My old friend George has written me an email I thought people might be interested in:
So now we know.
Over the last few days, Ed Balls has been trying to claim that Labour 'will not duck the hard choices ahead'. They said they were serious about the economy.
But now we know that isn't true.
Analysis by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that Labour are planning to borrow and spend billions more.
The front page of yesterday's Times put the cost of Labour's secret spending spree at an extra £25bn a year.
And today, official Treasury numbers have shown the full impact of Labour's plans: a borrowing bombshell adding an additional £166bn to the country's debt in just one parliament.
Labour's plan to borrow and spend more is the single biggest risk to our economic recovery.
And it's hardworking people who would pay the price, with higher taxes funding this latest Labour spending spree.
We can't let them get away with it - tell everyone you know about Labour's plans on Facebook and Twitter today.
The choice at the next election is now clear:
The Conservatives with our long-term economic plan that is building a stronger, more competitive economy, and securing a better future for Britain.
Or the Same Old Labour Party, with no plan, no direction, and no ideas other than more spending, more borrowing and more taxes.
"At most there would be a vague, face-saving assurance that we'd take Scotland's needs into consideration when formulating policy."
Why on Earth should we do that, Mr. Navabi? Telling even white lies seldom helps and never in the case of formulating policy. Why shouldn't everyone be told the truth, "Scotland's needs, as far as they differ from those of England, will be accorded the same degree of consideration as those of Burkina Faso".
We will see when the markets are spooked and financial reality sets in , they will be shaking in their boots.
Oh, come on, Mr. G.. If Scotland wants independence, and, by the cringe, if I were a Scot I would, then it should go independent not feck about trying to pretend that 10% is an equal share. Have your own head of state, have your own currency make your own decisions or what is the point?
On the question of the pound, is there any particular reason why rUK could not let the Scots have the "asset" that is the pound and instead set up its own currency?
[A bit dry - avoid if you don't like use of words such as 'exogenous']
Here is the key paragraph:
An adjustment strategy based on the expectation that already over-indebted countries will pay back what they owe in an environment of falling prices seems doomed to failure; all the more so if “internal devaluation” at the level of individual member-states is replaced by euro-zone-wide deflation. But outright deflation would be much more costly than that. If economic historians have learned anything from the Great Depression, it is that deflation is dangerous. First, nominal wages are sticky downward: as Ben Bernanke and Kevin Carey showed for the interwar period, this implies that price deflation, if achieved at all, leads to higher real wages and unemployment. Second, deflation is harmful in other ways, increasing the real value of private as well as public debt, raising real interest rates, and leading agents to postpone expensive purchases. And interwar deflation ultimately had terrible political consequences, as well as economic ones.
I agree with you that deflation is probably the greatest risk for the whole Eurozone right now. Inflation is limping along, and adjustments in the periphery are (much) easier in a 3% inflation (-> 5% nominal growth) world.
However, the question was "why are stock markets weak?"
And given that pretty much the only markets in the world that are up right now are Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Greece (and Spain is only marginally down), it seems hard to make the case that Eurozone deflationary fears are at the heart of the falls seen in the UK, the US and the Asian markets.
By the way, Abenomics has got inflation moving in Japan - we're now at 1.5%.
OK. I concede on the original question and current index trends, but deflation is a growing and persisting threat which will influence markets over the medium term.
have your own currency make your own decisions or what is the point?
Having your own currency doesnt mean you get to make your own decisions. You can sign up to a currency union that requires fiscal discipline or you can have fiscal discipline imposed on you by the markets, there's not much difference when it comes to sovereignty so you might as well go with whatever works best.
Dave agrees with Alex that it should be a debate for Scots.
And Osborne, Hammond, May, Hague, Putin, Rajoy, all the countries that UK embassies have been instructed to brief, the UK civil service, love-bombing English celebrities and so on; pretty much everyone except that 'non Scot', David William Donald Cameron.
Make up your mind, either David William Donald Cameron is a English Home Counties Posh Boy Tory Fop or he is a Scot.
To be honest, I don't know why the SNP wants to debate Dave, he'll spank Alex Salmond silly in the debate.
The best option for Alex Salmond is to debate Darling, who is vastly overrated.
Put it this way, if Farage wanted a debate with Dave, and Dave sent William Hague or someone else, Farage would debate with whomever Dave sent.
To be fair to Rajoy, I and others have been saying for a long time, the outcome of the referendum may well be determined by Rajoy having to deal with his Catalonian secessionists, which is very unfair on Scottish secessionists.
