Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”
Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.
What is clear is the Irish are screwed. They should not have let the EU use them as a pawn in the bigger game.
I think it more likely that Vradakar is responding to internal electoral pressure. An Irish PM cannot possibly be seen to be bullied by the British. It would be politically fatal. Of course this stance will have economic consequences for Ireland but the economic consequences of a cliff edge exit for the UK will be worse. And Brexiteers can hardly complain if others follow their lead in putting political posturing before economic well-being.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group, albeit with Northern Ireland second so not the sternest test - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
Three simple questions for EU Citixens to stay in the UK: 1. Can you prove your ID? 2. Do you have any criminal convictions? 3. Do you live in the UK? and, er... 4. Do you have an Android phone?
Three simple questions for EU Citixens to stay in the UK: 1. Can you prove your ID? 2. Do you have any criminal convictions? 3. Do you live in the UK? and, er... 4. Do you have an Android phone?
Three simple questions for EU Citixens to stay in the UK: 1. Can you prove your ID? 2. Do you have any criminal convictions? 3. Do you live in the UK? and, er... 4. Do you have an Android phone?
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group, albeit with Northern Ireland second so not the sternest test - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
They do have to qualify – Germany won every single game in their group...
Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”
Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.
What is clear is the Irish are screwed. They should not have let the EU use them as a pawn in the bigger game.
I think it more likely that Vradakar is responding to internal electoral pressure. An Irish PM cannot possibly be seen to be bullied by the British. It would be politically fatal. Of course this stance will have economic consequences for Ireland but the economic consequences of a cliff edge exit for the UK will be worse. And Brexiteers can hardly complain if others follow their lead in putting political posturing before economic well-being.
Whilst the economic fallout might be worse for the UK compared to the EU as a whole I suspect for Ireland it is a much more difficult position.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
Apropos of that (and prompted by an earlier discussion elsewhere following Thornberry's comment about bank holidays and UK teams reaching the final), I noticed this afternoon that none of the world's five most populous countries are in the finals tournament. I think it's the first time that's happened since 1978.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
No! They will all be there. The hosts qualify automatically; the HOLDERS do not.
(They used to in years gone by to but the rules changed at some stage in the 2000s)
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
No! They will all be there. The hosts qualify automatically; the HOLDERS do not.
(They used to in years gone by to but the rules changed at some stage in the 2000s)
Yes sorry I lost my mind there....I think it was watching David Willey coming on to bowl drives me mad.
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
There doesn't need to be a special border rule for Ireland - you can drive from France to England via a train.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
No! They will all be there. The hosts qualify automatically; the HOLDERS do not.
(They used to in years gone by to but the rules changed at some stage in the 2000s)
Yes sorry I lost my mind there....I think it was watching David Willey coming on to bowl drives me mad.
I have been told that the EU view on this is that a short extension for a specific purpose (e.g. to allow the UK to hold a second referendum) wouldn't be a problem but anything going beyond the EP elections in June 2019 would be much more difficult.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
Apropos of that (and prompted by an earlier discussion elsewhere following Thornberry's comment about bank holidays and UK teams reaching the final), I noticed this afternoon that none of the world's five most populous countries are in the finals tournament. I think it's the first time that's happened since 1978.
I didn't see Thornberry's comments but they make sense as the World Cup final is always on a Sunday to maximise TV audiences. I suspect lots of people would be utterly useless at work on the Monday morning so better just to formalise the day off. (Not that it is going to happen!)
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
They haven't decided what to do about the 3 hosts for the 2026 World Cup yet. CONCACAF are going from 3 places and 1 playoff now to 6 places in 2026. As you would expect Mexico and US to be in the top 6 qualifiers anyway they can probably afford to let all 3 hosts qualify
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
Author? Have they asked SeanT - that should liven it up a bit!
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
They haven't decided what to do about the 3 hosts for the 2026 World Cup yet. CONCACAF are going from 3 places and 1 playoff now to 6 places in 2026. As you would expect Mexico and US to be in the top 6 qualifiers anyway they can probably afford to let all 3 hosts qualify
6 places, Jesus....Are there even 6 nations in concacaf....at this rate, the mighty Saint Martin or curacao could qualify.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
They haven't decided what to do about the 3 hosts for the 2026 World Cup yet. CONCACAF are going from 3 places and 1 playoff now to 6 places in 2026. As you would expect Mexico and US to be in the top 6 qualifiers anyway they can probably afford to let all 3 hosts qualify
6 places, Jesus....Are there even 6 nations in concacaf....
There are 41, but some of them are exceptionally weak.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
No! They will all be there. The hosts qualify automatically; the HOLDERS do not.
(They used to in years gone by to but the rules changed at some stage in the 2000s)
Yes sorry I lost my mind there....I think it was watching David Willey coming on to bowl drives me mad.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
Apropos of that (and prompted by an earlier discussion elsewhere following Thornberry's comment about bank holidays and UK teams reaching the final), I noticed this afternoon that none of the world's five most populous countries are in the finals tournament. I think it's the first time that's happened since 1978.
I didn't see Thornberry's comments but they make sense as the World Cup final is always on a Sunday to maximise TV audiences. I suspect lots of people would be utterly useless at work on the Monday morning so better just to formalise the day off. (Not that it is going to happen!)
