Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Of course it's a bloody discussion. What insufferable arrogance to insist that there is no sensible alternative but to extend the already substantially extended process and then to label those who hold a different position as thickos or nutters. But then we leavers are used to this sort of insulting and patronising behaviour from those who believe that the sun shines from the posterior orifice of the EU and that they are our lords and masters and we could not possible survive, let alone thrive as an independent sovereign nation any longer without their interference.

 

Here is a good summary of the forthcoming events for the talks next week, outlining the agenda and what each side would wish to be the outcome and what the stumbling blocks could be.

 

 

Feel free to dismiss it all as a load of rubbish, as I'm sure you will because you did not wish to leave the EU in the first place, but give good reasons why these issues will not remain exactly the same after a delay, or even worse afterwards. Also instead of just a simple few words dismissing anybody who doesn't support extending the deadline as nutters, let's have your detailed assessment on what position the UK should take if the EU insist on level playing field rules, continued access to our fisheries, jurisdiction of the ECJ, etc. Should we discuss those things and others now and then put them on the back burner for a year? Or should we decide that if we can't get a satisfactory arrangement that suits us within the next couple of months, that there really is no point in discussing it further, as it won't change after a year's delay? You'd have us continuing the business uncertainty and continue paying into the EU slush fund, would you? Without a FTA, there is a good case for not paying the £39 billion, or at least reducing it quite a bit. That would be a great help to our beleaguered economy, and another effective bargaining ploy.

I'll rephrase my point. There's no sensible or credible discussion to be had. That's just my opinion of course, you can have yours.

I'll rephrase my point. There's no sensible or credible discussion to be had. That's just my opinion of course, you can have yours.

*Frit*

The only sensible thing is to stay as we are until we're in a position to sort deals out. It's not complicated.

We voted out. We've left. If we rejoin there will be the prospect of a massive coronavirus bill to participate in. It's only complicated if we follow your strange logic that when we leave, we will somehow not be able to trade with the US or the EU. I'm saying that at worst, the EU tariffs may cost us around 5% on our exports. I assume you realise that we are a net importer from the EU and tariffs will thus affect the EU more than us. As for trade with the US, we are a net exporter and are trading position with the US will be barely affected when we leave, as, to repeat, the EU does not have a FTA with the US, but falls back on WTO rules in the event a specific bilateral trade agreement doesn't cover the goods/services in question.

Leaving the EU without a trade deal on the 31st December, 2020 is not complicated, the alternative is. It is democracy in action, so suck it up and stop crying....

I assume you realise that we are a net importer from the EU and tariffs will thus affect the EU more than us.

Have you been taking lessons from Trump on tarriffs?

Have you been taking lessons from Trump on tarriffs?

Where is he wrong in that statement?

We voted out. We've left. If we rejoin there will be the prospect of a massive coronavirus bill to participate in. It's only complicated if we follow your strange logic that when we leave, we will somehow not be able to trade with the US or the EU. I'm saying that at worst, the EU tariffs may cost us around 5% on our exports. I assume you realise that we are a net importer from the EU and tariffs will thus affect the EU more than us. As for trade with the US, we are a net exporter and are trading position with the US will be barely affected when we leave, as, to repeat, the EU does not have a FTA with the US, but falls back on WTO rules in the event a specific bilateral trade agreement doesn't cover the goods/services in question.

 

Leaving the EU without a trade deal on the 31st December, 2020 is not complicated, the alternative is. It is democracy in action, so suck it up and stop crying....

Cut out the pathetic "suck it up and stop crying" comments. Grow up.

The existing timescales and legal framework did not anticipate a global pandemic and decimation of our economy. We find ourselves where we do and have to act accordingly. I'm not suggesting a rethink on brexit per se, we're going, but it's a question now of revisiting the transition in light of extreme events.

We're currently a net exporter to the US. Going forward ask yourself whether they'll want us to import from China, the US or them. We need carefully constructed deals across the board. We do not have any chance to address those this year. We have the choice of hasty deals, no deals and WTO terms, or seeking more time and then using that to sort deals once the current crisis has passed. The choice is overwhelmingly obvious to the sensible thinkers.

Re WTO, someone posted above (it may have been you) that the EU and US have no trade deals. That was completely wrong. They have trade agreements on over 100 matters, which is just a little bit different to having none. Nobody sensible could possibly think that trading with the world on WTO terms is a sensible choice.