I don't think the SNP/Alex/the Yes campaign are in the end that bothered about a debate with Cameron, entertaining as it would be (you public schoolboys and spanking, I don't know). It's about the political mileage to be got out of Dave's refusal to debate and the transparent hypocrisy of saying its a debate for Scots while using every non-Scottish power at your disposal to influence the debate. The No campaign is teetering on the edge of ridiculousness, this just adds to the ridicule.
Dave agrees with Alex that it should be a debate for Scots.
And Osborne, Hammond, May, Hague, Putin, Rajoy, all the countries that UK embassies have been instructed to brief, the UK civil service, love-bombing English celebrities and so on; pretty much everyone except that 'non Scot', David William Donald Cameron.
Make up your mind, either David William Donald Cameron is a English Home Counties Posh Boy Tory Fop or he is a Scot.
To be honest, I don't know why the SNP wants to debate Dave, he'll spank Alex Salmond silly in the debate.
The best option for Alex Salmond is to debate Darling, who is vastly overrated.
Put it this way, if Farage wanted a debate with Dave, and Dave sent William Hague or someone else, Farage would debate with whomever Dave sent.
To be fair to Rajoy, I and others have been saying for a long time, the outcome of the referendum may well be determined by Rajoy having to deal with his Catalonian secessionists, which is very unfair on Scottish secessionists.
I don't think the SNP/Alex/the Yes campaign are in the end that bothered about a debate with Cameron, entertaining as it would be (you public schoolboys and spanking, I don't know). It's about the political mileage to be got out of Dave's refusal to debate and the transparent hypocrisy of saying its a debate for Scots while using every non-Scottish power at your disposal to influence the debate. The No campaign is teetering on the edge of ridiculousness, this just adds to the ridicule.
Salmond's new found affection for the BoE and Sterling is touching. Is he now one of the "too wee, too poor, too stupid" drips?
Mr. LP, can't be certain, but I think there was no Emperor Contrarian.
Also, Eliogabalus probably should be Elagabalus. It was conflated and confused and became Heliogabalus (or known to many as that originally) because of Helios (Elagabalus was a priest or suchlike of the sun god in Edessa, or similar).
My old friend George has written me an email I thought people might be interested in:
So now we know.
Over the last few days, Ed Balls has been trying to claim that Labour 'will not duck the hard choices ahead'. They said they were serious about the economy.
But now we know that isn't true.
Analysis by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that Labour are planning to borrow and spend billions more.
The front page of yesterday's Times put the cost of Labour's secret spending spree at an extra £25bn a year.
And today, official Treasury numbers have shown the full impact of Labour's plans: a borrowing bombshell adding an additional £166bn to the country's debt in just one parliament.
Labour's plan to borrow and spend more is the single biggest risk to our economic recovery.
And it's hardworking people who would pay the price, with higher taxes funding this latest Labour spending spree.
We can't let them get away with it - tell everyone you know about Labour's plans on Facebook and Twitter today.
The choice at the next election is now clear:
The Conservatives with our long-term economic plan that is building a stronger, more competitive economy, and securing a better future for Britain.
Or the Same Old Labour Party, with no plan, no direction, and no ideas other than more spending, more borrowing and more taxes.
Don't let Labour put the recovery at risk.
Did he send it to his backbenchers? They are a much more immediate problem than the electorate and seem determined to give Ed victory on a plate.
Mr. LP, can't be certain, but I think there was no Emperor Contrarian.
Also, Eliogabalus probably should be Elagabalus. It was conflated and confused and became Heliogabalus (or known to many as that originally) because of Helios (Elagabalus was a priest or suchlike of the sun god in Edessa, or similar).
Contrarian was missed by Edward Gibbon, MD.
It was taffys who identified him by discovering his head on the flip side of a Roman coin unearthed in a famous dogging spot in Woking.
I realise that Eliogabalus is not the current orthographic favourite but you have to admit it trips off an English speaker's tongue far better than the more scholarly alternatives.
Oh, are you a convert now, Ben? Excellent. So you'll be campaigning for a flexible, responsive, hire-and-fire labour market, low taxation, small-state regulation, fracking, greater use of the private sector in delivering public services, a limited welfare state, no limits on bonuses and none of the European-style politics of envy - all those things which help the US be such a dynamic economy.
Of course, in fiscal terms they are about the same as us.
have your own currency make your own decisions or what is the point?
Having your own currency doesnt mean you get to make your own decisions. You can sign up to a currency union that requires fiscal discipline or you can have fiscal discipline imposed on you by the markets, there's not much difference when it comes to sovereignty so you might as well go with whatever works best.