You only have to overide the 538 predictor's default odds in one match (England to fluke a win over Spain in the semi-final) for England to make the final.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
There should be 3 on the panel. All politicians. One Labour, one Tory, and one from another party. Give them more chance to answer each question and avoid wibble from celebrity panelists who have no grasp of the issues they are being asked to comment on.
Rees-Mogg / Javid crossover imminent? They were both last matched for next Prime Minister at 9.4. Crossover for next Conservative leader has already happened: Sajid Javid was last matched at 9 while Jacob Rees-Mogg was last matched at 9.2.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
Wash your mouth out - how dare you spread heretical ideas against the established state religion of the Free-Market!
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
They haven't decided what to do about the 3 hosts for the 2026 World Cup yet. CONCACAF are going from 3 places and 1 playoff now to 6 places in 2026. As you would expect Mexico and US to be in the top 6 qualifiers anyway they can probably afford to let all 3 hosts qualify
6 places, Jesus....Are there even 6 nations in concacaf....
There are 41, but some of them are exceptionally weak.
You can say that again, I think my local amateur team would fancy their chances against the mighty Montserrat.
Rees-Mogg / Javid crossover imminent? They were both last matched for next Prime Minister at 9.4. Crossover for next Conservative leader has already happened: Sajid Javid was last matched at 9 while Jacob Rees-Mogg was last matched at 9.2.
No point in JRM now that May isn't rowing back on Brexit.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
There should be 3 on the panel. All politicians. One Labour, one Tory, and one from another party. Give them more chance to answer each question and avoid wibble from celebrity panelists who have no grasp of the issues they are being asked to comment on.
Mmmm Let's take another look at what happens when a wibbly celebrity comes up against a serious politician.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
There should be 3 on the panel. All politicians. One Labour, one Tory, and one from another party. Give them more chance to answer each question and avoid wibble from celebrity panelists who have no grasp of the issues they are being asked to comment on.
Mmmm Let's take another look at what happens when a wibbly celebrity comes up against a serious politician.
Three simple questions for EU Citixens to stay in the UK: 1. Can you prove your ID? 2. Do you have any criminal convictions? 3. Do you live in the UK? and, er... 4. Do you have an Android phone?
Three simple questions for EU Citixens to stay in the UK: 1. Can you prove your ID? 2. Do you have any criminal convictions? 3. Do you live in the UK? and, er... 4. Do you have an Android phone?
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
There should be 3 on the panel. All politicians. One Labour, one Tory, and one from another party. Give them more chance to answer each question and avoid wibble from celebrity panelists who have no grasp of the issues they are being asked to comment on.
Mmmm Let's take another look at what happens when a wibbly celebrity comes up against a serious politician.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DrsVhzbLzU
Ian Hislop <> wibbly celebrity
No indeed, but he wouldn't be invited on @SandyRentool's QT since Sandy wants to stick with politicians only.
Three simple questions for EU Citixens to stay in the UK: 1. Can you prove your ID? 2. Do you have any criminal convictions? 3. Do you live in the UK? and, er... 4. Do you have an Android phone?
Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”
Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.
What is clear is the Irish are screwed. They should not have let the EU use them as a pawn in the bigger game.
I think it more likely that Vradakar is responding to internal electoral pressure. An Irish PM cannot possibly be seen to be bullied by the British. It would be politically fatal. Of course this stance will have economic consequences for Ireland but the economic consequences of a cliff edge exit for the UK will be worse. And Brexiteers can hardly complain if others follow their lead in putting political posturing before economic well-being.
Whilst the economic fallout might be worse for the UK compared to the EU as a whole I suspect for Ireland it is a much more difficult position.
Plenty of structural adjustment grants to ease the pain.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
There should be 3 on the panel. All politicians. One Labour, one Tory, and one from another party. Give them more chance to answer each question and avoid wibble from celebrity panelists who have no grasp of the issues they are being asked to comment on.
Mmmm Let's take another look at what happens when a wibbly celebrity comes up against a serious politician.
The problem seems to me that the brightest, hardest working people rightly don't go near politics with a bargepole, and so QT serves only to reveal the paucity of intellect and preparedness of our representatives. The nearest thing we have to "successful" QT panellists are those who can waffle without hesitation, deviation, or repetition on any subject without going "errr...umm...", or providing any tangible content, and they are probably worse than those who just flounder.
Bloomberg's intervention will help the Democrats in swing districts but with Trump's approval rating now even lower than Bill Clinton's was in 1994 when the Democrats lost both Chambers of Congress the GOP are set to lose the House anyway.
However do NOT assume that Democratic victories in the midterms will impact on whether Trump runs for re election and wins the GOP nomination again or mean a Democratic President in 2020, they will reflect more American voters' preference for divided government. Indeed Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 comfortably won re election despite heavy midterm defeats two years earlier and George W Bush in 2004 scraped home against Kerry despite his party actually gaining seats in 2002. Indeed Carter's party held Congress despite losses in 1978 only for Carter to be beaten by Reagan in 1980
Three simple questions for EU Citixens to stay in the UK: 1. Can you prove your ID? 2. Do you have any criminal convictions? 3. Do you live in the UK? and, er... 4. Do you have an Android phone?
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
There should be 3 on the panel. All politicians. One Labour, one Tory, and one from another party. Give them more chance to answer each question and avoid wibble from celebrity panelists who have no grasp of the issues they are being asked to comment on.