Re WTO, someone posted above (it may have been you) that the EU and US have no trade deals. That was completely wrong. They have trade agreements on over 100 matters, which is just a little bit different to having none. Nobody sensible could possibly think that trading with the world on WTO terms is a sensible choice.

I clearly stated that the US traded with the EU under WTO terms, not that "the EU and US have no trade deals". For an example of the US trading "sensibly" with the EU on WTO terms, read the article below, grow up and apologise:

GENEVA - MON, OCT 14 2019 — The United States has cleared the final procedural hurdle in order to impose tariffs on billions of dollars of European products later this month, at a meeting of the WTO’s (World Trade Organization) governing body on Monday. The administration of President Donald Trump no longer faces any legal obstacles for its set of previously scheduled sanctions against European goods that could now take effect Friday, after a three-person WTO tribunal of arbitrators earlier this month issued a ruling that allowed the enactment of $7.5 billion worth of countermeasures — an historically high amount. According to a Geneva trade official, the U.S. ambassador to the WTO, Dennis Shea, told WTO members that the size of the award approved Monday documents a point the U.S. has long made, that European subsidies to Airbus had caused massive harm to the U.S. economy over the course of several decades.

Trading under WTO terms with the EU was a sensible choice by Trump, I would say...

We have the choice of hasty deals, no deals and WTO terms, or seeking more time and then using that to sort deals once the current crisis has passed. The choice is overwhelmingly obvious to the sensible thinkers.

There you go again with the arrogant insinuation that anybody who doesn't think that the TP should be extended is not a sensible thinker, i.e. thick. You remoaners just can't help yourselves, can you?

You seem to believe that the process of arranging a FTA with the EU only began on 31st January at the end of the Transition Period, whereas it has been underway since we voted to leave on 23rd June 2016 nearly four years ago. How long do we need before you would assess the timescale not to be hasty? You chickened out of responding to the questions I asked a few posts ago on whether we should accept the EU's insistence of a regulatory level playing field, jurisdiction of the ECJ and the status quo of the CFP? So come on, let's have your opinion on where the line in the sand is to be, what constitutes the bad deal that we walk away from and go to WTO? And shouldn't we establish that scenario at the earliest possible stage, so that we know that we aren't just wasting our time discussing something that will not be available or acceptable to us? Furthermore, trade deals with other countries will only really be optimised when the trading situation between us and the EU is resolved, so the sooner that is completed, the sooner we can get on with those.

You chickened out of responding to the questions I asked a few posts ago on whether we should accept the EU's insistence of a regulatory level playing field,

Lol.

Where is he wrong in that statement?

Who pays the tariff on an import tax, Les?

There you go again with the arrogant insinuation that anybody who doesn't think that the TP should be extended is not a sensible thinker, i.e. thick. You remoaners just can't help yourselves, can you?

 

You seem to believe that the process of arranging a FTA with the EU only began on 31st January at the end of the Transition Period, whereas it has been underway since we voted to leave on 23rd June 2016 nearly four years ago. How long do we need before you would assess the timescale not to be hasty? You chickened out of responding to the questions I asked a few posts ago on whether we should accept the EU's insistence of a regulatory level playing field, jurisdiction of the ECJ and the status quo of the CFP? So come on, let's have your opinion on where the line in the sand is to be, what constitutes the bad deal that we walk away from and go to WTO? And shouldn't we establish that scenario at the earliest possible stage, so that we know that we aren't just wasting our time discussing something that will not be available or acceptable to us? Furthermore, trade deals with other countries will only really be optimised when the trading situation between us and the EU is resolved, so the sooner that is completed, the sooner we can get on with those.

Remoaner? I voted leave mate. Its how we leave, when and in what terms that matter now.

I didn't chicken out of of questions. Rather, I have no wish for a wider debate. Simply, I don't think it's sensible to leave on WTO terms, and that if this year is a virtual wrote off then we delay our leaving accordingly. You can think differently, that's cool.

Mummy, who would be affected most by the UK trading on WTO terms with the EU?

Deloitte Brexit Briefing

Summary

A hard Brexit not only leads to sales and turnover slumps for German manufacturers, it also endangers German jobs.

 

• A hard Brexit (WTO duties and 10 percent devaluation of the pound) means a cumulative cost increase of €1.9 billion (+15%) for automotive manufacturers in the United Kingdom compared to a no-Brexit scenario.
  
• If vehicle manufacturers pass this cost increase on 1:1 to their customers, the price of a car in the United Kingdom would increase by €3,700, and by as much as €5,600 for cars manufactured in Germany.
  