Fair go, Mr. Neil, but if the Scots are happy to have their fiscal and monetary policy imposed by London why bother with independence? A currency Union with the England would mean that in any real sense of the word Scotland would not be independent. Indeed it would have less influence over its own affairs than it does now.
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
Dave agrees with Alex that it should be a debate for Scots.
And Osborne, Hammond, May, Hague, Putin, Rajoy, all the countries that UK embassies have been instructed to brief, the UK civil service, love-bombing English celebrities and so on; pretty much everyone except that 'non Scot', David William Donald Cameron.
Make up your mind, either David William Donald Cameron is a English Home Counties Posh Boy Tory Fop or he is a Scot.
To be honest, I don't know why the SNP wants to debate Dave, he'll spank Alex Salmond silly in the debate.
The best option for Alex Salmond is to debate Darling, who is vastly overrated.
Put it this way, if Farage wanted a debate with Dave, and Dave sent William Hague or someone else, Farage would debate with whomever Dave sent.
To be fair to Rajoy, I and others have been saying for a long time, the outcome of the referendum may well be determined by Rajoy having to deal with his Catalonian secessionists, which is very unfair on Scottish secessionists.
I don't think the SNP/Alex/the Yes campaign are in the end that bothered about a debate with Cameron, entertaining as it would be (you public schoolboys and spanking, I don't know). It's about the political mileage to be got out of Dave's refusal to debate and the transparent hypocrisy of saying its a debate for Scots while using every non-Scottish power at your disposal to influence the debate. The No campaign is teetering on the edge of ridiculousness, this just adds to the ridicule.
I can only explain the spanking thing after the lagershed.
Must be worrying that the ridiculous No side who are frequented by SLAB who we are reassured couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate still lead yes in the polls.
Indeed it would have less influence over its own affairs than it does now.
It has zero fiscal autonomy now (or, rather, it has chosen not to exercise what very limited fiscal autonomy it would have been allowed to date). I can only repeat my comments that shared sovereignty is as much Edinburgh dictating to the rUK as it is London dictating to Scotland (ie it's neither).
So what do you know. Unbeknownst to me Get up this morning walk down the stairs and I see something that looks very exiciting by the door. Totally unexpected it would appear a polling card has come through my door. I thought it was a bit early for the European elections to be posting. But know it's actually a council by election on 20th February. I shant be voting for the Lib Dems.
Dave agrees with Alex that it should be a debate for Scots.
And Osborne, Hammond, May, Hague, Putin, Rajoy, all the countries that UK embassies have been instructed to brief, the UK civil service, love-bombing English celebrities and so on; pretty much everyone except that 'non Scot', David William Donald Cameron.
Make up your mind, either David William Donald Cameron is a English Home Counties Posh Boy Tory Fop or he is a Scot.
To be honest, I don't know why the SNP wants to debate Dave, he'll spank Alex Salmond silly in the debate.
The best option for Alex Salmond is to debate Darling, who is vastly overrated.
Put it this way, if Farage wanted a debate with Dave, and Dave sent William Hague or someone else, Farage would debate with whomever Dave sent.
To be fair to Rajoy, I and others have been saying for a long time, the outcome of the referendum may well be determined by Rajoy having to deal with his Catalonian secessionists, which is very unfair on Scottish secessionists.
I don't think the SNP/Alex/the Yes campaign are in the end that bothered about a debate with Cameron, entertaining as it would be (you public schoolboys and spanking, I don't know). It's about the political mileage to be got out of Dave's refusal to debate and the transparent hypocrisy of saying its a debate for Scots while using every non-Scottish power at your disposal to influence the debate. The No campaign is teetering on the edge of ridiculousness, this just adds to the ridicule.
I can only explain the spanking thing after the lagershed.
Must be worrying that the ridiculous No side who are frequented by SLAB who we are reassured couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate still lead yes in the polls.
As long as the Scottish Office and Colossus Carmichael tweets carp like this, I remain quietly confident.
Objectively those odds are peculiar - perhaps just reflecting where people put their money up to now. The chance of a single outlier among the next 250 or so YG polls this year putting them at least level must be fairly good, so 6/4 for 2015+ is niggardly. By contrast, 6-1 for Q2 looks generous - perhaps the Budget will give a popularity boost for once?
Dave agrees with Alex that it should be a debate for Scots.
And Osborne, Hammond, May, Hague, Putin, Rajoy, all the countries that UK embassies have been instructed to brief, the UK civil service, love-bombing English celebrities and so on; pretty much everyone except that 'non Scot', David William Donald Cameron.