Mmmm Let's take another look at what happens when a wibbly celebrity comes up against a serious politician.
The problem seems to me that the brightest, hardest working people rightly don't go near politics with a bargepole, and so QT serves only to reveal the paucity of intellect and preparedness of our representatives. The nearest thing we have to "successful" QT panellists are those who can waffle without hesitation, deviation, or repetition on any subject without going "errr...umm...", or providing any tangible content, and they are probably worse than those who just flounder.
With some notable exceptions, I'm sure.
Something in that but I hope you're not putting Hislop in the "...waffle without hesitation..." category.
He'd make a great PM imo - perhaps he could be persuaded to start a new party.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
Apropos of that (and prompted by an earlier discussion elsewhere following Thornberry's comment about bank holidays and UK teams reaching the final), I noticed this afternoon that none of the world's five most populous countries are in the finals tournament. I think it's the first time that's happened since 1978.
Bloomberg's intervention will help the Democrats in swing districts but with Trump's approval rating now even lower than Bill Clinton's was in 1994 when the Democrats lost both Chambers of Congress the GOP are set to lose the House anyway.
However do NOT assume that Democratic victories in the midterms will impact on whether Trump runs for re election and wins the GOP nomination again or mean a Democratic President in 2020, they will reflect more American voters' preference for divided government. Indeed Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 comfortably won re election despite heavy midterm defeats two years earlier and George W Bush in 2004 scraped home against Kerry despite his party actually gaining seats in 2002. Indeed Carter's party held Congress despite losses in 1978 only for Carter to be beaten by Reagan in 1980
In the (rather unlikely) event of the Republicans losing the Senate, however, it would seriously impact Trump's chances of running again and/or winning.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
Apropos of that (and prompted by an earlier discussion elsewhere following Thornberry's comment about bank holidays and UK teams reaching the final), I noticed this afternoon that none of the world's five most populous countries are in the finals tournament. I think it's the first time that's happened since 1978.
Bloomberg's intervention will help the Democrats in swing districts but with Trump's approval rating now even lower than Bill Clinton's was in 1994 when the Democrats lost both Chambers of Congress the GOP are set to lose the House anyway.
However do NOT assume that Democratic victories in the midterms will impact on whether Trump runs for re election and wins the GOP nomination again or mean a Democratic President in 2020, they will reflect more American voters' preference for divided government. Indeed Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 comfortably won re election despite heavy midterm defeats two years earlier and George W Bush in 2004 scraped home against Kerry despite his party actually gaining seats in 2002. Indeed Carter's party held Congress despite losses in 1978 only for Carter to be beaten by Reagan in 1980
In the (rather unlikely) event of the Republicans losing the Senate, however, it would seriously impact Trump's chances of running again and/or winning.
Trump would blame others for a midterm loss. No way a man with that ego doesn't run again.
Aren't the Koch brothers donating something like 10x the Bloomberg numbers?
Bloomberg's intervention will help the Democrats in swing districts but with Trump's approval rating now even lower than Bill Clinton's was in 1994 when the Democrats lost both Chambers of Congress the GOP are set to lose the House anyway.
However do NOT assume that Democratic victories in the midterms will impact on whether Trump runs for re election and wins the GOP nomination again or mean a Democratic President in 2020, they will reflect more American voters' preference for divided government. Indeed Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 comfortably won re election despite heavy midterm defeats two years earlier and George W Bush in 2004 scraped home against Kerry despite his party actually gaining seats in 2002. Indeed Carter's party held Congress despite losses in 1978 only for Carter to be beaten by Reagan in 1980
In the (rather unlikely) event of the Republicans losing the Senate, however, it would seriously impact Trump's chances of running again and/or winning.
It would also give strength to moderate Republican Senators to vote against Trump in any likely impeachment vote - assuming Democrats win the HoR.
It was therefore only gains from the LDs, UKIP, the Greens and SNP and non voters which enabled Corbyn to get a hung parliament, not net gains from the Tories
Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”
Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.
What is clear is the Irish are screwed. They should not have let the EU use them as a pawn in the bigger game.
I think it more likely that Vradakar is responding to internal electoral pressure. An Irish PM cannot possibly be seen to be bullied by the British. It would be politically fatal. Of course this stance will have economic consequences for Ireland but the economic consequences of a cliff edge exit for the UK will be worse. And Brexiteers can hardly complain if others follow their lead in putting political posturing before economic well-being.
Whilst the economic fallout might be worse for the UK compared to the EU as a whole I suspect for Ireland it is a much more difficult position.
Plenty of structural adjustment grants to ease the pain.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
There should be 3 on the panel. All politicians. One Labour, one Tory, and one from another party. Give them more chance to answer each question and avoid wibble from celebrity panelists who have no grasp of the issues they are being asked to comment on.
Mmmm Let's take another look at what happens when a wibbly celebrity comes up against a serious politician.
The problem seems to me that the brightest, hardest working people rightly don't go near politics with a bargepole, and so QT serves only to reveal the paucity of intellect and preparedness of our representatives. The nearest thing we have to "successful" QT panellists are those who can waffle without hesitation, deviation, or repetition on any subject without going "errr...umm...", or providing any tangible content, and they are probably worse than those who just flounder.
With some notable exceptions, I'm sure.
Something in that but I hope you're not putting Hislop in the "...waffle without hesitation..." category.
