SeanF

Theresa May can promise anything she likes, but Parliament is supreme (in effect, meaning that the Commons is supreme). I think it's implicit in the GFA that there should be no hard border on the island of Ireland, but it must therefore follow that it is implicit that there be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK (unless Northern Ireland should vote to join the Irish Republic). If the government simply sought to impose a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, it would be open to any Northern Irish inhabitant to challenge that decision in the High Court, and, in the absence of primary legislation, that challenge would be upheld.

Given that the Commons passed Hoey's amendment without a vote, the likelihood is that there is overwhelming opposition there to creating a border in the Irish Sea (to be fair, all parties say that they're trying to avoid this).

I'm just reading The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore. Stalin's Court was no different to that of any other absolute monarch. The great Communists were evenly jokingly referred to as "Princes."

The results of industrialisation under rulers like Stalin and Mao were certainly impressive in terms of producing good quality weaponry in large quantities, and appalling in terms of producing decent consumer goods.

There are very rich people in Denmark, but so what? Its people have a high standard of living and excellent social services. That's preferable to your proposals that would see most peoples' standard of living crashing.

Well, yes. If you're on the left why not aim to create a society like Denmark, which has impressive social services, and redistributes income, but still has a an efficient market economy, rather than doing things like confiscating assets or banning the stock market? Denmark is a model that works very well, from a left wing point of view, so why go for models that work badly?

However, we can't compel our negotiating partners to strike a deal. The fact that one does not want something to occur, does not mean that one should plan for it

If the parties cannot strike a satisfactory deal, then they will still have to negotiate as smooth a transition to WTO terms as possible. But, I expect that there will be further movement on both sides.

If it was Leave, or Remain and join the Euro, leave would have won about 70% of the vote.

Based on the fact that negotiations are ongoing, and they would not be ongoing if neither side wanted a deal. Based on the fact that it's in the interests of both sides to have a deal. That does not mean a deal is certain, but I think it's more likely than not.

I expect that a deal will be struck with the EU, but I would also expect Labour MPs to be whipped to vote against it (Labour will claim they could have got a much better deal). Some of the ERG will team up with Labour to vote against, so I think it would turn on how many Labour MPs vote with the government or abstain, and whether parties like the SNP abstain, or vote against.

Tolkien's view was that Gandalf would have become a self-righteous tyrant, claiming to be good, while actually being bad.

There may not be. Trump may simply be a huge admirer of Putin.

I think there are ideologues in government who would like to implement such things. I just think it would be electorally suicidal.

Nationalisation, capital controls, and incomes policies are no longer popular in the West. On the other hand, all Western societies (even the USA) spend immense sums on public provision of health, education, and social services. The libertarian dream, of a State spending 5-10% of GDP, is never going to be realised, because it would be just so unpopular among the voters. I do think that rich people (and corporations) should count their blessings. Paying even quite high taxes doesn't stop you from enjoying your wealth, whereas the kinds of societies where you pay no tax are the kinds of societies where you can get kidnapped, murdered, or thrown in jail at the whim of the rulers.