• Taking into account British consumer behaviour, in the year of exiting the EU this price increase would lead to an overall sales decrease of approx. 550,000 vehicles (-19%) in the United Kingdom. German vehicle exports would decline by 255,000 units (-32%).
  
• Total turnover from vehicles in the UK would decline by approx. €12.4 billion (-18%), and profits by €900 million. While manufacturers from the UK and outside of the EU benefit, EU-27 turnover would decline by €8.3 billion, and for German manufacturers by €6.7 billion.
  
• Based on these declines in sales and turnover, approx. 18,000 jobs in the German automotive industry would be directly endangered.
  

Mummy, who would be affected most by the UK trading on WTO terms with the EU?

The British consumer. Bizarre that you somehow think that because a hard Brexit to WTO will push up costs, make cars more expensive in the UK and crash demand by 18% that is somehow a win for the UK. Still havent moved away from the shooting yourself in the head analogy on the basis that the ricochet might hit Germany.

The British consumer. Bizarre that you somehow think that because a hard Brexit to WTO will push up costs, make cars more expensive in the UK and crash demand by 18% that is somehow a win for the UK. Still havent moved away from the shooting yourself in the head analogy on the basis that the ricochet might hit Germany.

“Italy was allocated Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative funding equivalent to 0.1 percent of its GDP, and Spain 0.3 percent, Hungary received an astonishing 3.9 percent of its GDP,” the European Stability Initiative think tank said in a report. An estimated 172 people have died from the virus in Hungary compared to a staggering 23,660 victims in Italy. Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, was accused of exploiting the pandemic to give himself sweeping new powers to rule by decree on March 30.

I'm speechless...

Bizarre that you somehow think that because a hard Brexit to WTO will push up costs, make cars more expensive in the UK and crash demand by 18% that is somehow a win for the UK.

We obviously won't exit on WTO terms, will we, because Germany won't allow it? You and your remainer mates, unlike the current Government under Boris, haven't got a clue about negotiating from a strong position. Relax, snowflake, Boris will continue to play a blinder and a FTA will be cooked up by the end of the year. The more we say that an exit under WTO terms will be a disaster for the UK, the less likely we will get a decent deal from the EU mafia. A WTO exit wouldn't be great, but compared to the damage already done to the world economy by corona virus, tariffs on goods and services don't mean a thing.

The world order has changed and the end of large trading blocs and globalisation are dead, as are car and air transport. Keep up, Timmy...

We obviously won't exit on WTO terms, will we, because Germany won't allow it? You and your remainer mates, unlike the current Government under Boris, haven't got a clue about negotiating from a strong position. Relax, snowflake, Boris will continue to play a blinder and a FTA will be cooked up by the end of the year. The more we say that an exit under WTO terms will be a disaster for the UK, the less likely we will get a decent deal from the EU mafia. A WTO exit wouldn't be great, but compared to the damage already done to the world economy by corona virus, tariffs on goods and services don't mean a thing.

The world order has changed and the end of large trading blocs and globalisation are dead, as are car and air transport. Keep up, Timmy...

What's happened to Global Britain pal - giddy Brexiter visions of the UK buccaneering across the world, trading freely with the high-growth economies in Asia and not the scelerotic EU?

What's happened to Global Britain pal - giddy Brexiter visions of the UK buccaneering across the world, trading freely with the high-growth economies in Asia and not the scelerotic EU?

We know you're an African anglophobe, Gavyn, but I would have thought you would have shown a bit of gratitude to a country that gave you everything. Actually, no I wouldn't. Resentment of the old colonial master, is strong in you.

I'm speechless...

Silence is golden.

What's happened to Global Britain pal - giddy Brexiter visions of the UK buccaneering across the world, trading freely with the high-growth economies in Asia and not the scelerotic EU?

Where's your money on for the future, Gavyn? Betting on the high growth economies in Asia, or on the sclerotic (you said it) EU? It's great that we can arrange our own independent deals with the dynamic economic growth areas around the world instead of being hamstrung as an appendage of the EU trade negotiating team and their glacial speed of bureaucratic operation, isn't it?

....and as if by magic, the following article appears in the Telegraph:

Brussels has ruled out agreeing a string of separate deals with Britain but it will also be reluctant to risk the blame for a no deal by refusing to agree a bare bones trade agreement. Any agreement with the EU, no matter how basic, will have some strings attached.