He'd make a great PM imo - perhaps he could be persuaded to start a new party.
I wasn't - he was in the "intelligent, prepared" category. He provided, as he usually does, an uncomplicated analysis that is hard to argue against. The alternative which she wasn't prepared to propose explicitly being that we are happy to tolerate a few "false positives" because we believe it will reduce the murder rate (something that is very difficult to evidence in itself.) Whether he would be a good decision maker rather than analyst is a different question.
Bloomberg's intervention will help the Democrats in swing districts but with Trump's approval rating now even lower than Bill Clinton's was in 1994 when the Democrats lost both Chambers of Congress the GOP are set to lose the House anyway.
However do NOT assume that Democratic victories in the midterms will impact on whether Trump runs for re election and wins the GOP nomination again or mean a Democratic President in 2020, they will reflect more American voters' preference for divided government. Indeed Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 comfortably won re election despite heavy midterm defeats two years earlier and George W Bush in 2004 scraped home against Kerry despite his party actually gaining seats in 2002. Indeed Carter's party held Congress despite losses in 1978 only for Carter to be beaten by Reagan in 1980
In the (rather unlikely) event of the Republicans losing the Senate, however, it would seriously impact Trump's chances of running again and/or winning.
Bill Clinton won re election in 1996 by an 8% margin despite facing a GOP House AND Senate. It was just after being 're elected the GOP Congress tried to impeach him
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
There doesn't need to be a special border rule for Ireland - you can drive from France to England via a train.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”
Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.
What is clear is the Irish are screwed. They should not have let the EU use them as a pawn in the bigger game.
I think it more likely that Vradakar is responding to internal electoral pressure. An Irish PM cannot possibly be seen to be bullied by the British. It would be politically fatal. Of course this stance will have economic consequences for Ireland but the economic consequences of a cliff edge exit for the UK will be worse. And Brexiteers can hardly complain if others follow their lead in putting political posturing before economic well-being.
Whilst the economic fallout might be worse for the UK compared to the EU as a whole I suspect for Ireland it is a much more difficult position.
Plenty of structural adjustment grants to ease the pain.
Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”
Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.
What is clear is the Irish are screwed. They should not have let the EU use them as a pawn in the bigger game.
I think it more likely that Vradakar is responding to internal electoral pressure. An Irish PM cannot possibly be seen to be bullied by the British. It would be politically fatal. Of course this stance will have economic consequences for Ireland but the economic consequences of a cliff edge exit for the UK will be worse. And Brexiteers can hardly complain if others follow their lead in putting political posturing before economic well-being.
Whilst the economic fallout might be worse for the UK compared to the EU as a whole I suspect for Ireland it is a much more difficult position.
Plenty of structural adjustment grants to ease the pain.
But little monetary firepower.
No one has.
They can however fire up the helicopter.
Any country with its own exchange rates and monetary policy has firepower that Ireland does not.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
There should be 3 on the panel. All politicians. One Labour, one Tory, and one from another party. Give them more chance to answer each question and avoid wibble from celebrity panelists who have no grasp of the issues they are being asked to comment on.
Mmmm Let's take another look at what happens when a wibbly celebrity comes up against a serious politician.
The problem seems to me that the brightest, hardest working people rightly don't go near politics with a bargepole, and so QT serves only to reveal the paucity of intellect and preparedness of our representatives. The nearest thing we have to "successful" QT panellists are those who can waffle without hesitation, deviation, or repetition on any subject without going "errr...umm...", or providing any tangible content, and they are probably worse than those who just flounder.
With some notable exceptions, I'm sure.
To b fair to Ms Patel I think she was in the process of changing her mind on capital punishment. IIRC she's now against it. Then again maybe Mr Hislop's clear reasoning helped to change her mind
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
There doesn't need to be a special border rule for Ireland - you can drive from France to England via a train.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
As it is done now.
I think you have no understanding of the issue.
The issue is that despite thousands of international borders existing perfectly normally between hundreds of countries the EU is trying to exploit this one to get a deal where it can can have it's cake and eat it too.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
Apropos of that (and prompted by an earlier discussion elsewhere following Thornberry's comment about bank holidays and UK teams reaching the final), I noticed this afternoon that none of the world's five most populous countries are in the finals tournament. I think it's the first time that's happened since 1978.
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
There doesn't need to be a special border rule for Ireland - you can drive from France to England via a train.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
As it is done now.
I think you have no understanding of the issue.
The issue is that despite thousands of international borders existing perfectly normally between hundreds of countries the EU is trying to exploit this one to get a deal where it can can have it's cake and eat it too.
Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”
Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.
What is clear is the Irish are screwed. They should not have let the EU use them as a pawn in the bigger game.
I think it more likely that Vradakar is responding to internal electoral pressure. An Irish PM cannot possibly be seen to be bullied by the British. It would be politically fatal. Of course this stance will have economic consequences for Ireland but the economic consequences of a cliff edge exit for the UK will be worse. And Brexiteers can hardly complain if others follow their lead in putting political posturing before economic well-being.
Whilst the economic fallout might be worse for the UK compared to the EU as a whole I suspect for Ireland it is a much more difficult position.
Plenty of structural adjustment grants to ease the pain.
But little monetary firepower.
No one has.
They can however fire up the helicopter.
Any country with its own exchange rates and monetary policy has firepower that Ireland does not.
So a European state like Belarus is in a stronger position?
