald in the rustbelt" that the press is trying to imply is bollocks
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810
    Mike means WH2020 in the header
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm. I saw a bit of discussion about this previously, and the comments were that it would be impossible to reinstate (or rather instate) the Withdrawal Agreement once we had left.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there's any reason why all the practical aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't be adopted following a No Deal withdrawal, if both parties decided it would be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opt outs for Schengen and the Euro. I think we could safely forget about the rebate in that scenario. Of course, anything on the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,858
    HYUFD said:

    Caller on C-Span on BBC Parliament just called Trump 'the best leader in world history.'

    He clearly still has his fans

    Did you recognize the voice?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840

    Should any candidate in an open field be below 5 at this stage? Kamala Harris’s price looks absurdly short now, even though she looks like a very decent candidate.

    In prior elections the eventual winner was in the top three, even at this stage. But at the moment we have Sanders, Warren and Biden gathering a lot of poll 'votes' even though two are yet to stand and Warren looks like an uninspiring choice but is better known.
    https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-set-announce-2020-presidential-run-234647684.html

    Time to feel the Bern!
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810

    _Anazina_ said:

    Casino

    Please make it stop. You are embarrassing yourself today.

    You're back?

    What a shame. I hoped you'd been banned for good. You were an utterly toxic presence on this site.

    Let's hope you've learned your lesson.


    What an ugly post. I was never banned in the first place. What on earth are you talking about?
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,282
    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    I think you can also compare the level and nature of abuse Abbott gets to other Labour frontbenchers who do the same things as her if not worse. Corbyn has lied repeatedly on TV, is much more evasive in interviews and has never even tried to explain how a policy would work in detail rather than merely asserting that it would. Yet Abbott, who is often put on TV precisely because she's clever enough to bluster her way through with scant material (not an admirable trait, as it's one reason our politics is a mess, but a skill of sorts), is the main target of abuse.

    I'm not entirely convinced Richard Burgon's stupidity isn't a piece of performance art, but again Abbott is always the target for some, and John McDonnell asserting six impossible things before breakfast is largely why Shadow Ministers struggle with the sums in the first place, but people will claim with a straight face that he's re-positioned himself as a "trusty bank manager".

    Whilst not agreeing with such a negative view of Labour (I will be voting for them) you make an important observation.

    It is mainly people on the right of politics for whom Abbott is a butt. So is this because she is a stand out example of perceived incompetence on the left of politics?

    Answer, no, not really.

    So what is different about DA then? What makes her so ... special?

    And that answer we know.
    FPT

    Well I'm not on the right of politics - i joined Labour at 17 and a generally on the left but quit as I can't support the dangerous moral sewer Labour has become.

    I'd note that it's not just true of the right of politics. Abbott stood for the leadership in 2010. Personally I might even support an Abbott led Labour, even though I disagree with her on a lot, as she's not as dishonest, incompetent, nor as morally abhorrent in her actions and attitudes to human rights, democracy, and anti-Semitism as Corbyn. She was certainly a much more qualified candidate with far less baggage than he was in 2015.

    Did the McCluskey and other union barons (with the exception of ASLEF) and far left prince princelings and commentators get behind her? Of course they didn't.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm. I saw a bit of discussion about this previously, and the comments were that it would be impossible to reinstate (or rather instate) the Withdrawal Agreement once we had left.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there's any reason why all the practical aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't be adopted following a No Deal withdrawal, if both parties decided it would be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opt outs for Schengen and the Euro. I think we could safely forget about the rebate in that scenario. Of course, anything on the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
    We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.

    If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    MJW said:

    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    I think you can also compare the level and nature of abuse Abbott gets to other Labour frontbenchers who do the same things as her if not worse. Corbyn has lied repeatedly on TV, is much more evasive in interviews and has never even tried to explain how a policy would work in detail rather than merely asserting that it would. Yet Abbott, who is often put on TV precisely because she's clever enough to bluster her way through with scant material (not an admirable trait, as it's one reason our politics is a mess, but a skill of sorts), is the main target of abuse.

    I'm not entirely convinced Richard Burgon's stupidity isn't a piece of performance art, but again Abbott is always the target for some, and John McDonnell asserting six impossible things before breakfast is largely why Shadow Ministers struggle with the sums in the first place, but people will claim with a straight face that he's re-positioned himself as a "trusty bank manager".

    Whilst not agreeing with such a negative view of Labour (I will be voting for them) you make an important observation.

    It is mainly people on the right of politics for whom Abbott is a butt. So is this because she is a stand out example of perceived incompetence on the left of politics?

    Answer, no, not really.

    So what is different about DA then? What makes her so ... special?

    And that answer we know.
    FPT

    Well I'm not on the right of politics - i joined Labour at 17 and a generally on the left but quit as I can't support the dangerous moral sewer Labour has become.