Make up your mind, either David William Donald Cameron is a English Home Counties Posh Boy Tory Fop or he is a Scot.
To be honest, I don't know why the SNP wants to debate Dave, he'll spank Alex Salmond silly in the debate.
The best option for Alex Salmond is to debate Darling, who is vastly overrated.
Put it this way, if Farage wanted a debate with Dave, and Dave sent William Hague or someone else, Farage would debate with whomever Dave sent.
To be fair to Rajoy, I and others have been saying for a long time, the outcome of the referendum may well be determined by Rajoy having to deal with his Catalonian secessionists, which is very unfair on Scottish secessionists.
I don't think the SNP/Alex/the Yes campaign are in the end that bothered about a debate with Cameron, entertaining as it would be (you public schoolboys and spanking, I don't know). It's about the political mileage to be got out of Dave's refusal to debate and the transparent hypocrisy of saying its a debate for Scots while using every non-Scottish power at your disposal to influence the debate. The No campaign is teetering on the edge of ridiculousness, this just adds to the ridicule.
I can only explain the spanking thing after the lagershed.
Must be worrying that the ridiculous No side who are frequented by SLAB who we are reassured couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate still lead yes in the polls.
As long as the Scottish Office and Colossus Carmichael tweets carp like this, I remain quietly confident.
Objectively those odds are peculiar - perhaps just reflecting where people put their money up to now. The chance of a single outlier among the next 250 or so YG polls this year putting them at least level must be fairly good, so 6/4 for 2015+ is niggardly. By contrast, 6-1 for Q2 looks generous - perhaps the Budget will give a popularity boost for once?
Alistair Shepherd @al_shepherd 2h #IP33820 Unsurprisingly convincing France to allow renegotiation of EU treaties to suit UK fails.http://bbc.in/1bEYFSF
The tory rebels will be even more keen to get those renegotiation details now. Or perhaps they have already guessed why Cammie is so reluctant to give them?
Yeah, noticed the link, ta. I imagined David Mundell printing off a copy of that article, going to the Panda House at Edinburgh Zoo and roaring 'Get that right up ye, ye black and white ****s.'
Conservative Party: "Thirsk&Malton Conservative Association have voted not to re-adopt Anne McIntosh MP as their candidate.
Most curious.
Are the Tories trying to knife this MP to make way for Cameron's Eton chum?
The local party trying to oust one of the north's only woman MPs after 17 years' service
A vote in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, will decide Anne McIntosh's fate today She was elected in 1997 and has criticised the government over floods But local party members say 11 chairman have fallen out with her In the frame to replace her is Edward Legard, 47, an Old Etonian judge ANDREW PIERCE reports on the web of intrigue in the Tories' Falkirk
Objectively those odds are peculiar - perhaps just reflecting where people put their money up to now. The chance of a single outlier among the next 250 or so YG polls this year putting them at least level must be fairly good, so 6/4 for 2015+ is niggardly. By contrast, 6-1 for Q2 looks generous - perhaps the Budget will give a popularity boost for once?
Congratulations on storming the Winter Palace. The Albion is in most capable hands.
@malcolmg: “We will see when the markets are spooked and financial reality sets in , they will be shaking in their boots.” “Rump UK will be begging for it once they accept they are whipped.”
LOL. It’s the sobriety of your arguments that makes them so compelling. You’ve got some interesting Freudian fantasies going on there with your last statement.
Mr Divvie, I personally can't wait for the interventions of Lord "I punch women police officers" Foulkes and Lord "killing nationalism stone dead" Robertson
If Legard is 47 then he and Cameron were probably in the same year at Eton. Probably senisble to have someone the same age. The trouble with older boys (Boris?) is they always tend to look down on the lads in the year groups below them.
If you've got any objections to the HS2 phase two route, then you have fourteen minutes in which to submit your objections. In other words, you've probably left it a little late ...
Interesting BBC angle on the Cameron/Hollande discussions. If you look at the headline on BBC newsfeed it says, 'Hollande rebuffs UK PM on EU reform'. Now, from quickly skimming that, I got the view that Hollande had basically told Cameron where to go.
However, when you read the detail of the article it says Hollande said, it was 'not a priority for the time being'. He also said he hopes for the UK to become part of a more 'efficient' union. That's hardly an outright rejection.
I suspect both are playing to the gallery. Cameron has to play tough-man to the French. Hollands realises he's got to be seen to be rebuffing him. But look carefully at the language and it suggests Hollande does appreciate a renegotiation is on-the-cards at some point, and France would be willing to make some changes, but that'll be behind the scenes until its concluded.
