Miliband (or Cameron, alas) would claim the banking union doesn't transfer powers away from us (true de jure but not de facto) and therefore doesn't warrant a vote.
I'm not discussing referendum locks - I'm merely pointing out that, should Denmark, Sweden, and the UK gang up and refuse to accept Banking Union without xxx, then they would have quite a lot of bargaining power.
The only way to get anything out of the Conservative Party is to hold their feet to the fire.
Put another way, UKIP does not need to gain seats in the house to get what it wants; it needs to deny seats to other parties. A conservative seat lost to Labour is just as lost as one lost to UKIP.
It seems very likely to me that there will be a new treaty in the 2015-2020 period. The EZ crisis has demonstrated a number of serious flaws in the current treaties and have resulted in a series of tiresome cases in Germany about the legality of what has been done.
The EZ countries need to integrate more deeply if the euro is to become fully functional. In particular they will want to ensure that no country in the future is allowed to get to the point that Greece got to before intervention is possible.
It seems a reasonable quid pro quo from that that countries such as the UK which are not in the euro should have certain protections built in, probably some tweeking of the qualified majority rule so that the euro bloc cannot force things through without outside support.
A treaty along these lines will not transfer UK sovereignty to the EU, it might even do the reverse. Presumably in Ed's mind such a treaty would not trigger a referendum even although the future shape of the EU will have changed once again with the core being ever more integrated?
I think Labour are gambling that the vast majority of the population just don't care. And they are probably right.
North London Collegiate, btw, is one of the two best private girls schools in the country.
I knew someone who came from a highly disfunctional family who managed to win a scholarship to North London Collegiate. Her father turned up with her to visit the school and vowed he'd never send her there because it was "full of y*ds."
Was that SeanT's daughter?
LOL!
The father was a rich, self-made builder, who'd left school at 14, and couldn't really see the point of education. And he hated Jews.
Miliband (or Cameron, alas) would claim the banking union doesn't transfer powers away from us (true de jure but not de facto) and therefore doesn't warrant a vote.
I'm not discussing referendum locks - I'm merely pointing out that, should Denmark, Sweden, and the UK gang up and refuse to accept Banking Union without xxx, then they would have quite a lot of bargaining power.
Possibly, but I imagine there are quite a few ways for the eurozone bloc to do other things to discomfort and damage the UK ( or the other refuseniks). 18 countries will always be able to outmanoeuvre 3.
I like to think I follow politics quite closely but can anyone explain to me in very basic simple English exactly what Ed Miliband's policy on Europe is ?
Seems clear to me. 1. If there's a discussion of a Treaty in the next Parliament, then he'd favour the changes he mentioned (slower transition, less access to benefits). 2. However, he doesn't expect a Treaty in 2015-20. 3. In the very unlikely event that there's a Treaty which transfers more power to Brussels, he'll put it to an in/out referendum.
Seems clear, whether one agrees or not. The changes he proposes are not large. He's almost certainly right that there won't be a Treaty before 2020, and if there is it's unlikely we'd agree to one that surrenders more powers. However, if we did, there'd be an in/out referendum.
Obviously doesn't meet the demands of folk who want a referendum with or without a treaty. Nor, at present, does Cameron, since he's clinging to the line that he "hopes" there will be a Treaty to vote on in 2017, and hasn't said what he'll do if there isn't. That's the Cadbury's policy, which will presumably be modified before 2015 since by then it will be really obvious that we're not 2 years from a Treaty to vote on.
All well and good unless a treaty comes along. Then he's in a spot.
Real paucity of ambition from Ed.
The EU was such a great success during the Credit Crunch of course that there can be no possible improvements that anyone could suggest. And we now have a eurozone bloc that will be able to impose its will on the non-euro countries and come up with all sorts of regulation to disadvantage the outsider countries.
Yeah, but that cuts both ways. Non Eurozone countries can block a banking union in the EZ. Without banking union the EZ will not survive the next crisis.
Can't the Eurozone countries (or even a subset of them) bolt on an Enhanced Cooperation thing?
That said, I doubt the main political fissure in the EU is going to be Euro in vs out, and the ins won't be very interested in ganging up on the outs, so they won't mind tweaking the voting to make it official that some future government wouldn't be allowed to do that if they wanted to.
The difficult part of this (hypothetical) treaty is going to be getting it past the countries it actually affects: Voters who have to pay for it, and the voters of the countries that have to let some foreigner have a veto on their budgets.
The only way to get anything out of the Conservative Party is to hold their feet to the fire.
Put another way, UKIP does not need to gain seats in the house to get what it wants; it needs to deny seats to other parties. A conservative seat lost to Labour is just as lost as one lost to UKIP.
Except Labour will have already pissed all over the fire, on their way to Brussels....