    I'd note that it's not just true of the right of politics. Abbott stood for the leadership in 2010. Personally I might even support an Abbott led Labour, even though I disagree with her on a lot, as she's not as dishonest, incompetent, nor as morally abhorrent in her actions and attitudes to human rights, democracy, and anti-Semitism as Corbyn. She was certainly a much more qualified candidate with far less baggage than he was in 2015.

    Did the McCluskey and other union barons (with the exception of ASLEF) and far left prince princelings and commentators get behind her? Of course they didn't.
    The electoral system blocked her. It was a thirds system MPs, members and Unions. The unions went for the best candidate for them that was a realistic winner.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,858
    Alistair said:

    Trump lost votes compared to Romney in some rust belt states.

    The "cult of Donald in the rustbelt" that the press is trying to imply is bollocks

    His 'base' is comprised of a type of American not the location of one.

    There are thick white bigots living in Vermont. Just that as a percentage they are less than in, say, Alabama.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    notme2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.


    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there's any reason why all the practical aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't be adopted following a No Deal withdrawal, if both parties decided it would be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opt outs for Schengen and the Euro. I think we could safely forget about the rebate in that scenario. Of course, anything on the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
    We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.

    If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
    Proof of the pudding and all that. When we realise what it's REALLY like outside......


    And all sorts of posters will provide all sorts of anti-Europe endings, but we'll see who laughs last. And I'm certain it will be the Remainers/Rejoiners.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006

    notme2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.


    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there's any reason why all the practical aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't be adopted following a No Deal withdrawal, if both parties decided it would be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would ere would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
    We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.

    If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
    Proof of the pudding and all that. When we realise what it's REALLY like outside......


    And all sorts of posters will provide all sorts of anti-Europe endings, but we'll see who laughs last. And I'm certain it will be the Remainers/Rejoiners.
    I cannot see any economic difference it would make if we were in the EEA and the customs union, to us been in the EU, not a fraction of a percent of GDP.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited January 2019
    Alistair said:

    The rustbelt went for Trump by tiny margins after Hillary forgot to campaign there. I'd be wary of overstating its devotion to The Donald and the difficulty for the even West Coast Democrats.

    Trump lost votes compared to Romney in some rust belt states.

    The "cult of Donald in the rustbelt" that the press is trying to imply is bollocks
    It isn't, Trump increased GOP voteshare compared to Romney in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and got more actual votes in Pennsylvania and Michigan than Romney did.

    Trump also won voters with no more than a high school education or only some college, Romney lost voters with only a high school education or only some college. Trump's appeal to bluecollar voters over Romney's was real
  • Has John Hickenlooper ruled himself out of running?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited January 2019
    brendan16 said:

    HYUFD said:

    PPP last November had Brown beating Trump by 6% in Ohio, Biden beating Trump by 4%, Sanders beating Trump by 1% and Trump beating Warren in the state by 5%

    https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2018/11/think-sherrod-brown-should-run-for-president-you-might-like-this-2020-poll.html

    Polls are fine but it is worth remembering that the final 2016 poll in Wisconsin had Clinton up by 8% - with a rolling average lead of 7%.
    Maybe but this poll is comparing relatively how each candidate the Democrats pick would do against Trump.

    It also depended which poll you looked at, Marquette had Hillary only up 2% in Wisconsin at one stage, Trafalgar Group had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania and Michigan in its final polls
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm. I saw a bit of discussion about this previously, and the comments were that it would be impossible to reinstate (or rather instate) the Withdrawal Agreement once we had left.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there's any reason why all the practical aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't be adopted following a No Deal withdrawal, if both parties decided it would be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opt outs for Schengen and the Euro. I think we could safely forget about the rebate in that scenario. Of course, anything on the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
    But I'm not talking about entry. I'm talking about putting the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement into force after a "No Deal" exit. No implication about re-entry at all.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    notme2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'oth parties decided it would be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opn the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
    We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.

    If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
    We are going to rejoin. Why would the terms be punitive? What even is the meaning of punitive in this context? A lot of people on this very forum object to things that others on it regard as benefits.

    We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    notme2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of t to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'oth parties decided it would be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opn the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
    We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.

    If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
    We are going to rejoin. Why would the terms be punitive? What even is the meaning of punitive in this context? A lot of people on this very forum object to things that others on it regard as benefits.

    We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
    I think there's a lot of wishful thinking there.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited January 2019
    kinabalu said:

    Alistair said:

    Trump lost votes compared to Romney in some rust belt states.

    The "cult of Donald in the rustbelt" that the press is trying to imply is bollocks

    His 'base' is comprised of a type of American not the location of one.

    There are thick white bigots living in Vermont. Just that as a percentage they are less than in, say, Alabama.
    Indeed, Trump lost college graduates in 2016, Romney won college graduates in 2012 and Trump also did worse with postgraduates than Romney. However Trump did far better with voters who did not graduate from college, winning those groups whereas Romney lost them.