Showmanship will be the order of the day until then.
Interesting BBC angle on the Cameron/Hollande discussions. If you look at the headline on BBC newsfeed it says, 'Hollande rebuffs UK PM on EU reform'. Now, from quickly skimming that, I got the view that Hollande had basically told Cameron where to go.
However, when you read the detail of the article it says Hollande said, it was 'not a priority for the time being'. He also said he hopes for the UK to become part of a more 'efficient' union. That's hardly an outright rejection.
I suspect both are playing to the gallery. Cameron has to play tough-man to the French. Hollands realises he's got to be seen to be rebuffing him. But look carefully at the language and it suggests Hollande does appreciate a renegotiation is on-the-cards at some point, and France would be willing to make some changes, but that'll be behind the scenes until its concluded.
Showmanship will be the order of the day until then.
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
If you've got any objections to the HS2 phase two route, then you have fourteen minutes in which to submit your objections. In other words, you've probably left it a little late ...
Quite a few tweets that Ann Macintosh has been deselected....
She should have been less crap then. Democracy in action..
That she has faced three previous deselection attempts and only got on with 1 out of 12 association Chairmen rather suggests she should have seen this coming......
Quite a few tweets that Ann Macintosh has been deselected....
She should have been less crap then. Democracy in action..
That she has faced three previous deselection attempts and only got on with 1 out of 12 association Chairmen rather suggests she should have seen this coming......
The fact that she saw off two attempts might have given here some reason to hope! I'm conflicted, I dislike her politics, I found her completely disingenuous over gay marriage but she is the kind of independent, opinionated MP that we all say we like to hear speak their minds.
Not sure whether to put up a pre-season piece about the first test or wait until all testing is done. Bahrain's 19-22 February, so I might put up a piece before then and another after the third test (also Bahrain) which is 27 February-2 March.
Quite a few tweets that Ann Macintosh has been deselected....
She should have been less crap then. Democracy in action..
That she has faced three previous deselection attempts and only got on with 1 out of 12 association Chairmen rather suggests she should have seen this coming......
Sky reporting she intends to stand as a independent in 2015 if not re-selected by the Tories,
I predict a timely elevation to Baroness Thirsk and Malton in the dissolution honours and a quiet withdrawal of her candidacy threat.
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
Interesting BBC angle on the Cameron/Hollande discussions. If you look at the headline on BBC newsfeed it says, 'Hollande rebuffs UK PM on EU reform'. Now, from quickly skimming that, I got the view that Hollande had basically told Cameron where to go.
However, when you read the detail of the article it says Hollande said, it was 'not a priority for the time being'. He also said he hopes for the UK to become part of a more 'efficient' union. That's hardly an outright rejection.
I suspect both are playing to the gallery. Cameron has to play tough-man to the French. Hollands realises he's got to be seen to be rebuffing him. But look carefully at the language and it suggests Hollande does appreciate a renegotiation is on-the-cards at some point, and France would be willing to make some changes, but that'll be behind the scenes until its concluded.
Showmanship will be the order of the day until then.
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
I'm sure countries can agree on the need for reform, Cameron's problem is that many countries cant countenance a treaty change / referendum. Including those most in favour of reform (like the Dutch).
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
Interesting BBC angle on the Cameron/Hollande discussions. If you look at the headline on BBC newsfeed it says, 'Hollande rebuffs UK PM on EU reform'. Now, from quickly skimming that, I got the view that Hollande had basically told Cameron where to go.
However, when you read the detail of the article it says Hollande said, it was 'not a priority for the time being'. He also said he hopes for the UK to become part of a more 'efficient' union. That's hardly an outright rejection.
I suspect both are playing to the gallery. Cameron has to play tough-man to the French. Hollands realises he's got to be seen to be rebuffing him. But look carefully at the language and it suggests Hollande does appreciate a renegotiation is on-the-cards at some point, and France would be willing to make some changes, but that'll be behind the scenes until its concluded.
Showmanship will be the order of the day until then.
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
I'm sure countries can agree on the need for reform, Cameron's problem is that many countries cant countenance a treaty change / referendum. Including those most in favour of reform (like the Dutch).
The next step by Cameron is a commitment by the major EU powers to enter into serious discussions about the future role of the EU, its structure and powers.
That shouldn't be a hard sell.
As for the timetable, there are many beasts of burden willing to carry goalposts.