The economic risks of leaving the transition period without a replacement trade deal with the EU, the UK’s major trading partner, are huge and exacerbated by the impact of coronavirus on the economy. But the fact is trading on WTO terms after a no deal would be far closer to the UK’s preferred vision of the future relationship with the EU than the deeper trade agreement Brussels hopes to strike.

They must be reading my posts...

We obviously won't exit on WTO terms, will we, because Germany won't allow it? You and your remainer mates, unlike the current Government under Boris, haven't got a clue about negotiating from a strong position. Relax, snowflake, Boris will continue to play a blinder and a FTA will be cooked up by the end of the year. The more we say that an exit under WTO terms will be a disaster for the UK, the less likely we will get a decent deal from the EU mafia. A WTO exit wouldn't be great, but compared to the damage already done to the world economy by corona virus, tariffs on goods and services don't mean a thing.

The world order has changed and the end of large trading blocs and globalisation are dead, as are car and air transport. Keep up, Timmy...

David Frost, the UK’s top Brexit official, told his counterpart Michel Barnier in a call last week that the UK would never ask for an extension to the end 2020 deadline for the talks to be finalised. He added that If the EU was to request a delay to the end of the transition period, which effectively deep freezes the UK’s membership of the single market and customs union after Brexit, Britain would refuse because it was not in the “national interest”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52414155

The progress made in post-Brexit trade talks between the UK and EU has been disappointing, Michel Barnier has said.

 

The EU's chief negotiator said "genuine progress" and a decision on whether to extend the transition period were both needed by June.

Mr Barnier reiterated that the UK would have to pay a "lump-sum" contribution to the EU budget if the transition period is extended beyond 31 December.

Mr Barnier said a joint decision would be taken on 30 June about whether to extend the transition period.

Perhaps he missed this.....

But the UK government has already said it will refuse to extend it beyond December, even if the EU requested a delay.

Barnier doesn't seem to have woken up to the new reality since December and the stonking majority that Boris received from what was substantially a Brexit election. The former pro-EU PMs are now silenced. Many of those who appointed themselves delegates representing a fifth column pro-remain Parliament visiting Brussels to plead to be allowed to continue suckling on the EU teat, have now been ejected from the House along with the partisan speaker. Barnier needs to acknowledge the strength of the mandate that Boris now has to negotiate the sort of deal that he wants for us, or to walk away to WTO terms if it isn't available.

From the talks this week, Barnier continues as if nothing has changed, refusing to acknowledge that we negotiate as sovereign equals, as if we are somehow the supplicant begging for a deal, when it is they who have the considerable trade surplus to protect. They are refusing to grant us an equivalent FTA to that already agreed with other countries and insisting that an extension to the transition period would mean us paying an extra sum into the EU slush fund, even though we have passed it into law that we will not extend beyond the 31st December. Did he somehow miss that? Also, he has a fondness for pointing out that the clock is ticking, as if time isn't running out for them too. They would like us to extend the transition period because they say that there isn't enough time to negotiate a FTA before then, but it is they who have set this timetable of the end of June during which a request to extend the TP would have to be made. On that basis, when the ticking clock chimes when that deadline passes and we have not asked for an extension, it will finally become clear to Barnier and the EU that they have just 6 months to get real on an acceptable FTA, or we will be trading together on WTO terms.

The sticking points in the negotiations, not surprisingly, are the fisheries question, the regulatory level playing field and the legal jurisdiction covering the future relationship. If we stick to our guns on all three, the EU either accept that situation, or there really is no point in discussing it any further. I wonder whether at some point in the near future, whether we shouldn't just give them an ultimatum, that unless they accept that those three things are not on the table, there really is no point in discussing anything else and we will only return to the negotiating table when they accept that.

Good little article on the situation facing services. UK exports more services to the EU than the other way round, which is rarely mentioned in public debate (all the focus is on goods and the fact the UK imports more from the EU than the other way round).

I think it's probably inevitable that we will end up with a deal on services, even more so in a post coronavirus world. Maybe some form of associate EEA membership? Not sure how the politics will work, but from the UK perspective I can't see much sense in trashing the bit of our relationship that generates money for "UK plc"...

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8586/

Good little article on the situation facing services. UK exports more services to the EU than the other way round, which is rarely mentioned in public debate (all the focus is on goods and the fact the UK imports more from the EU than the other way round).

 

I think it's probably inevitable that we will end up with a deal on services, even more so in a post coronavirus world. Maybe some form of associate EEA membership? Not sure how the politics will work, but from the UK perspective I can't see much sense in trashing the bit of our relationship that generates money for "UK plc"...