    Trump's coalition was less educated than Romney's but Trump was able to win a clear Electoral College victory unlike Romney despite getting a 1% lower national popular voteshare than Romney as less educated blue collar voters are concentrated in rustbelt swing states and the Midwest whereas more educated voters are based mainly in safe Democratic states on the coasts or relatively safe Republican states like Texas and Utah
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,858
    MJW said:

    Well I'm not on the right of politics - i joined Labour at 17 and a generally on the left but quit as I can't support the dangerous moral sewer Labour has become.

    I'd note that it's not just true of the right of politics. Abbott stood for the leadership in 2010. Personally I might even support an Abbott led Labour, even though I disagree with her on a lot, as she's not as dishonest, incompetent, nor as morally abhorrent in her actions and attitudes to human rights, democracy, and anti-Semitism as Corbyn. She was certainly a much more qualified candidate with far less baggage than he was in 2015.

    Did the McCluskey and other union barons (with the exception of ASLEF) and far left prince princelings and commentators get behind her? Of course they didn't.

    Again (and again whilst not sharing such a negative view of the Corbyn project) you make a good point. The Labour movement leadership is strikingly pale and male and stale. Far too much so, for my liking. And was there some 'we cannot take this black woman seriously' about when she ran for leader? Perhaps there was. I can certainly believe it.

    But this does not go against my point. I said that it is mainly people on the right for whom she has become a figure of fun. Not simply somebody not deemed very competent - a relentlessly pilloried figure of fun. That is surely true.

    I also note that she is not that for you - so hats off.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Chris said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:

    .

    Hmm. I saw a bit of discussion about this previously, and the comments were that it would be impossible to reinstate (or rather instate) the Withdrawal Agreement once we had left.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there's any reason why all the practical aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't be adopted following a No Deal withdrawal, if both parties decided it would be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opt outs for Schengen and the Euro. I think we could safely forget about the rebate in that scenario. Of course, anything on the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
    But I'm not talking about entry. I'm talking about putting the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement into force after a "No Deal" exit. No implication about re-entry at all.
    Several EU sources have made it clear that once we leave, we leave - especially if it’s no deal as we need to suffer and be seen to suffer for having the temerity to exercise democracy!

    What happens in practice, with massive queues of EU lorries in Calais and Dublin, is of course anyone’s guess.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,236
    brendan16 said:


    I had a look at the average of the Republican primary polls on 27 January 2015 - the same period in the election cycle four years ago.

    https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

    Jeb Bush 14%
    Ben Carson 9%
    Mike Huckabee 9%
    Scott Walker 9%
    Rand Paul 8%
    Ted Cruz 5%
    Chris Christie 5%
    Marco Rubio 4%
    John Kasich 2%
    Donald J Trump ZERO!

    It may well be that the final Democrat Presidential candidate will be someone we couldn't possibly imagine today!

    And the lesson is...lay the favorite. Although i assume its different given Trump is the incumbent.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Recidivist, very few people have changed their minds on the EU. Indeed, the perspective on the EU has become a political identity to perhaps a greater extent than party loyalty. The idea that it's a few, or even many, people who are Conservative members who are responsible for us leaving does not stand up to scrutiny.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    viewcode said:

    brendan16 said:


    I had a look at the average of the Republican primary polls on 27 January 2015 - the same period in the election cycle four years ago.

    https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

    Jeb Bush 14%
    Ben Carson 9%
    Mike Huckabee 9%
    Scott Walker 9%
    Rand Paul 8%
    Ted Cruz 5%
    Chris Christie 5%
    Marco Rubio 4%
    John Kasich 2%
    Donald J Trump ZERO!

    It may well be that the final Democrat Presidential candidate will be someone we couldn't possibly imagine today!

    And the lesson is...lay the favorite. Although i assume its different given Trump is the incumbent.
    Trump led the polls soon after he announced
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    notme2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of t to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Y.
    We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.

    If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
    We are going to rejoin. Why would the terms be punitive? What even is the meaning of punitive in this context? A lot of people on this very forum object to things that others on it regard as benefits.

    We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
    I think there's a lot of wishful thinking there.
    Maybe so. But leaving at all was inconceivable not that long ago, let alone leaving at breakneck speed.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    notme2 said:

    notme2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.


    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there's any reason why all the practical aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't be adopted following a No Deal withdrawal, if both parties decided it would be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would ere would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.

    If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
    Proof of the pudding and all that. When we realise what it's REALLY like outside......


    And all sorts of posters will provide all sorts of anti-Europe endings, but we'll see who laughs last. And I'm certain it will be the Remainers/Rejoiners.
    I cannot see any economic difference it would make if we were in the EEA and the customs union, to us been in the EU, not a fraction of a percent of GDP.
    As of this moment, AIUI, we're not going to be in EEA either.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    edited January 2019
    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:


    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.

