Verbal

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with why the electoral college exists. Read up on your Madison, Hamilton and Tocqueville. Or try this on the justification for the electoral college's not accepting electoral vote winners, from Alexander Hamilton: "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States" It was designed, in other words, to keep out Trumps of the day - which is why constitutionally none of the electors in the electoral college is bound to vote for the state-by-state or indeed the popular winner.

And the government is going to hire an additional 30,000 civil servants just to cope with Brexit issues. The EU employs just 24,000 in total.

Maybe you should dial down the rage. That, after all, is what this case is about. And to repeat: the prosecution case is that this was a man killing a young mother and MP for a 'political cause'; not a random 'nut job' but a planned political killing in the name of that cause.

The Jo Cox murder trial has started depressingly as expected. Opening arguments by prosecutors suggest this was a political murder by a white supremacist Brexiter. The prosecution's case is that this was a "premeditated murder for a political and/or ideological cause." Thomas Mair has entered a plea of not guilty. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/14/jo-cox-killed-in-politically-motivated-murder-trial-thomas-mair-hears

For all the damage Trump will cause - to women's rights, black lives, the global environment, and any hope of a revived Middle East peace process (forget it) - the economic damage he can cause, to scale, will be as nothing compared to Brexit. Britain's leading Brexiteers far, far outweigh Trump in the competition to be the most malevolently stupid. Interesting to see that May - terrified of offending the Brexit loons in her party - was ninth on the list of world leaders Trump called after his election victory. And this just after she was sent packing from India with a handful of sweet **** all. So even after Trump, Britain still leads in the laughing stock stakes.

Boom indeed. While everyone's attention is diverted by Syria, Trump's two big positions in the Middle East are the unprecedented American support for moving the capital of Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and tearing up the nuclear agreement with Iran. Both have been reconfirmed since his election. In Israel, this has already resulted in the far-right - who remember are in power - declaring that the two-state solution is dead, and that the Palestinians can kiss goodbye to ever seeing meaningful self-rule. And the Iran decision, which will involve among other things the removal of inspectors, will restart the Ayatollahs' nuclear warheads programme.

There's been a lot of comment in the US today about how the constitution's checks and balances will protect from the worst and most irrational of a President's behaviour. Where there are few meaningful checks and balances is in foreign policy - and above all in the ultimate foreign 'policy', initiating nuclear war. The President has sole and, in the last instance, unchallengeable power to start a nuclear attack. From his decision to enter the launch codes to the missiles themselves launching is around five minutes. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/

There is no queue. Trump won at least in part on a promise to the rustbelt states that he would undo the 'damage' of NAFTA, TTP, and the prospective TTIP. Why would negotiating a trade deal with anyone, while trying to unpick ALL the others, be anywhere near a 'queue? By the way, Fox's much trumpeted decision to set up city offices in the US seems to have precious little to do with reciprocal trade deals as such, despite his wider rhetoric. Her's set one office up in Minneapolis - and apart from some farm stuff the only big players in that city are multinational health care companies. The biggest is UnitedHealth, which is judged to be the worst major health company in the US. It also already has extensive contracts in the NHS. As Dr Fox would know.

Great news! Let's hope it's an MBE next. Perhaps for services to space travel?

What strange times we live in when Wilders-adoring extreme-right Dutchmen, dodgy deckchairs-for-the-elderly salesmen and Corbynista virtue-signalling ****wits all ally in their opting for Trump as the better candidate.

He was thinking about the French revolution.

The WHY is buried in eighteenth century history but is now relevant. It was to provide a buffer in case the electorate voted in a raving loon.

Why? The full quote from Clinton is a simple statement of deterrence policy, is it not? In this case it's in response to a hypothetical question about Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel: Well the question was ‘if Iran was to launch a nuclear response, what would our response be’ and I want Iran to know that if I’m the President, we will attack Iran; and I want them to understand that because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps would deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic

Good. It just shows how poorly Cameron and Osborne led the Remain campaign (if you want more, read Craig Oliver's book), and the low levels of knowledge about what the single market actually is, on both sides. It's depressing that there is a more detailed awareness of the nuances of Brexit after the actual vote on it. (Who was debating about Article 50 before the vote?) Even now, though, there seems precious little understanding of the significant of the customs union, and still lots of confusion about 'membership' and 'access' to the single market - as well as general uncertainty about whether triggering Article 50 is irrevocable or not (the court case was lost because the government case was that it was irrevocable, which led the judges inexorably to the conclusion that primary legislation couldn't be cancelled by decree). As things now stand, all we have is 'Brexit means Brexit' countered by 'Unconstitutional means Unconstitutional'. May's strategy, in the Cameron tradition, is every bit as muddled and incompetent. She's a true ally of neither Remain or Leave.