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
There doesn't need to be a special border rule for Ireland - you can drive from France to England via a train.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
As it is done now.
I think you have no understanding of the issue.
The issue is that despite thousands of international borders existing perfectly normally between hundreds of countries the EU is trying to exploit this one to get a deal where it can can have it's cake and eat it too.
Does that about sum it up?
No. The number of people who have died in living memory over the existence of that border means it is anything but normal. As you know full well.
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
There doesn't need to be a special border rule for Ireland - you can drive from France to England via a train.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
As it is done now.
I think you have no understanding of the issue.
The issue is that despite thousands of international borders existing perfectly normally between hundreds of countries the EU is trying to exploit this one to get a deal where it can can have it's cake and eat it too.
Does that about sum it up?
No. The number of people who have died in living memory over the existence of that border means it is anything but normal. As you know full well.
How's it any different to any border in Eastern Europe then? Let alone the Middle East etc
Does every former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia state have this cake and eat it solution the EU is seeking?
Though I agree that given the history of bloodshed in Ireland that the EU and Barniers attempt to exploit that and seek to force an NI only solution with checks on Ferries as Barnier put it is utterly reprehensible.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
There should be 3 on the panel. All politicians. One Labour, one Tory, and one from another party. Give them more chance to answer each question and avoid wibble from celebrity panelists who have no grasp of the issues they are being asked to comment on.
Mmmm Let's take another look at what happens when a wibbly celebrity comes up against a serious politician.
The problem seems to me that the brightest, hardest working people rightly don't go near politics with a bargepole, and so QT serves only to reveal the paucity of intellect and preparedness of our representatives. The nearest thing we have to "successful" QT panellists are those who can waffle without hesitation, deviation, or repetition on any subject without going "errr...umm...", or providing any tangible content, and they are probably worse than those who just flounder.
With some notable exceptions, I'm sure.
To b fair to Ms Patel I think she was in the process of changing her mind on capital punishment. IIRC she's now against it. Then again maybe Mr Hislop's clear reasoning helped to change her mind
What has that got to do with intelligence. Just because you support capital punishment does not make you an idiot, see Ann Widdecombe for example
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
Apropos of that (and prompted by an earlier discussion elsewhere following Thornberry's comment about bank holidays and UK teams reaching the final), I noticed this afternoon that none of the world's five most populous countries are in the finals tournament. I think it's the first time that's happened since 1978.
O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!
That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.
Unless the Germans lose another ...
They play Sweden on Saturday.
Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.
That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.
Two issues - EDIT - first point was nonsense as they did qualify and top their group - apologies.
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
The winners do need to qualify now. Germany won all 10 games in a group including N Ireland and Czech.
So in the us / Canada / Mexico World Cup, 2 of the hosts probably won’t be there ....
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
Apropos of that (and prompted by an earlier discussion elsewhere following Thornberry's comment about bank holidays and UK teams reaching the final), I noticed this afternoon that none of the world's five most populous countries are in the finals tournament. I think it's the first time that's happened since 1978.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
There should be 3 on the panel. All politicians. One Labour, one Tory, and one from another party. Give them more chance to answer each question and avoid wibble from celebrity panelists who have no grasp of the issues they are being asked to comment on.
Mmmm Let's take another look at what happens when a wibbly celebrity comes up against a serious politician.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DrsVhzbLzU
Ian Hislop <> wibbly celebrity
No indeed, but he wouldn't be invited on @SandyRentool's QT since Sandy wants to stick with politicians only.
And if the MPs show themselves not fit for office by spouting wibble, their constituents can get rid.
I don't want to hear what an author has to say about Brexit or education . Just as I don't want to read short stories penned by members of the Shadow Cabinet.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
That is the weakest panel I've seen since, oh I don't know, three weeks ago.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
There should be 3 on the panel. All politicians. One Labour, one Tory, and one from another party. Give them more chance to answer each question and avoid wibble from celebrity panelists who have no grasp of the issues they are being asked to comment on.
Mmmm Let's take another look at what happens when a wibbly celebrity comes up against a serious politician.
The problem seems to me that the brightest, hardest working people rightly don't go near politics with a bargepole, and so QT serves only to reveal the paucity of intellect and preparedness of our representatives. The nearest thing we have to "successful" QT panellists are those who can waffle without hesitation, deviation, or repetition on any subject without going "errr...umm...", or providing any tangible content, and they are probably worse than those who just flounder.
With some notable exceptions, I'm sure.
Something in that but I hope you're not putting Hislop in the "...waffle without hesitation..." category.
He'd make a great PM imo - perhaps he could be persuaded to start a new party.
I wasn't - he was in the "intelligent, prepared" category. He provided, as he usually does, an uncomplicated analysis that is hard to argue against. The alternative which she wasn't prepared to propose explicitly being that we are happy to tolerate a few "false positives" because we believe it will reduce the murder rate (something that is very difficult to evidence in itself.) Whether he would be a good decision maker rather than analyst is a different question.
That would be the Utilitarian position. 5 innocent people being executed vs 100 innocent people not being murdered because of the deterrent impact of the death penalty would be a no-brainer.
(The above numbers are made up to act as an illustration, and not based on evidence)
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
There doesn't need to be a special border rule for Ireland - you can drive from France to England via a train.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
As it is done now.
I think you have no understanding of the issue.