Wythenshawe and Sale East SoPN Address given by candidates
UKIP: Eddisbury constituency OMRLP: Wythenshawe and Sale East Con: Stretford and Urmston LD: Wythenshawe and Sale East Lab: Wythenshawe and Sale East BNP: Salford and Eccles Green: Stretford and Urmston
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that Germany would acquiese in any treaty change that allowed the UK to leave or modify aspects of the ECHR from inside the EU, or are you saying Germany would oppose any such changes in all circumstances?
@malcolmg: “We will see when the markets are spooked and financial reality sets in , they will be shaking in their boots.” “Rump UK will be begging for it once they accept they are whipped.”
LOL. It’s the sobriety of your arguments that makes them so compelling. You’ve got some interesting Freudian fantasies going on there with your last statement.
Thank you for your penetrating insight. By Freudian theory Malcolm has left the Oral Phase and is now encountering the Anal/Sadistic Phase which is typical of three year olds.
Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens' Prince Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, labels climate change deniers the 'headless chicken brigade'
Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens' Prince Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, labels climate change deniers the 'headless chicken brigade'
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that Germany would acquiese in any treaty change that allowed the UK to leave or modify aspects of the ECHR from inside the EU, or are you saying Germany would oppose any such changes in all circumstances?
I'm clearly missing the ambiguity in OGH Junior's writing, as it reads pretty clearly to me. Germany will not oppose, will not stand in the way of, and will not make any fuss that may be construed as getting in the way of said change.
They will be largely indifferent and will let the change pass with not so much as a raised Teutonic brow.
Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens' Prince Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, labels climate change deniers the 'headless chicken brigade'
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that Germany would acquiese in any treaty change that allowed the UK to leave or modify aspects of the ECHR from inside the EU, or are you saying Germany would oppose any such changes in all circumstances?
I'm clearly missing the ambiguity in OGH Junior's writing, as it reads pretty clearly to me. Germany will not oppose, will not stand in the way of, and will not make any fuss that may be construed as getting in the way of said change.
They will be largely indifferent and will let the change pass with not so much as a raised Teutonic brow.
I'm pleased you understand it so clearly, Anorak. Perhaps I'm tired, perhaps I'm not reading it properly. Perhaps I'm not very bright. It just seemed out of character for rcs1000 to say that given past comments made on the EU, and my post, and the statement being made in the negative confused me.
If it is the case that rcs1000 meant that, then I agree with him.
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that Germany would acquiese in any treaty change that allowed the UK to leave or modify aspects of the ECHR from inside the EU, or are you saying Germany would oppose any such changes in all circumstances?
I'm clearly missing the ambiguity in OGH Junior's writing, as it reads pretty clearly to me. Germany will not oppose, will not stand in the way of, and will not make any fuss that may be construed as getting in the way of said change.
They will be largely indifferent and will let the change pass with not so much as a raised Teutonic brow.
I'm pleased you understand it so clearly, Anorak. Perhaps I'm tired, perhaps I'm not reading it properly. Perhaps I'm not very bright. It just seemed out of character for rcs1000 to say that given past comments made on the EU, and my post, and the statement being made in the negative confused me.
If it is the case that rcs1000 meant that, then I agree with him.
I could be wrong. It's been one of those days, to be honest. Three glasses of wine at lunch have lead to a very, very long afternoon.
[which is a roundabout way of apologising for my tone]
I will bet anyone around that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that unpicks membership of the ECHR and the EU.
What do you mean by that?
Current treaties require that members of the EU are also signatories to the EHCR. I believe that Germany will not oppose a treaty change that would allow members of the EU to leave the ECHR. (Or more specifically, membership of the EU would no longer require being a signed up member of the ECHR.)
I'm not sure I understand you correctly: are you saying that Germany would acquiese in any treaty change that allowed the UK to leave or modify aspects of the ECHR from inside the EU, or are you saying Germany would oppose any such changes in all circumstances?
I'm clearly missing the ambiguity in OGH Junior's writing, as it reads pretty clearly to me. Germany will not oppose, will not stand in the way of, and will not make any fuss that may be construed as getting in the way of said change.
They will be largely indifferent and will let the change pass with not so much as a raised Teutonic brow.
I'm pleased you understand it so clearly, Anorak. Perhaps I'm tired, perhaps I'm not reading it properly. Perhaps I'm not very bright. It just seemed out of character for rcs1000 to say that given past comments made on the EU, and my post, and the statement being made in the negative confused me.
If it is the case that rcs1000 meant that, then I agree with him.