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8586/

1 it was published one week after the GE

2. Covid 19.

3. The EU is at the weakest point is been in a long time.

Probably out of date now, given.

 

1 it was published one week after the GE

2. Covid 19.

3. The EU is at the weakest point is been in a long time.

I'd certainly agree coronavirus changes a hell of a lot, not sure the article is particularly irrelevant though as it outlines the UK's position with regard to being a service-based economy.

If the argument is the UK has leverage over the balance of goods it imports from the EU, by the same token we don't have that leverage over services, and services are currently the biggest part of our economy.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/now-who-s-cherry-picking-michel-barnier-

An excellent article demonstrating that in the transitional period negotiations for a FTA, it is now firmly Barnier and the EU that are intransigent when it comes to offering any sort of concessions towards being reasonable in their stance, by making demands that are not expected of other trade deals with other Countries. Undoubtedly the EU must recognise that the tables are now completely turned on them and that the UK is not about to blink when it comes to extending the TP. All we have to do, is wait until 1st July when the deadline to extend the TP expires and the EU will face a FTA by 31st December, or we are out on WTO. The article suggests that by refusing to offer the same terms on a FTA that it offered to other countries, that the EU is failing in its obligation to use best endeavours to conclude a fair FTA under the terms of the WA.

Barnabus Reynolds - Senior City Lawyer: Both parties have agreed to use ‘best endeavours’ to get there, which is the highest form of legal obligation in this context and permits no excuses, even reasonable, for failure to perform,” adding: “If this obligation isn’t honoured the UK can’t be expected to stand behind the monetary and other transitional arrangements in the so-called Withdrawal Agreement.”

I believe the time has come for us to make it clear now, that if there is no satisfactory FTA, then the £39 billion agreed by May in the WA will not be paid.

Another win for Banksy today.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Talks between the UK and the US on a post-Brexit trade agreement are to get under way this week. The early negotiations will take place by videoconference, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, with the first round of talks expected to last two weeks and further sessions approximately every six weeks.

Talks between the UK and the US on a post-Brexit trade agreement are to get under way this week. The early negotiations will take place by videoconference, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, with the first round of talks expected to last two weeks and further sessions approximately every six weeks.

I wonder whether there is going to be a chorus of dissent from the usual former remoaner suspects, stating that any trade talks cannot possibly take place until the Chinese virus has passed, as nothing else is important. Or is that only trade talks with the EU that cannot take place during the lockdown?

I wonder whether there is going to be a chorus of dissent from the usual former remoaner suspects, stating that any trade talks cannot possibly take place until the Chinese virus has passed, as nothing else is important. Or is that only trade talks with the EU that cannot take place during the lockdown?

Trade talks with the US;

US "OK Limeys, bend over"

UK "How far sir ?"

I wonder whether there is going to be a chorus of dissent from the usual former remoaner suspects, stating that any trade talks cannot possibly take place until the Chinese virus has passed, as nothing else is important. Or is that only trade talks with the EU that cannot take place during the lockdown?

They should be finished by September right? and we'll have a spiffy new trade deal by October. After all the EU talks can be concluded by Christmas easy peasy and the US are much more dynamic smart and awesome....

Trade talks with the US;

US "OK Limeys, bend over"

UK "How far sir ?"

About the sum of it. Either way, we'll have to keep an eye out as Trump may not even be in office from November....remember, unlike here, he actually had to appeal to the electoral college as Clinton actually had more votes than him and his behaviour throughout the virus....and before may even turn the head of the nuttiest GOP supporter.

They should be finished by September right? and we'll have a spiffy new trade deal by October. After all the EU talks can be concluded by Christmas easy peasy and the US are much more dynamic smart and awesome....

Did I put a timetable on it, Timmy? No, I thought not. Whether the EU talks are concluded by Christmas doesn't worry me. We will either have a FTA or we won't. I'm not bothered about which one it is. And yes, the USA is much more dynamic and smart than the EU, who took 8 years to negotiate a trade deal with Canada. As to those that believe that we would be shafted by a deal with the USA, why would that be? We don't have May and Robbins negotiating for us any more. There is no onus on us to accept a deal that doesn't suit us, as Barnier and the EU are currently finding out.

About the sum of it. Either way, we'll have to keep an eye out as Trump may not even be in office from November....

You think that Biden will beat Trump? Not only is he ancient, but he's losing his marbles.