The issue is that despite thousands of international borders existing perfectly normally between hundreds of countries the EU is trying to exploit this one to get a deal where it can can have it's cake and eat it too.
Does that about sum it up?
No. The number of people who have died in living memory over the existence of that border means it is anything but normal. As you know full well.
An Irish sea border is clearly as unacceptable to the DUP as a hard Irish border is to SF though. I don't see how this circle is squared.
Bloomberg's intervention will help the Democrats in swing districts but with Trump's approval rating now even lower than Bill Clinton's was in 1994 when the Democrats lost both Chambers of Congress the GOP are set to lose the House anyway.
However do NOT assume that Democratic victories in the midterms will impact on whether Trump runs for re election and wins the GOP nomination again or mean a Democratic President in 2020, they will reflect more American voters' preference for divided government. Indeed Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 comfortably won re election despite heavy midterm defeats two years earlier and George W Bush in 2004 scraped home against Kerry despite his party actually gaining seats in 2002. Indeed Carter's party held Congress despite losses in 1978 only for Carter to be beaten by Reagan in 1980
In the (rather unlikely) event of the Republicans losing the Senate, however, it would seriously impact Trump's chances of running again and/or winning.
Bill Clinton won re election in 1996 by an 8% margin despite facing a GOP House AND Senate. It was just after being 're elected the GOP Congress tried to impeach him
Trump is emphatically not Clinton, despite one or two shared pecadilloes. And Clinton would be decidedly less popular today.
If Trump loses the Senate, he loses his raison d'être for many Republicans who just about tolerate him.
Three simple questions for EU Citixens to stay in the UK: 1. Can you prove your ID? 2. Do you have any criminal convictions? 3. Do you live in the UK? and, er... 4. Do you have an Android phone?
Bloomberg's intervention will help the Democrats in swing districts but with Trump's approval rating now even lower than Bill Clinton's was in 1994 when the Democrats lost both Chambers of Congress the GOP are set to lose the House anyway.
However do NOT assume that Democratic victories in the midterms will impact on whether Trump runs for re election and wins the GOP nomination again or mean a Democratic President in 2020, they will reflect more American voters' preference for divided government. Indeed Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 comfortably won re election despite heavy midterm defeats two years earlier and George W Bush in 2004 scraped home against Kerry despite his party actually gaining seats in 2002. Indeed Carter's party held Congress despite losses in 1978 only for Carter to be beaten by Reagan in 1980
In the (rather unlikely) event of the Republicans losing the Senate, however, it would seriously impact Trump's chances of running again and/or winning.
Bill Clinton won re election in 1996 by an 8% margin despite facing a GOP House AND Senate. It was just after being 're elected the GOP Congress tried to impeach him
Trump is emphatically not Clinton, despite one or two shared pecadilloes. And Clinton would be decidedly less popular today.
If Trump loses the Senate, he loses his raison d'être for many Republicans who just about tolerate him.
At this stage of his presidency Clinton was almost as unpopular as Trump.
Indeed since WW2 4 presidents, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon and Clinton have been re elected despite going into that presidential election facing both chambers of Congress controlled by the opposition party.
Trump won the GOP nomination because of the GOP base NOT the GOP establishment who did everything they could to stop him, as long as the GOP base still backs him why should he care what the GOP establishment think? Trump will not even be on the ballots in November and can blame a GOP defeat on the unpopular GOP Congress which he will say were led by the useless Ryan and McConnell who were never fans of his anyway
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
There doesn't need to be a special border rule for Ireland - you can drive from France to England via a train.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
As it is done now.
I think you have no understanding of the issue.
The issue is that despite thousands of international borders existing perfectly normally between hundreds of countries the EU is trying to exploit this one to get a deal where it can can have it's cake and eat it too.
Does that about sum it up?
No. The number of people who have died in living memory over the existence of that border means it is anything but normal. As you know full well.
An Irish sea border is clearly as unacceptable to the DUP as a hard Irish border is to SF though. I don't see how this circle is squared.
Remember that to agree to the backstop is not to agree to an Irish sea border - that would only be the consequence if a future relationship which removes the need for customs borders cannot be agreed. So maybe the DUP can be bought off with some kind of assurance that it won't happen.
You know, during the 1996 World Cup Sri Lanka won by having pinch hitters who averaged 90 runs in the first 15 overs. Nobody could compete with them (even if it was de Silva's century in the final that guaranteed the trophy).
How has the game changed that Bairstow and Roy hammer 100 in 13 overs and it's more or less business as usual?
Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”
Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.
Then over the cliff it is...
The Irish go over the cliff as well. And guess who gets to build the dreaded border ...
I don’t know if anyone else has commented on this but Javid seems to be releasing headlines daily now, this one calculated to appeal to Leavers, as his moves on cannabis relaxation might be viewed as more liberal and progressive: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44553225
Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”
Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.
Then over the cliff it is...
The Irish go over the cliff as well. And guess who gets to build the dreaded border ...
Romanian immigrants?
No-one builds the dreaded border, but the idea that if no-one starts building the dreaded border on the day after a cliff-edge Brexit it means we've won the game of chicken is delusional.
Bloomberg's intervention will help the Democrats in swing districts but with Trump's approval rating now even lower than Bill Clinton's was in 1994 when the Democrats lost both Chambers of Congress the GOP are set to lose the House anyway.