Miliband (or Cameron, alas) would claim the banking union doesn't transfer powers away from us (true de jure but not de facto) and therefore doesn't warrant a vote.
I'm not discussing referendum locks - I'm merely pointing out that, should Denmark, Sweden, and the UK gang up and refuse to accept Banking Union without xxx, then they would have quite a lot of bargaining power.
Possibly, but I imagine there are quite a few ways for the eurozone bloc to do other things to discomfort and damage the UK ( or the other refuseniks). 18 countries will always be able to outmanoeuvre 3.
They want something. We have the power to prevent it. If they deliberately tried to damage British interests as a negotiation ploy, I would have thought brexit (which many euro members wish to avoid) would be inevitable and near instant.
This was the first PMQs I've seen for a few weeks. My verdict:
Clegg knocked Harman out of the park during her questions. He was less able during backbench questions. Since the deputy leaders questions will take prominence on the news, it was a distinct win for Clegg.
As someone on DP said: how come Harman, or any Labour figures, not bring up Crow's death? It was left to an SNP MP.
1 + 99 = 100 2 + 98 = 100 etc for 49 pairs. 49 x 2 is just 98 and 1-99 has 99 numbers, obviously, so one more is left over (50, I think. Still sleepy, so I could well be wrong).
Is the right answer.
Phrased thus, to express the question is very nearly to state the answer. The positive integers under are 1 to 99; 1 and 99 make a pair that adds to 100, as do 2 and 98, 3 and 97, etc.
There are 49 such pairs ending at 49 and 51.
So there are 49 hundreds and the 50, which is 4950.
Another way to do it is to work out that the average number under 100 is 1 plus 99 over 2. If the average value is 50, the total is then 50 x 99, which is most easily found as 50 x 100 less 50.
I'm pleased to say my daughter answered it correctly.
Your original question was: "Without using a calculator, pencil or paper, what's the sum of all the integers under 100? "
Since you did not mention positive integers, surely the answer should be a massively low negative integer, somewhere about 4950 below infinity, or infinity itself?
1.30 Red Sherlock win at 5/1 2.05 Morning Assembly win at 15/2 2.40 Bayan each way at 12/1; 5 places 3.20 Captain Conan win at 5/1 4.00 A Stray Shot each way at 25/1 4.40 Dawalan win at 15/2 5.15 Modus win at 11/1
So because we have one poll where it looks like staying in the EU might be the outcome then it's totally fine to deny the electorate a chance on voting on it?
1 + 99 = 100 2 + 98 = 100 etc for 49 pairs. 49 x 2 is just 98 and 1-99 has 99 numbers, obviously, so one more is left over (50, I think. Still sleepy, so I could well be wrong).
Is the right answer.
Phrased thus, to express the question is very nearly to state the answer. The positive integers under are 1 to 99; 1 and 99 make a pair that adds to 100, as do 2 and 98, 3 and 97, etc.
There are 49 such pairs ending at 49 and 51.
So there are 49 hundreds and the 50, which is 4950.
Another way to do it is to work out that the average number under 100 is 1 plus 99 over 2. If the average value is 50, the total is then 50 x 99, which is most easily found as 50 x 100 less 50.
I'm pleased to say my daughter answered it correctly.
Your original question was: "Without using a calculator, pencil or paper, what's the sum of all the integers under 100? "
Since you did not mention positive integers, surely the answer should be a massively low negative integer, somewhere about 4950 below infinity, or infinity itself?
There's at least two flaws in what I wrote above, due to lax English on my part: It would be a massively low negative integer, somewhere about 4950 abovenegative infinity, or negative infinity itself?
So because we have one poll where it looks like staying in the EU might be the outcome then it's totally fine to deny the electorate a chance on voting on it?
Eh?
Yes.
Regardless of the polls it's "totally fine" to deny the electorate a referendum. Parliament should decide.
So because we have one poll where it looks like staying in the EU might be the outcome then it's totally fine to deny the electorate a chance on voting on it?
Eh?
Yes.
Regardless of the polls it's "totally fine" to deny the electorate a referendum. Parliament should decide.
Even a parliament that got voted in after promising a referendum?
Absolutely. They endorsed me, explicitly by name, as one of the dozen or so Labour candidates to vote for in order to reduce Parliamentary europhilia. They didn't ask me my views or anything like that, I was just Not A Europhile Tory. It was a sort of early Kipper strategy - purge the evil Tory europhiles, replace them by whoever.
Hmm He is essentially betting on there being no treaty, so as his policy on the counterfactual can't be tested ?
All well and good unless a treaty comes along. Then he's in a spot.