You think that Biden will beat Trump? Not only is he ancient, but he's losing his marbles.

So both candidates are equally unelectable.

So both candidates are equally unelectable.

That is a matter of opinion as to whether they are equally unelectable. Trump is obviously electable, as he has been elected, and has the advantage of being the incumbent President and the known quantity, like him or loathe him. It's a sad state of affairs when the USA Democrats can only come up with Biden as a candidate, given his age and mental state. If he is their Corbyn, isn't there a Starmer anywhere in sight?

Creepy Joe stands no chance. I think the Democrats will replace him before too long.

If they don’t they’re toast. Again.

That is a matter of opinion as to whether they are equally unelectable. Trump is obviously electable, as he has been elected, and has the advantage of being the incumbent President and the known quantity, like him or loathe him. It's a sad state of affairs when the USA Democrats can only come up with Biden as a candidate, given his age and mental state. If he is their Corbyn, isn't there a Starmer anywhere in sight?

If the argument against Biden is that he is "losing his marbles" then surely the clear evidence that Trump has completely lost his weighs against his re-election ?

Creepy Joe stands no chance. I think the Democrats will replace him before too long.

 

If they don’t they’re toast. Again.

That would be the Democrats that won more votes than the Republicans in the last Presidential election ?

If the argument against Biden is that he is "losing his marbles" then surely the clear evidence that Trump has completely lost his weighs against his re-election ?

Well I don't think Trump had too many marbles in the first place, still got elected somehow.

Johnson, Corbyn, Trump, Biden - the World’s gone ****ing nuts.

If the argument against Biden is that he is "losing his marbles" then surely the clear evidence that Trump has completely lost his weighs against his re-election ?

I like the bit about Trump "clearly being electable" as well....not read the bit about Clinton getting more votes? She did...by quite some margin; he had to go to the un-elected electoral college.

Trump might be a bit eccentric at times, but I don't think that senility is particularly an issue. Anyway, it is up to the American electorate to decide on who they vote for, and like here, Party preference is also a large part of it too.

Ah, now that someone's mention what a dispsh!p mentalist crazy nutjob, charity-stealing loon that Trump is, you've moved away from the senility argument then...and again, if it's anything like when he was elected, it WONT be up to the US public but a bunch of unelected officials.....or are you re-writing history?

Trump might be a bit eccentric at times, but I don't think that senility is particularly an issue. Anyway, it is up to the American electorate to decide on who they vote for, and like here, Party preference is also a large part of it too.

Well if it were to be decided on overall vote totals there would be no need for a national campaign. New York and California would decide the election every time. A Republican hasn't won in New York since 1984 and in California since 1988. Just the imbalance in those two states accounts for a Democrat majority of about at least 5 million votes.

Anyway, it is up to the American electorate to decide on who they vote for, and like here, Party preference is also a large part of it too.

And nearly 3 million more of them voted for Hilary Clinton than Donald Trump. The next highest deficit in the popular vote by a winning Presidential candidate was just over half a million by Dubya, polling fewer than Al Gore but aided by gerrymandering by his brother in Florida.

I like the bit about Trump "clearly being electable" as well....not read the bit about Clinton getting more votes? She did...by quite some margin; he had to go to the un-elected electoral college.

It doesn't appear to register with you somehow, that somebody who gets elected cannot be unelectable. Whether Clinton achieved more votes than him is irrelevant, as it didn't change Trump becoming President, did it? By all means have a good moan about how life is unfair if it makes you feel better, just as you did constantly about Brexit, but it isn't for us to get involved in American politics, any more than it was for Obama to get involved in ours.

Biden will not beat Trump, so if the Democrats want the next President to be one of theirs, he isn't going to deliver that for them.

It doesn't appear to register with you somehow, that somebody who gets elected cannot be unelectable. Whether Clinton achieved more votes than him is irrelevant, as it didn't change Trump becoming President, did it? By all means have a good moan about how life is unfair if it makes you feel better, just as you did constantly about Brexit, but it isn't for us to get involved in American politics, any more than it was for Obama to get involved in ours.

 

Biden will not beat Trump, so if the Democrats want the next President to be one of theirs, he isn't going to deliver that for them.

Mainly because you can't crow about "democracy" and the people "having their say" if the biggest supporter and ally of Johnson wasn't voted in democratically. It got through to me that someone can get in if they rely on unelected officials who, most probably, received nice sums of money for their decisions. And you can be sure Trump will win can you?