Can you provide a link to some of the many times Cameron said that 'to leave the EU means to leave the single market'?

You appear not to understand the ruling. It's a ruling against May's strategy, not the referendum. There is nothing 'farcical' about a court making a ruling on matters of law. If you want to vent, vent at the extremely poor presentation of the government's case by the attorney general.

That would be a wonderful irony, but the ECJ rules supreme on matters of European law. This wouldn't count: it's up to nation states to decide the means by which they trigger Article 50.

This is the lounge. It only has a family resemblance to a football forum.

Now that Clark has inadvertently shown the government's hand, this article in the FT is a really interesting take on the revelation that a firm promise was made to Renault-Nissan - and now to all UK motor manufacturers - about tariff-free trading within the customs union. A key point is that the EU simply won't negotiate sector-by-sector access - just as it won't for the internal market - and the UK is either in or out of the customs union, which is the only way that tariff-free trading with the EU will happen. But for those with the nous to see where this is really going, the important thing to pay attention to in the article is the term 'transitional period', which could be anything up to or even beyond a decade. https://www.ft.com/content/cd0d2ad4-9d23-11e6-a6e4-8b8e77dd083a The other enjoyable consequence of all this is that Fox no longer has a real job. We should have a sweepstake on which of the three Brexiter clowns will be the forest to resign. Fox is certainly emerging as a frontrunner...

So this is all going very well. It turns out the government DID promise a kind of selective customs union membership for Nissan (44% French owned, remember). And since Clark's interview yesterday, spilling some beans, it turns out that actually ALL UK car makers/assemblers will be able to keep their supply chains tariff-free. So the carmakers either have unfettered access to the customs union or the government will by its own promises have to compensate them to an unaffordable extent not seen since the 1970s. But car making is just 3% of the economy. Bigger players, like the UK's big pharma industry, are now demanding the same deal. This has only one plausible outcome, if we exclude the possibility of absolutely crippling subsidy guarantees: the UK will have to remain in the customs union. (For the benefit of schmendriks, Lord T, the customs union is basically the rules of the original EEC - you know, the thing Thatcher approved of and voted for.) Then we have even bigger players, like financial services - the biggest of all sectors, representing 15% of the economy. The demand for passporting rights will be next on the list, forcing the government to take a position on full access to the internal market. (For the benefit...the internal market was a Thatcherite initiative, to liberalise trade within the EU - hence the nebbish churlishness from Corbyn.) Again: mazel tov!

Which tells me you have no idea what the customs union is. Or why it's a red line for supply chain companies like Nissan.

This seems familiar. Is it an extract from Mein Kampf?

You understand what that means? It means this government has committed to remaining in the customs union. That's the only way that a guarantee that 'no cheques will be written' can be honoured. Which means no free trade deals with non-EU countries. Mazel tov!

One of the many weirdnesses of the Leave position is that it's premised on the conviction that the EU is dysfunctional. The EU then demonstrates that dysfunctionality by rejecting the CETA trade deal with Canada by the margin of a fraction of one small country. And yet Leave's leaders still say there's some 'have our cake and eat it' trade deal ready to be collected when Article 50 is triggered - in the belief that the EU will act rationally. Delusional.

Nope. You can do the brown-nosing thing about keeping quiet until the government declares its handful of jokers, but the rest of us are fully entitled to have an opinion, and to read the warning signs of this impeding disaster. After all, however we voted, we're all passengers in this car crash. As demonstrated by the severe ear-bashing May got from European leaders last night, the Tories' delusions may be unshakeable but they remain delusions all the same. Now back to that question: from your superannuated, tripled-locked loft, what do you say to those whose breadline income is being eroded by the Brexit sterling crash? So far, as I predicted, not a single word - not even a mealy-mouthed cliche slavishly borrowed from the three killer clowns. PS. Had to laugh at that ****wit quoting chairman's statements in annual reports.