However do NOT assume that Democratic victories in the midterms will impact on whether Trump runs for re election and wins the GOP nomination again or mean a Democratic President in 2020, they will reflect more American voters' preference for divided government. Indeed Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 comfortably won re election despite heavy midterm defeats two years earlier and George W Bush in 2004 scraped home against Kerry despite his party actually gaining seats in 2002. Indeed Carter's party held Congress despite losses in 1978 only for Carter to be beaten by Reagan in 1980
In the (rather unlikely) event of the Republicans losing the Senate, however, it would seriously impact Trump's chances of running again and/or winning.
Bill Clinton won re election in 1996 by an 8% margin despite facing a GOP House AND Senate. It was just after being 're elected the GOP Congress tried to impeach him
Trump is emphatically not Clinton, despite one or two shared pecadilloes.
Too many people have swallowed far too much from them...
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
There doesn't need to be a special border rule for Ireland - you can drive from France to England via a train.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
As it is done now.
I think you have no understanding of the issue.
The issue is that despite thousands of international borders existing perfectly normally between hundreds of countries the EU is trying to exploit this one to get a deal where it can can have it's cake and eat it too.
Does that about sum it up?
No. The number of people who have died in living memory over the existence of that border means it is anything but normal. As you know full well.
How's it any different to any border in Eastern Europe then? Let alone the Middle East etc
Does every former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia state have this cake and eat it solution the EU is seeking?
Though I agree that given the history of bloodshed in Ireland that the EU and Barniers attempt to exploit that and seek to force an NI only solution with checks on Ferries as Barnier put it is utterly reprehensible.
That is what May signed up to back in December though. We either stick to it or gain a reputation for not keeping our word.
My American colleagues tell me the United States Supreme Court has just made an important ruling on sales tax. Maybe RCS will tell us later what this means, both economically and politically.
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
There doesn't need to be a special border rule for Ireland - you can drive from France to England via a train.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
As it is done now.
I think you have no understanding of the issue.
The issue is that despite thousands of international borders existing perfectly normally between hundreds of countries the EU is trying to exploit this one to get a deal where it can can have it's cake and eat it too.
Does that about sum it up?
No. The number of people who have died in living memory over the existence of that border means it is anything but normal. As you know full well.
How's it any different to any border in Eastern Europe then? Let alone the Middle East etc
Does every former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia state have this cake and eat it solution the EU is seeking?
Though I agree that given the history of bloodshed in Ireland that the EU and Barniers attempt to exploit that and seek to force an NI only solution with checks on Ferries as Barnier put it is utterly reprehensible.
That is what May signed up to back in December though. We either stick to it or gain a reputation for not keeping our word.
All part of May's short termist tactics.
In a sense I think you're reading that backwards. It's possible for May to retain free border movement and regulatory alignment unilaterally. The problem for Ireland is that the EU has final say on what is or isn't acceptable and they will in all probability have to insist on border patrols on the Irish side under WTO rules.
However, if the EU genuinely want no deal and crash out - which has always been a possibility we should bear in mind given the essentially stupid and usually drunken nature of the EU team - it is a useful pretext. It would mean throwing Ireland under the proverbial bus but I very much doubt if they care about that. The ECB won't like it but they will fall in line in the end.
That is what May signed up to back in December though. We either stick to it or gain a reputation for not keeping our word.
Better than that, the Patten amendment is in the Withdrawal Bill/Act, so the government is committed by law not to do anything which creates a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland with wording that is even more severe than in the joint report.
Nothing in section 7, 8, 9 or 17 of this Act authorises regulations which—
(a) diminish any form of North-South co-operation across the full range of political, economic, security, societal and agricultural contexts and frameworks of co-operation, including the continued operation of the North-South implementation bodies, or
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature— (i) physical infrastructure, including border posts, (ii) a requirement for customs or regulatory compliance checks, (iii) a requirement for security checks, (iv) random checks on goods vehicles, or (v) any other checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not subject to an agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Ireland.
I can't see how the border issue is going to be solved, a while back I thought the backstop fudge would just transpose to the whole of the UK across the Irish sea - but Barnier ruled that out. And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
There doesn't need to be a special border rule for Ireland - you can drive from France to England via a train.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
As it is done now.
I think you have no understanding of the issue.
The issue is that despite thousands of international borders existing perfectly normally between hundreds of countries the EU is trying to exploit this one to get a deal where it can can have it's cake and eat it too.
Does that about sum it up?
No. The number of people who have died in living memory over the existence of that border means it is anything but normal. As you know full well.
An Irish sea border is clearly as unacceptable to the DUP as a hard Irish border is to SF though. I don't see how this circle is squared.
45% is pretty much enough to win. I remember when the exit poll came out on election night 2016, one of its main findings was that 54% disapproved of Trump. A few hours later he was declared the winner.
That is what May signed up to back in December though. We either stick to it or gain a reputation for not keeping our word.
Better than that, the Patten amendment is in the Withdrawal Bill/Act, so the government is committed by law not to do anything which creates a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland with wording that is even more severe than in the joint report.
Nothing in section 7, 8, 9 or 17 of this Act authorises regulations which—
(a) diminish any form of North-South co-operation across the full range of political, economic, security, societal and agricultural contexts and frameworks of co-operation, including the continued operation of the North-South implementation bodies, or
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature— (i) physical infrastructure, including border posts, (ii) a requirement for customs or regulatory compliance checks, (iii) a requirement for security checks, (iv) random checks on goods vehicles, or (v) any other checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not subject to an agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Ireland.