    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. The question is how easily something could be cobbled together to have the practical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there's any reason why all the practical aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't be adopted following a No Deal withdrawal, if both parties decided it would be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opt outs for Schengen and the Euro. I think we could safely forget about the rebate in that scenario. Of course, anything on the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
    But I'm not talking about entry. I'm talking about putting the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement into force after a "No Deal" exit. No implication about re-entry at all.
    Several EU sources have made it clear that once we leave, we leave - especially if it’s no deal as we need to suffer and be seen to suffer for having the temerity to exercise democracy!

    What happens in practice, with massive queues of EU lorries in Calais and Dublin, is of course anyone’s guess.
    Yes. I'm not saying there would any doubt that we'd have left, any more than if we'd left with a withdrawal agreement. The difference would concern the situation over the next few years.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Mr. Recidivist, very few people have changed their minds on the EU. Indeed, the perspective on the EU has become a political identity to perhaps a greater extent than party loyalty. The idea that it's a few, or even many, people who are Conservative members who are responsible for us leaving does not stand up to scrutiny.

    Few people have changed their minds over the last couple of years. But political identity isn't immutable I remember hearing, and believing, that Labour's support for gay rights would damage it in working class parts of the country. It seemed quite plausible at the time. I now have an MP who is not only in favour of gay marriage, but is planning on having a gay marriage. To a gay.

    I can imagine that it won't be so long until supporting Brexit will seem as reactionary as homophobia.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Recidivist, I disagree fundamentally with your comparison.

    That very same snobbery, that disagreeing on a matter of judgement (wanting to be in the EU or not) is equivalent to disagreeing on a matter of morality (particularly on a rapidly shifting Zeitgeist), is one thing that will help maintain the entrenched polarisation.

    People don't like being talked down to or treated as inferior or morally wrong for having a view that isn't in line with Establishment thinking, or what the Islington set believe to be common sense.

    The way that things have proceeded so far will also lend credence to whatever people want to believe. Remainers could easily say "Look, we told you it'd be awful" [assuming things go poorly. Leavers could easily say "MPs failed to respect the referendum result, no wonder things are bad".

    Persuading people and hectoring them are not the same thing.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited January 2019

    I now have an MP who is not only in favour of gay marriage, but is planning on having a gay marriage. To a gay.

    That implies that you know people who are not gay who have had a gay marriage. Is this correct?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    notme2 said:

    I cannot see any economic difference it would make if we were in the EEA and the customs union, to us been in the EU, not a fraction of a percent of GDP.

    As of this moment, AIUI, we're not going to be in EEA either.
    At this moment and with the Irish unhelpfully shoving an oar in again this afternoon to say No Deal will be fine, the only thing we'll be in on the 30th March is very deep shit.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.

    Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,236
    edited January 2019
    ydoethur said:

    I now have an MP who is not only in favour of gay marriage, but is planning on having a gay marriage. To a gay.

    That implies that you know people who are not gay who have had a gay marriage. Is this correct?
    coughcoughbisexualitycoughcough
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    ydoethur said:

    I now have an MP who is not only in favour of gay marriage, but is planning on having a gay marriage. To a gay.

    That implies that you know people who are not gay who have had a gay marriage. Is this correct?
    No, it just seemed an amusing way of phrasing it. In my head at any rate.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,858
    HYUFD said:

    Trump's coalition was less educated than Romney's but Trump was able to win a clear Electoral College victory unlike Romney despite getting a 1% lower national popular voteshare than Romney as less educated blue collar voters are concentrated in rustbelt swing states and the Midwest whereas more educated voters are based mainly in safe Democratic states on the coasts or relatively safe Republican states like Texas and Utah

    Could there be a lesson for Labour here.

    Adopt the 2nd referendum - pile up votes from the enlightened in already safe seats and lose them in heartland marginals.

    More possession, less shots on target, only goal is an own one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    ydoethur said:

    I now have an MP who is not only in favour of gay marriage, but is planning on having a gay marriage. To a gay.

    That implies that you know people who are not gay who have had a gay marriage. Is this correct?
    No, it just seemed an amusing way of phrasing it. In my head at any rate.
    Well, I suppose in light of viewcode's post that could be taken both ways...
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,282
    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    Well I'm not on the right of politics - i joined Labour at 17 and a generally on the left but quit as I can't support the dangerous moral sewer Labour has become.

    I'd note that it's not just true of the right of politics. Abbott stood for the leadership in 2010. Personally I might even support an Abbott led Labour, even though I disagree with her on a lot, as she's not as dishonest, incompetent, nor as morally abhorrent in her actions and attitudes to human rights, democracy, and anti-Semitism as Corbyn. She was certainly a much more qualified candidate with far less baggage than he was in 2015.

    Did the McCluskey and other union barons (with the exception of ASLEF) and far left prince princelings and commentators get behind her? Of course they didn't.

    Again (and again whilst not sharing such a negative view of the Corbyn project) you make a good point. The Labour movement leadership is strikingly pale and male and stale. Far too much so, for my liking. And was there some 'we cannot take this black woman seriously' about when she ran for leader? Perhaps there was. I can certainly believe it.

