You could be right - I thought it was the Israelis gathering some publicity and a sale for their Magic Anti-Drone Dome Technology.
The last post on this thread, a video (youtube.com/watch?v=fgJCorhsr64) outlining possible Brexit-related financial crash, just winked out of existence as I was replying to it.
Not sure if it was deliberately deleted or whether it’s an issue with the forum database.
Anyway, at 3:00 the claim is made that the Irish government pays 20.5bn a year in debt servicing.
The NTMA says the number is around 6bn.
I don’t know much about NIIP, but I suspect the enormous number for Ireland relates to liabilities held by private sector entities in the financial sector.
Moderation is not always signalled but in this case, most probably lost some contributions on the 27th due to server outage.
The Russians wanting Brexit to happen or Trump to be elected doesn’t mean they caused the events to happen
I bet there are people in France claiming the yellow jacket protests are controlled from the Kremlin
Russia caused Trump’s election / Brexit / Gilets Jaunes etc is a strawman argument unworthy of serious consideration.
That does not mean that Russian hybrid warfare is not taking place for numerous purposes.
These include outright disinformation (Skripal poisoning many Russian lies, lies about not invading Ukraine), advance political movements amenable to Russia (the €9m loan to FN in France via First Czech-Russian Bank and seemingly finances to Aaron Banks’s Brexit campaign) and exploit pre existing social tensions (encouraging Greek and Macedonian nationalists during the recent attempts to resolve the Macedonian naming dispute).
For the later two examples (promote Russia favourable policies / politicians and exacerbate social tensions) the Russians were in no way inceptive but they certainly, and secretly, interfered.
Unfortunately for Russia it would seem that countries are now taking counter measures (the UK’s slow release of Skripal info time and again exposed Russia’s lies as farcical and ridiculous) and in qualified success like in the invasion of Ukraine it just drove the country towards the EU.
Just looking on the Betfair Exchange and I’m finding the odds a bit puzzling:-
-UK to leave in March 2019 as planned - 8/5.
-A second referendum before 2020 - 2/1.
So both them leaving on time and voting again this year are both longish odds against. There’s nothing shorter in their odds so far as I can see. So what are they expecting to happen? Indefinite paralysis which they’re not pricing up maybe? Or am I reading this wrong?
It just shows nobody knows really.
Yes, an unusual market really. No clear favourite but lots of things with a smallish chance of happening, one of which will come through.
If you’re into futures, go long on tarmac and tin cans?
Just watched the Channel 4 “Brexit” movie starring Benedict cumbersquatch.
Of course dramatised but bloody hell, that’s some story…
Theresa May is under massive pressure from senior ministers to face down Tory rebels who are threatening to kill off the government in order to avoid crashing out of the EU.
More than a dozen Tory MPs have made clear they would back a no-confidence vote and force an election if Mrs May tried a no-deal Brexit.
But Brexiteers are advising Mrs May to defy the threat and use her discretion to decide the date of any national vote - setting it for April 4.
Parliament dissolved during March for an election campaign, which would still be ongoing on March 29 when the UK is due to leave the EU. In effect that could force no-deal Brexit
What happens when you run down the clock.
…is you change how you’re counting time…
Constitutional (or rather Prerogative) crisis anyone?
It just shows how out of touch politicians are that pissing off for several weeks holiday over Christmas a couple of months before the end of the world is considered fine, whereas allowing elected MPs to vote on a motion is considered the end of the world.
The principle underpinning the above basically renders all the bluster of those heralding impending doom, food shortages, planes being grounded, trade ceasing etc etc as the nonsense that it has always been.
As evidenced above any rule or protocol may be amended or ignored at the stroke of a pen (bank bailout people?) meaning the ‘crisis’ around Brexit is and always has been, a political one.
Civil Servants, bureaucrats and business people will simply set about the practical business of ensuring that the world does not end post-Brexit…if they are permitted to do so. Practicality will be the order of the day, and post teething period, life will go on, not exactly the same but not that different either.
The problem lies solely at the political level where the two opposing camps are vying for dominance…with the prestige and perhaps future viability of their respective world views on the line. Practically every commentator, including here, is positioned on one side or the other and frames their arguments accordingly.
A real talent would be the ability to discern who amongst them/us actually believes their own spin.
Not that simple. There are many factions in this game, and they cross party lines.
It’s not just about in/out. It’s about what “out” should look like.
May has presented the negotiations as “getting the best deal possible”, but there is no consensus on what that should look like. She wants the status quo minus free movement. Most Tories are pro-free movement because they’re pro-business and business doesn’t want labour shortages pushing up wages.
Corbyn is at war with his own parliamentary party and membership and voters. He thinks we can restore wage bargaining power by restricting immigration, and shore up British industries with trade barriers and State support (at least I think that’s what he wants, but maybe he just wants to nationalize everything because he’s a lunatic socialist). A decent chunk of Labour supporters see restrictions on free movement as being driven by racism, and are therefore ideologically opposed, the “I am a citizen of the world” types. Another chunk vote Labour because they’re poor, and support Corbyn’s effort to restore wage bargaining power through labour market controls.
And the DUP don’t give a shit about any of that. They are the real identity politicians.
So I really don’t see how you can view this as a “both sides” thing.
Thats a fair response.
But in my view it is rooted in what is increasingly coming to feel like an outdated post-war dichotomy.
I see Brexit, Trump and now the Yellow Vests as manifestations of the same broad groundswell of anti-establishment mood that is making itself heard across the western world…with the establishment consisting of those who are part of the ‘game’ (what McWilliams might label ‘insiders’) regardless of their political/ideological persuasion. The fact that you acknowledge that the divisions cut across the traditional divide of left-right/conservative-liberal-socialist faultlines seems to actually underscore such an interpetation.
While undoubtedly there are some racist/genuinely far-right elements that are seeking to travel within these so-called ‘populist’ movements, its clearly the case that they encompass a lot more than such simplistic labelling. For example, it could be argued that issues centered around genuinely representative democracy and the concept of national sovereignty (perhaps even the future existence of nation states themselves) as well as attituides to erosion of the gains made by the European working classes in the wake of their sacrifices across two world wars, are more indicative of the true ideological faultlines that underpin the debate arond these matters…despite the manner in which they are often presented by the mainstream media.
None of this removes the fact however, that absent the vaccuum, the ‘insurmountable’ hurdles can be dealt with without anything approaching societal meltdown as soon as the political will to do so makes itself apparent.
Governments execute policies. “Anti-establishment” is not a policy.
That’s partly why Brexit is such a mess. Government is trying to implement a scream of rage.
The speaker of the house in the UK has enormous discretionary power about the order of business in the house. Bercow didn’t do anything illegal, nor did he do anything that has never been done before, nor did he break any rules that were written down. He just did something that hasn’t been done in a while. Something that is fully within his authority to do. The rule that he broke is an unwritten one that says we generally don’t do things that way, not that we can’t, just that we generally don’t do it that way.
Any bank guarantees that may or may not have been done were done within the full authority of government officials. There were no changes to the law and nothing illegal was done. The Irish government can guarantee any debts of anyone individual any time it wants. It has that full authority.
No one has the authority to make insurance contracts cross countries still be valid after Brexit. More importantly, no government has the authority to compel companies to ignore the law around safety standards and all other regulations concerning import/export of goods and services.
In order for things to continue smoothly someone has to actively decide to do something illegal.