Not really. Firstly Treaties don't just come along, like bolts of lightning. The British government has to agree with them. The chances of Miliband agreeing to one that transfers more powers to Brussels in his first term? Not high, I suggest. Secondly, pace DavidL on this point, it really isn't very likely before 2020. I read a lot of Continental papers, as you'd expect of an evil europhile. The number that I've seen that are suggesting that a discussion of a new Treaty is coming any time soon (let alone an agreement) is zero. The time from a general agreement that a treaty needs to be discussed to actually having one to vote on which all 20+ governments like is normally around 4-5 years.
It was different in mid-crisis - there was then some serious, if vague, speculation. It's gone away, and basically nobody wants the hassle. This is in fact a valid criticism of the EU - the system is impossibly slow in making even sensible changes that everyone would like.
Got to disagree JackW, some issues really need to be voted on independently of other domestic issues at a GE. And like Devolution or the upcoming Independence Referendum, our membership of the EU is another that has to be voted on in this way.
I find it absolutely stunning that every part of the UK bar England, and just about the whole of the rest of Europe can be trusted to be given a referendum on vital issues like devolution or joining the Eurozone. And yet, we have a main stream party in the form of the Labour party at Westminster who seems hell bent on avoiding ever giving that part of the UK a referendum in case they vote the wrong way. Seant is right, regardless of how engaged the voters are over the issue of Europe, they are going start getting even more fed up and disconnected from a political elite in their Parliament who claim to want to engage with them, but won't trust them to a vote in a referendum on a single issue.
So because we have one poll where it looks like staying in the EU might be the outcome then it's totally fine to deny the electorate a chance on voting on it?
Eh?
Yes.
Regardless of the polls it's "totally fine" to deny the electorate a referendum. Parliament should decide.
Obviously doesn't meet the demands of folk who want a referendum with or without a treaty. Nor, at present, does Cameron, since he's clinging to the line that he "hopes" there will be a Treaty to vote on in 2017, and hasn't said what he'll do if there isn't.
This is completely wrong. Cameron has pledged absolutely that there will be a referendum by the end of 2017, if there is a Conservative majority - in fact, even if there isn't and Cameron is PM. What's more, there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that the Conservative Party would not hold him to that.
In the very unlikely event that there is no progress at all on renegotiation, there would still be a referendum. UKIP voters therefore have a simple choice; if they want the opportunity to leave the EU, they should vote Conservative. If they don't they should vote UKIP, LibDem or Labour.
Scotland’s finances are almost £300 per person deeper in the red than the UK’s, according to figures unveiled by Alex Salmond today that prompted warnings taxes would increase after independence.
The point has been made that the UK voter doesn't give a t8ss, and that's probably correct.
However, the voter may not want it to be assumed they don't give a toss. The attitude of 'our voters would care more if we denied them a vote on the X Factor' may perhaps be a bit toxic.
On this morning's mathematics issue aside from some fairly basic statistics how much mathematics taught beyond the third form does the average person need to know? Most people in most jobs can get through life quite happily with just primary school arithmatic. Of course being able to do sums mentally at least to estimation standard would stop them getting ripped off as would an understanding of percentages and a better understanding of statistics might help in stopping politicians and lobby groups getting away with some of their more blatant misrepresentations. So if 50% of the adult population has the mathematical ability expected of 14 year olds or even 11 year olds, is that in itself a terrible thing.
The problem lies perhaps with the fact that without a solid training in mid-level mathematics so many professions and well paying jobs are going to be closed to otherwise bright children. Poor teaching of basic maths will blight the career prospects of many youngsters, perhaps that is where the scandal lies.
What should be taught is up for debate, but I note up-thread that the current A level paper still has emphasis on calculus. Why? The number of people that will need to be able to use Calculus in their lives is very small. The number of people who will benefit from Statistics is much much larger, in fact for an educated person it is probably universal. Yet Stats is an option and Calculus is a core subject. Being able to do Calculus seems to be the mathematical community's machismo, a rite of passage. It is of no more practical value than my own beloved number theory. Surely, like Complex Analysis calculus could be shuffled up to Uni and its place taken with subjects that will be of more direct use to more students. Its time that the mathematical education establishment joined the modern world.
Excellent post. I could not agree more. Never come across calculus since I studied economics at university (where they explained the point of it for the first time). Statistical analysis is very important in so much science and pseudoscience presented to the courts.
Got to disagree JackW, some issues really need to be voted on independently of other domestic issues at a GE. And like Devolution or the upcoming Independence Referendum, our membership of the EU is another that has to be voted on in this way.