    But this does not go against my point. I said that it is mainly people on the right for whom she has become a figure of fun. Not simply somebody not deemed very competent - a relentlessly pilloried figure of fun. That is surely true.

    I also note that she is not that for you - so hats off.
    There was. From the current Labour leadership. John McDonnell wanted to be on the ballot rather than her as the left's standard bearer until it became clear there was no way on Earth Labour MPs would put him on the ballot paper. If only MPs had done the same to Corbyn in 2015 the Labour Party wouldn't be irredeemable.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm. I saw a bit of discussion about this previously, and the comments were that it would be impossible to reinstate (or rather instate) the Withdrawal Agreement once we had left.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    My understanding is that, once we leave, we become a third country. Having a transition agreement - from membership to a new arrangement is a bit of an oddity - if we've already transitioned to a third party. And the EU could just say: "Tough. If you want an agreement now, instead of taking the one you had on offer a few weeks ago, here are some more things we would like".

    The legal wording would have to be rewritten etc and I don't know how easy it would be to do it. Now you may say that who cares about the legal wording if the political will is there. But these things do matter because all sorts of legal rights and obligations under contracts etc will flow from how any agreement is worded.

    Politically, if it all starts going pear-shaped and especially if it looks as if there are effects beyond Britain and Europe then I expect there would be a lot of pressure, not least from non-EU actors and bodies, on both parties to grow up and agree something. But who can say? Rather than people taking a deep breath and thinking again, we could find ourselves in an analogous position to the parties in August 1914 - heading who knows where but so convinced of their own rectitude that they are unable / unwilling to retreat / stop / think again.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    FPT:

    On Diane Abbott, I have mixed feelings. She made one of the best Parliamentary speeches during the Blair premiership against his proposals for 42-day detention without trial. She deserved then - and now - praise for that.

    I have no doubt that she gets a lot of sexist and racist abuse precisely because she is a prominent black woman. Whoever does this should be ashamed of themselves. There are plenty of ways of pulling apart her arguments without indulging in ad hominem abuse.

    At the same time, she can say some incredibly stupid and offensive things herself (her comments about West Indian mothers and blue eyed nurses, for instance) and her uselessness over police numbers was quite something. And just like anyone else she ought to be criticised for such stupidity/ bigotry / innumeracy etc. The fact that she is a black woman does not - and should not - give her a free pass from criticism, especially when she is in a high profile role, as she is.

    She can also be irritating and some people that I know who know her well (one who has known her since school days) say that she can be incredibly rude and unpleasant, especially to people more junior than her. That too needs calling out.

    I think though that if you go into public life you should develop a thick skin and selective deafness and learn to ignore the abuse rather than endlessly complain about it. Too much of politics has degenerated into name calling and people wailing about hurt feelings and insults to their identity rather than arguments about policies, ideas etc. If the abuse becomes dangerous or veers into being a crime, report it. If not then ignoring it is probably a better option. But the focus on "ooh, I'm offended, say sorry, it's not fair, wah, wah, wah" is pathetic, is not a change for the better and rather creates the impression that politicians are channelling their inner 6-year olds.

    Mrs T had it right on this: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

    Though she was channelling Socrates: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Alistair said:

    I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.

    Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.

    Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.

    Yes Hillary lost votes compared to Obama and Trump actually did worse with college graduates and postgraduates than Romney but in electoral college terms he made the gains where it mattered, blue collar, non college graduates in the Midwest and rustbelt
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006

    notme2 said:

    notme2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.


    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreement. he EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal ter be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would ere would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.

    If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
    Proof of the pudding and all that. When we realise what it's REALLY like outside......


    And all sorts of posters will provide all sorts of anti-Europe endings, but we'll see who laughs last. And I'm certain it will be the Remainers/Rejoiners.
    I cannot see any economic difference it would make if we were in the EEA and the customs union, to us been in the EU, not a fraction of a percent of GDP.
    As of this moment, AIUI, we're not going to be in EEA either.
    No we are not, but it was in the context of a remark about over time signing up to further institutions along the lines of switzerland, norway etc. We dont need to be a member of the EU to get the economic benefits of the single market, we just need to be willing to accept their four pillars.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Alistair said:

    I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.

    Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.

    That might open up a narrative of Sanders would have won. Better to blame it on other things.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited January 2019
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Trump's coalition was less educated than Romney's but Trump was able to win a clear Electoral College victory unlike Romney despite getting a 1% lower national popular voteshare than Romney as less educated blue collar voters are concentrated in rustbelt swing states and the Midwest whereas more educated voters are based mainly in safe Democratic states on the coasts or relatively safe Republican states like Texas and Utah

    Could there be a lesson for Labour here.

    Adopt the 2nd referendum - pile up votes from the enlightened in already safe seats and lose them in heartland marginals.