I could be wrong. It's been one of those days, to be honest. Three glasses of wine at lunch have lead to a very, very long afternoon.
[which is a roundabout way of apologising for my tone]
Don't worry about it. Just off for a few jars myself. Have a good one.
Little-known fact about Anne McIntosh: she's half-Danish. We were lynchpins of the all-party Danish group, together with the Wintertons. We all fell out when I criticised Mrs Winterton for telling a dodgy joke at a meeting with a Danish company in London. But AM was a competent, mild-mannered MP and I'm sorry she's apparently come to a sticky end.
Wythenshawe and Sale East SoPN Address given by candidates
UKIP: Eddisbury constituency OMRLP: Wythenshawe and Sale East Con: Stretford and Urmston LD: Wythenshawe and Sale East Lab: Wythenshawe and Sale East BNP: Salford and Eccles Green: Stretford and Urmston
Not sure it matters to many voters. My address on the ballot paper in 1997 was a thousand miles away, in Switzerland. We were a bit nervous about it but nobody commented. As soon as i moved to the constituency, my support started to decline. There's a lesson in there somerwhere.
If you've got any objections to the HS2 phase two route, then you have fourteen minutes in which to submit your objections. In other words, you've probably left it a little late ...
Absolutely. This doesn't ask for an opinion on the project as a whole but comments on the route, so I raised a string of queries that constituents requested.
Comments
So now we know.
Over the last few days, Ed Balls has been trying to claim that Labour 'will not duck the hard choices ahead'. They said they were serious about the economy.
But now we know that isn't true.
Analysis by the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that Labour are planning to borrow and spend billions more.
The front page of yesterday's Times put the cost of Labour's secret spending spree at an extra £25bn a year.
And today, official Treasury numbers have shown the full impact of Labour's plans: a borrowing bombshell adding an additional £166bn to the country's debt in just one parliament.
Labour's plan to borrow and spend more is the single biggest risk to our economic recovery.
And it's hardworking people who would pay the price, with higher taxes funding this latest Labour spending spree.
We can't let them get away with it - tell everyone you know about Labour's plans on Facebook and Twitter today.
The choice at the next election is now clear:
The Conservatives with our long-term economic plan that is building a stronger, more competitive economy, and securing a better future for Britain.
Or the Same Old Labour Party, with no plan, no direction, and no ideas other than more spending, more borrowing and more taxes.
Don't let Labour put the recovery at risk.
More from @NHoultCricket - Pietersen could be next to go after Flower, with ECB also concerned by Cook's captaincy http://fw.to/0CGTkgc
"When will YouGov show Conservatives level with or leading Labour?"
2014:
Q1: 5/2
Q2: 6/1
Q3: 3/1
Q4: 11/2
Not before 2015: 6/4
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/other-politics/uk-politics/When-will-YouGov-show-Conservatives-level-with-or-leading-Labour?-6450712.html
Sochi appears to be living up to the Olympic ideal:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/01/sochis-olympic-village-is-half-built-and-full-of-trash/
I don't think the SNP/Alex/the Yes campaign are in the end that bothered about a debate with Cameron, entertaining as it would be (you public schoolboys and spanking, I don't know). It's about the political mileage to be got out of Dave's refusal to debate and the transparent hypocrisy of saying its a debate for Scots while using every non-Scottish power at your disposal to influence the debate. The No campaign is teetering on the edge of ridiculousness, this just adds to the ridicule.
The charm of Russia has never lain in the similarity of its urban landscape to Germany.
So Ed is the true cause of the current turmoil in the equity markets.
Both Robert and I missed that one.
Thanks for the heads up.
To be fair, Ben's economic medicine is working well in Argentina and France....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25976377
If Auntie has noticed it, it must be true, Pulpstar.
Also, Eliogabalus probably should be Elagabalus. It was conflated and confused and became Heliogabalus (or known to many as that originally) because of Helios (Elagabalus was a priest or suchlike of the sun god in Edessa, or similar).
It was taffys who identified him by discovering his head on the flip side of a Roman coin unearthed in a famous dogging spot in Woking.
I realise that Eliogabalus is not the current orthographic favourite but you have to admit it trips off an English speaker's tongue far better than the more scholarly alternatives.
Of course, in fiscal terms they are about the same as us.
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.
*chortle*
*chortle*
Popcorn time.
Must be worrying that the ridiculous No side who are frequented by SLAB who we are reassured couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate still lead yes in the polls.
TheScotlandOffice @ScotlandOffice 57 mins
Want to know what @acarmichaelmp's favourite song is? Find out in this week's newsletter - alongside #indyref news. http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=9531c274a02d7c00a0acc8d4e&id=42e745067c …
I put your link into Tuesday's nighthawks.