Yes, pretty definite that the Irish have an effective veto on the final Deal.
@ydoethur seems to think the EU negotiators stupid and drunk. If that is what they can get us to sign up to, then we should fear them being clever and sober!
It was therefore only gains from the LDs, UKIP, the Greens and SNP and non voters which enabled Corbyn to get a hung parliament, not net gains from the Tories
What? How do you come to that conclusion? How many Tory Remainers are there compared to Labour Leavers? And what about other groups (Tory Leavers, etc.)?
Comments
Secondly, they lost to Austria for the first time in 30 years in the build up. That should have set alarm bells ringing - a big hit to national pride and a warning that the team was way off peak.
EDIT - OH Wait they have gone 48 team wc by then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_–_UEFA_Group_C
(They used to in years gone by to but the rules changed at some stage in the 2000s)
And Weak and Wobbly might sell Northern Ireland out but the DUP won't. I'm intrigued as to how this one will be worked out.
The ROI can't afford to police the border so it won't be policed physically.
As it is done now.
QT really is quite ridiculous, in that there are only 2 politicians on the panel, not minister of state...Plus an author, a journo for a minor publication and the bloke from the pub...I mean what’s the point.
Time to bring QT in house to the Beeb rather than leave it to independents?
Still not going to happen though.
Sell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DrsVhzbLzU
Ian Hislop <> wibbly celebrity
It just seemed strange to launch an app that only works on 44% of phones. Better surely to delay until the 53% on IOS can access it too.
Typically for this government they have managed to piss on their own campfire.
With some notable exceptions, I'm sure.
However do NOT assume that Democratic victories in the midterms will impact on whether Trump runs for re election and wins the GOP nomination again or mean a Democratic President in 2020, they will reflect more American voters' preference for divided government. Indeed Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2012 comfortably won re election despite heavy midterm defeats two years earlier and George W Bush in 2004 scraped home against Kerry despite his party actually gaining seats in 2002. Indeed Carter's party held Congress despite losses in 1978 only for Carter to be beaten by Reagan in 1980
Apparently the app can read the chip in a passport.
But Apple has a problem with that, hence Android only. I think this is a way of putting pressure on Apple.
He'd make a great PM imo - perhaps he could be persuaded to start a new party.
Aren't the Koch brothers donating something like 10x the Bloomberg numbers?
https://mobile.twitter.com/chris__curtis/status/1009802836291485696
It was therefore only gains from the LDs, UKIP, the Greens and SNP and non voters which enabled Corbyn to get a hung parliament, not net gains from the Tories
They can however fire up the helicopter.
Then again maybe Mr Hislop's clear reasoning helped to change her mind
Does that about sum it up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population
Does every former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia state have this cake and eat it solution the EU is seeking?
Though I agree that given the history of bloodshed in Ireland that the EU and Barniers attempt to exploit that and seek to force an NI only solution with checks on Ferries as Barnier put it is utterly reprehensible.
I don't want to hear what an author has to say about Brexit or education . Just as I don't want to read short stories penned by members of the Shadow Cabinet.
(The above numbers are made up to act as an illustration, and not based on evidence)
And Clinton would be decidedly less popular today.
If Trump loses the Senate, he loses his raison d'être for many Republicans who just about tolerate him.
Oh, my coat?
Seriously though, probably because it’s convenient. And once you’ve made it for one, porting to the other system should be straightforward.
Indeed since WW2 4 presidents, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon and Clinton have been re elected despite going into that presidential election facing both chambers of Congress controlled by the opposition party.
Trump won the GOP nomination because of the GOP base NOT the GOP establishment who did everything they could to stop him, as long as the GOP base still backs him why should he care what the GOP establishment think? Trump will not even be on the ballots in November and can blame a GOP defeat on the unpopular GOP Congress which he will say were led by the useless Ryan and McConnell who were never fans of his anyway
How has the game changed that Bairstow and Roy hammer 100 in 13 overs and it's more or less business as usual?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/world/emmanuel-and-brigitte-macron-plan-to-build-swimming-pool-at-presidential-retreat-using-french-a3868746.html?amp
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trump-job-approval-weekly.aspx
All part of May's short termist tactics.
However, if the EU genuinely want no deal and crash out - which has always been a possibility we should bear in mind given the essentially stupid and usually drunken nature of the EU team - it is a useful pretext. It would mean throwing Ireland under the proverbial bus but I very much doubt if they care about that. The ECB won't like it but they will fall in line in the end.
Nothing in section 7, 8, 9 or 17 of this Act authorises regulations which—
(a) diminish any form of North-South co-operation across the full range of political, economic, security, societal and agricultural contexts and frameworks of co-operation, including the continued operation of the North-South implementation bodies, or
(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature—
(i) physical infrastructure, including border posts,
(ii) a requirement for customs or regulatory compliance checks,
(iii) a requirement for security checks,
(iv) random checks on goods vehicles, or
(v) any other checks and controls,
that did not exist before exit day and are not subject to an agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Ireland.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
And latest five polls suggest a downswing.
@ydoethur seems to think the EU negotiators stupid and drunk. If that is what they can get us to sign up to, then we should fear them being clever and sober!