    More possession, less shots on target, only goal is an own one.
    Yes and that is why Corbyn is reluctant to push beyond permanent Customs Union to go for EUref2 with a Remain option.

    He knows that while Leave only got 52% in the popular vote, Leave won 64% of Westminster constituencies
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    MJW said:

    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    Well I'm not on the right of politics - i joined Labour at 17 and a generally on the left but quit as I can't support the dangerous moral sewer Labour has become.

    I'd note that it's not just true of the right of politics. Abbott stood for the leadership in 2010. Personally I might even support an Abbott led Labour, even though I disagree with her on a lot, as she's not as dishonest, incompetent, nor as morally abhorrent in her actions and attitudes to human rights, democracy, and anti-Semitism as Corbyn. She was certainly a much more qualified candidate with far less baggage than he was in 2015.

    Did the McCluskey and other union barons (with the exception of ASLEF) and far left prince princelings and commentators get behind her? Of course they didn't.

    Again (and again whilst not sharing such a negative view of the Corbyn project) you make a good point. The Labour movement leadership is strikingly pale and male and stale. Far too much so, for my liking. And was there some 'we cannot take this black woman seriously' about when she ran for leader? Perhaps there was. I can certainly believe it.

    But this does not go against my point. I said that it is mainly people on the right for whom she has become a figure of fun. Not simply somebody not deemed very competent - a relentlessly pilloried figure of fun. That is surely true.

    I also note that she is not that for you - so hats off.
    There was. From the current Labour leadership. John McDonnell wanted to be on the ballot rather than her as the left's standard bearer until it became clear there was no way on Earth Labour MPs would put him on the ballot paper. If only MPs had done the same to Corbyn in 2015 the Labour Party wouldn't be irredeemable.
    Labour were shedding votes and seats, ignoring the members would have just made the problem worse not better, unless you want Labour out of power the change has been much for the better.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006

    notme2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:


    I'm having more and more moments where I wish we could have no deal for a fortnight, I just wonder whether we have to fall over the cliff edge to believe it's real and to discredit those who've been tempting us over.

    Hmm.

    But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    The WA itself, no, because by definition once we're out, the treaties will cease to apply and we can't then conclude a divorce agreractical effect of delivering a transition period without needing a full ratification by the EU27 member states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'oth parties decided it would be to their advantage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow articleer states in order to ratify.
    We aint going back in if we leave. The best remainers could hope for would be norway model with a swiss style process of step by step opt into different institutions etc.

    If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?


    We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
    Blair played a 'full role' and all we got for it was a reduced rebate. There is no full role for us in the EU. Its not our club. It doesnt work for us. Not once in our entire membership has it cashed up in our favour. The only other nation who ploughs its national wealth into the EU as much as us is Germany, but it gets to have a virtual hegemony over a continent in return, no wonder we resent it a bit here.
  • HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    brendan16 said:


    I had a look at the average of the Republican primary polls on 27 January 2015 - the same period in the election cycle four years ago.

    https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

    Jeb Bush 14%
    Ben Carson 9%
    Mike Huckabee 9%
    Scott Walker 9%
    Rand Paul 8%
    Ted Cruz 5%
    Chris Christie 5%
    Marco Rubio 4%
    John Kasich 2%
    Donald J Trump ZERO!

    It may well be that the final Democrat Presidential candidate will be someone we couldn't possibly imagine today!

    And the lesson is...lay the favorite. Although i assume its different given Trump is the incumbent.
    Trump led the polls soon after he announced
    Didn't make him favourite at that stage, though, if I remember correctly. Conventional wisdom was that he'd fizzle out. So yes, you'd have done well laying the favourite (Bush? Not sure but not Trump) then too.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.

    Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.

    Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
    He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.

    Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Mr. Recidivist, I disagree fundamentally with your comparison.

    That very same snobbery, that disagreeing on a matter of judgement (wanting to be in the EU or not) is equivalent to disagreeing on a matter of morality (particularly on a rapidly shifting Zeitgeist), is one thing that will help maintain the entrenched polarisation.

    People don't like being talked down to or treated as inferior or morally wrong for having a view that isn't in line with Establishment thinking, or what the Islington set believe to be common sense.

    The way that things have proceeded so far will also lend credence to whatever people want to believe. Remainers could easily say "Look, we told you it'd be awful" [assuming things go poorly. Leavers could easily say "MPs failed to respect the referendum result, no wonder things are bad".

    Persuading people and hectoring them are not the same thing.

    I wasn't comparing the morality, just the change in attitudes. I regard Brexit as a very stupid policy and one that should be reversed as soon as we can decently do so, but it seems to me a legitimate part of politics. I have a feeling that younger people regard it is simply beyond the pale. I picked on homophobia as an example of something that I can remember being not exactly approved of, but nonetheless reasonably acceptable. I can certainly remember laughing at homophobic jokes. But now it is off the agenda. That's how Brexit might go.