Wasn't Contrarian a usurper who failed to defeat Emperor Obversius?
Or perhaps they have already guessed why Cammie is so reluctant to give them?
*chortle*
Pork
The EU Referendum Bill was the equivalent of a "Buckeye Nut". [1]
See: http://bit.ly/1dSAeRq
Similar to a conker or chestnut, it can be spread across feeding grounds as an enticement to the gullible.
But, if eaten untreated, it is deadly poison.
[1] Not to be confused with "Buckie", equally poisonous, but a liquid and, in certain places, a national drink.
Something about Never Gonna Give You Up seems apt.
Just watching Wednesdays Great British Railway Journey's...
ft Ilford & Upminster!
Yeah, noticed the link, ta. I imagined David Mundell printing off a copy of that article, going to the Panda House at Edinburgh Zoo and roaring 'Get that right up ye, ye black and white ****s.'
0-0 for Chelsea / City on Monday. Delicious bus parking after the special one's burst vs spanners.
13-1 for that.
The Hud to score vs Spurs too probably good bet also (23-2)
The EU Referendum Bill was the equivalent of a "Buckeye Nut". [1]
See: http://bit.ly/1dSAeRq
Similar to a conker or chestnut, it can be spread across feeding grounds as an enticement to the gullible.
But, if eaten untreated, it is deadly poison.
[1] Not to be confused with "Buckie", equally poisonous, but a liquid and, in certain places, a national drink.
You are right, Porky."When will they ever learn"?
Only UKIP will give the British people a true referendum on Europe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25979148
“We will see when the markets are spooked and financial reality sets in , they will be shaking in their boots.”
“Rump UK will be begging for it once they accept they are whipped.”
LOL. It’s the sobriety of your arguments that makes them so compelling. You’ve got some interesting Freudian fantasies going on there with your last statement.
http://bit.ly/1aMVr53
Now if I owned that I might even be prepared to hang it in the Great Hall in place of Raphael's oil painting of 'St. George Slaying the Deficit'.
If you've got any objections to the HS2 phase two route, then you have fourteen minutes in which to submit your objections. In other words, you've probably left it a little late ...
Has anyone here submitted anything?
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/HS2PhaseTwoconsultation
However, when you read the detail of the article it says Hollande said, it was 'not a priority for the time being'. He also said he hopes for the UK to become part of a more 'efficient' union. That's hardly an outright rejection.
I suspect both are playing to the gallery. Cameron has to play tough-man to the French. Hollands realises he's got to be seen to be rebuffing him. But look carefully at the language and it suggests Hollande does appreciate a renegotiation is on-the-cards at some point, and France would be willing to make some changes, but that'll be behind the scenes until its concluded.
Showmanship will be the order of the day until then.
She should have been less crap then. Democracy in action..
'Only UKIP will give the British people a true referendum on Europe'
Will anyone still be alive?
I predict a timely elevation to Baroness Thirsk and Malton in the dissolution honours and a quiet withdrawal of her candidacy threat.
Give him time for the surgeons to remove his eyepatches.
Add a zero.
That shouldn't be a hard sell.
As for the timetable, there are many beasts of burden willing to carry goalposts.
Address given by candidates
UKIP: Eddisbury constituency
OMRLP: Wythenshawe and Sale East
Con: Stretford and Urmston
LD: Wythenshawe and Sale East
Lab: Wythenshawe and Sale East
BNP: Salford and Eccles
Green: Stretford and Urmston
I am *shocked* ... you are days late with the SOPN!!!!
By Freudian theory Malcolm has left the Oral Phase and is now encountering the Anal/Sadistic Phase which is typical of three year olds.
Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens'
Prince Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, labels climate change deniers the 'headless chicken brigade'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10610108/Prince-Charles-climate-change-deniers-are-headless-chickens.html
I didn't want to check back if you have analyzed the road the candidates live in..or have found a willing house to register themselves in
They will be largely indifferent and will let the change pass with not so much as a raised Teutonic brow.
http://tinyurl.com/pezfdnw
If it is the case that rcs1000 meant that, then I agree with him.
[which is a roundabout way of apologising for my tone]
That might make it more interesting!
UKIP got 6.6% in 2010, which would have been one of their better results.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/thirskandmalton/
It may also be unwise to espouse them publicly.
Absolutely. This doesn't ask for an opinion on the project as a whole but comments on the route, so I raised a string of queries that constituents requested.