    Blaming the establishment or a particular London borough is weak stuff in any context. You can't point to the establishment and provide a list of their preferences. Even if you could, and we both know you can't, you've still got to then explain why the establishment preference is wrong. Whenever I hear that line being used I assume that the person using it doesn't have a very good argument.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,545
    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Sandpit said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    notme2 said:

    Chris said:

    tpfkar said:

    .

    EU?
    If we are going to jump off the cliff of a no deal, unless a whole series of mini agreements are put through before hand theres no coming back. The train wreck will unfold, and theres little you can do to stop it.
    But that's what I'm asking. Whether if No Deal happened and the UK decided it was an awful mistake, whether there is any reason the Withdrawal Agreement couldn't then be approved.
    states.
    Yes, I realise some changes in wording might be necessary - that's why I said "in practical rather than legal terms". My question is whether there'stage.
    The EU have said that they’d need to follow article 49 which covers entry. The difficult bits would be how we could rejoin while keeping our opt outs for Schengen and the Euro. I think we could safely forget about the rebate in that scenario. Of course, anything on the EU side would require unanimity, and there would need to be constitutional referenda in several member states in order to ratify.
    But I'm not talking about entry. I'm talking about putting the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement into force after a "No Deal" exit. No implication about re-entry at all.
    Several EU sources have made it clear that once we leave, we leave - especially if it’s no deal as we need to suffer and be seen to suffer for having the temerity to exercise democracy!

    What happens in practice, with massive queues of EU lorries in Calais and Dublin, is of course anyone’s guess.
    This feels an important discussion. I'm not convinced it will happen but if it does?

    It's the middle of April and Chris Grayling has done it again. Queues across the ports. THe army can't fly enough insulin in and the tabloids are leading on families claiming their loved ones have died due to Brexit. Power cuts across the north. Supermarket shelves running empty. Petrol prices sky-rocketing, airplane capacity slashed and pricey, 50 Tory MPs urge a rethink, wrong to leave hits 70% in polls.

    A bit like the US shutdown - fine to hold out in principle but there comes a point where the accumulating pain is just too great.

    So what happens? I reckon that a majority would be found to ask for a temporary transition deal 'we pay £X bn for associate membership to end of June' and a withdrawal agreement (more likely than a serious rejoin) is negotiated by then. The EU get what they want with extra pain and humiliation for the Uk - I reckon they might go for it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited January 2019
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.

    Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.

    Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
    He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.

    Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
    He did not get less votes. HE DID NOT GET LESS VOTES.

    He got FEWER votes....
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.

    Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.

    Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
    He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.

    Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
    Trump was very lucky in winning some States by small margins.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited January 2019
    tpfkar said:

    This feels an important discussion. I'm not convinced it will happen but if it does?

    It's the middle of April and Chris Grayling has done it again. Queues across the ports. THe army can't fly enough insulin in and the tabloids are leading on families claiming their loved ones have died due to Brexit. Power cuts across the north. Supermarket shelves running empty. Petrol prices sky-rocketing, airplane capacity slashed and pricey, 50 Tory MPs urge a rethink, wrong to leave hits 70% in polls.

    A bit like the US shutdown - fine to hold out in principle but there comes a point where the accumulating pain is just too great.

    So what happens? I reckon that a majority would be found to ask for a temporary transition deal 'we pay £X bn for associate membership to end of June' and a withdrawal agreement (more likely than a serious rejoin) is negotiated by then. The EU get what they want with extra pain and humiliation for the Uk - I reckon they might go for it.

    OK, here's one for the lawyers.

    If we crash out with No Deal and the Irish agree with the EU not to put up a border - doesn't that mean we can force them to have open borders at the French, Dutch, Belgian and Danish ports as well under WTO rules?

    And also, doesn't it mean Poland will have to open the border with Russia and Ukraine?

    I think that's what the posters who said there wouldn't be any WTO legal action were rather overlooking...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.

    Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.

    Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
    He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.

    Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
    He did not get less votes. HE DID NOT GET LESS VOTES.

    He got FEWER votes....
    In the US, votes are often an uncountable noun.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.

    Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.

    Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
    He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.

    Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
    He did not get less votes. HE DID NOT GET LESS VOTES.

    He got FEWER votes....
    In the US, votes are often an uncountable noun.
    The problem last time was they were uncomfortable, not uncountable.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    tpfkar said:

    So what happens? I reckon that a majority would be found to ask for a temporary transition deal 'we pay £X bn for associate membership to end of June' and a withdrawal agreement (more likely than a serious rejoin) is negotiated by then. The EU get what they want with extra pain and humiliation for the Uk - I reckon they might go for it.

    The question is what the legal mechanism would be that bypassed the normal political processes. It's analogous to Brussels trying to find a way to give Belarus full unrestricted membership of the single market at the drop of a hat. It's not obvious how it could be done.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    ydoethur said:

    tpfkar said:

    This feels an important discussion. I'm not convinced it will happen but if it does?

    It's the middle of April and Chris Grayling has done it again. Queues across the ports. THe army can't fly enough insulin in and the tabloids are leading on families claiming their loved ones have died due to Brexit. Power cuts across the north. Supermarket shelves running empty. Petrol prices sky-rocketing, airplane capacity slashed and pricey, 50 Tory MPs urge a rethink, wrong to leave hits 70% in polls.

    A bit like the US shutdown - fine to hold out in principle but there comes a point where the accumulating pain is just too great.

    So what happens? I reckon that a majority would be found to ask for a temporary transition deal 'we pay £X bn for associate membership to end of June' and a withdrawal agreement (more likely than a serious rejoin) is negotiated by then. The EU get what they want with extra pain and humiliation for the Uk - I reckon they might go for it.

    OK, here's one for the lawyers.

    If we crash out with No Deal and the Irish agree with the EU not to put up a border - doesn't that mean we can force them to have open borders at the French, Dutch, Belgian and Danish ports as well under WTO rules?

    And also, doesn't it mean Poland will have to open the border with Russia and Ukraine?

    I think that's what the posters who said there wouldn't be any WTO legal action were rather overlooking...
    I kind of think the WTO fairy is a bit over done. I imagine its actual authority is very little. Things just get bogged down for years in negotiations and the miscreant carries on doing what they want.

    The only court that can really tell the EU or its member states what to do is the ECJ, everything else is a serving suggestion, a message on a bus and little else...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited January 2019
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.

    Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.

    Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
    He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.

    Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
    No he did not get fewer votes, Trump got more votes than Romney in Iowa and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio (fractionally less in Wisconsin) ie the key Midwestern and rustbelt swing states where it mattered in order to win the Electoral College. Even if Romney got a higher voteshare in the popular vote nationwide than Trump (but still fewer votes than Trump nationwide) the popular vote does not determine the Presidency, the Electoral College does
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.

    Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.

    Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
    He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.

    Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
    No he did not get fewer votes, Trump got more votes than Romney in Iowa and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio (fractionally less in Wisconsin) ie the key Midwestern and rustbelt swing states where it mattered in order to win the Electoral College. Even if Romney got a higher voteshare in the popular vote nationwide than Trump (but still fewer votes than Trump nationwide) the popular vote does not determine the Presidency, the Electoral College does
    I was specifically talking about Wisconsin with the less votes comment.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    notme2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tpfkar said:

    This feels an important discussion. I'm not convinced it will happen but if it does?

    It's the middle of April and Chris Grayling has done it again. Queues across the ports. THe army can't fly enough insulin in and the tabloids are leading on families claiming their loved ones have died due to Brexit. Power cuts across the north. Supermarket shelves running empty. Petrol prices sky-rocketing, airplane capacity slashed and pricey, 50 Tory MPs urge a rethink, wrong to leave hits 70% in polls.

    A bit like the US shutdown - fine to hold out in principle but there comes a point where the accumulating pain is just too great.

    So what happens? I reckon that a majority would be found to ask for a temporary transition deal 'we pay £X bn for associate membership to end of June' and a withdrawal agreement (more likely than a serious rejoin) is negotiated by then. The EU get what they want with extra pain and humiliation for the Uk - I reckon they might go for it.

    OK, here's one for the lawyers.

    If we crash out with No Deal and the Irish agree with the EU not to put up a border - doesn't that mean we can force them to have open borders at the French, Dutch, Belgian and Danish ports as well under WTO rules?

    And also, doesn't it mean Poland will have to open the border with Russia and Ukraine?

    I think that's what the posters who said there wouldn't be any WTO legal action were rather overlooking...
    I kind of think the WTO fairy is a bit over done. I imagine its actual authority is very little. Things just get bogged down for years in negotiations and the miscreant carries on doing what they want.

    The only court that can really tell the EU or its member states what to do is the ECJ, everything else is a serving suggestion, a message on a bus and little else...
    Well, actually, even that doesn't work. Look at the French and their seven year ban on our beef despite being told to lift it. Plus the €100 million euro a day fine that was slapped on them that they never paid.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm loving the idea that Trump, winning less votes than Romney, has created a massive bulwark for the GOP by barley moving their vote share.

    Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.

    Trump won states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for the first time for the Republicans since 1988 because he brought in the type of blue collar Democrat who had not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since the Reagan era.
    He got less votes than Romney. He got less votes.

    Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
    No he did not get fewer votes, Trump got more votes than Romney in Iowa and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio (fractionally less in Wisconsin) ie the key Midwestern and rustbelt swing states where it mattered in order to win the Electoral College. Even if Romney got a higher voteshare in the popular vote nationwide than Trump (but still fewer votes than Trump nationwide) the popular vote does not determine the Presidency, the Electoral College does
    I was specifically talking about Wisconsin with the less votes comment.
    AAAAAAAARGHHHHH!

    Sir, do you order pineapple on pizza while watching The Last Jedi?
This discussion has been closed.