I find it absolutely stunning that every part of the UK bar England, and just about the whole of the rest of Europe can be trusted to be given a referendum on vital issues like devolution or joining the Eurozone. And yet, we have a main stream party in the form of the Labour party at Westminster who seems hell bent on avoiding ever giving that part of the UK a referendum in case they vote the wrong way. Seant is right, regardless of how engaged the voters are over the issue of Europe, they are going start getting even more fed up and disconnected from a political elite in their Parliament who claim to want to engage with them, but won't trust them to a vote in a referendum on a single issue.
So because we have one poll where it looks like staying in the EU might be the outcome then it's totally fine to deny the electorate a chance on voting on it?
Eh?
Yes.
Regardless of the polls it's "totally fine" to deny the electorate a referendum. Parliament should decide.
A referendum would also have the positive effect - for Tories - of lancing the EU boil, whatever the result. I think a lot of euroscepticism is just frustration at all the different ways we have not been asked, and all the many lies we have been told en route, and all the devious methods pols have used to deny us a say.
Given the chance to vent their anger the people would probably offer an irritable Yes - or In - then sigh with relief that the issue was now finished for 20 years. Apart from extreme hardcore sceptics, the Tory neurosis on this issue would thus be resolved for a generation.
But of course it's in Miliband's narrow partisan interests (does he have any other kind?) to keep Tories kvetching on this, so again it is tactically sound for him to deny a vote. However - - as I've said upthread - it is strategically very dangerous, for europhiles, in the long run.
I must admit, from a purely tactical perspective, I don't see why Cameron doesn't simply call a referendum now "to give me the mandate to negotiate with the other members of the EU".
I must admit, from a purely tactical perspective, I don't see why Cameron doesn't simply call a referendum now "to give me the mandate to negotiate with the other members of the EU".
Firstly because the LibDems and/or the Lords would kill it, and secondly because he's saving that move in case he unexpectedly wins another term and needs to use it in 2017.
Got to disagree JackW, some issues really need to be voted on independently of other domestic issues at a GE. And like Devolution or the upcoming Independence Referendum, our membership of the EU is another that has to be voted on in this way.
I find it absolutely stunning that every part of the UK bar England, and just about the whole of the rest of Europe can be trusted to be given a referendum on vital issues like devolution or joining the Eurozone. And yet, we have a main stream party in the form of the Labour party at Westminster who seems hell bent on avoiding ever giving that part of the UK a referendum in case they vote the wrong way. Seant is right, regardless of how engaged the voters are over the issue of Europe, they are going start getting even more fed up and disconnected from a political elite in their Parliament who claim to want to engage with them, but won't trust them to a vote in a referendum on a single issue.
So because we have one poll where it looks like staying in the EU might be the outcome then it's totally fine to deny the electorate a chance on voting on it?
Eh?
Yes.
Regardless of the polls it's "totally fine" to deny the electorate a referendum. Parliament should decide.
I must admit, from a purely tactical perspective, I don't see why Cameron doesn't simply call a referendum now "to give me the mandate to negotiate with the other members of the EU".
Well on one level it would be presumptious as the decision of who will negotiate on our behalf will be made in 2015.
But on another level I agree. The argument about membership of the EU is not at all likely to be swayed by the extension of QMV in Lisbon or any other treaty. Membership of the EU is a moveable feast and it is in the nature of the beast that it will evolve or change over time.
The fundamental question is do we want to share sovereignty in this way or not? The details really don't matter and it is somewhat disingenuous to argue that the issue is so finely balanced that if Cameron comes back with a deal on fishing or the Social Chapter that is going to be the thing that swings it one way or the other.
I must admit, from a purely tactical perspective, I don't see why Cameron doesn't simply call a referendum now "to give me the mandate to negotiate with the other members of the EU".
Firstly because the LibDems and/or the Lords would kill it, and secondly because he's saving that move in case he unexpectedly wins another term and needs to use it in 2017.
1. If the LibDems and Labour kill it, all the better for Cameron.
2. That's probably true. But if he uses it now, he won't be under such a gun to have a referendum in 2017. "We are still negotiating we our European neighbours. As you can see from our 2014 referendum, we are not afraid to offer the people of Britain a choice. However, until the ink is dry, it would be precipitous to go to the country."
it is somewhat disingenuous to argue that the issue is so finely balanced that if Cameron comes back with a deal on fishing or the Social Chapter that is going to be the thing that swings it one way or the other.
While that's true, I think it changes the narrative - for the person putting the referendum forward, at least - to "we talk, and Europe listens". It gives the impression (probably wrongly) that we are shaping the future direction of Europe.
I must admit, from a purely tactical perspective, I don't see why Cameron doesn't simply call a referendum now "to give me the mandate to negotiate with the other members of the EU".
a) I'm not sure he wants to. Whilst he's not a Eurofanatic of the Clegg ilk, or just a Europhile of the Miliband kind, I think Cameron's cautious of this sort of change. In other words, he's slightly conservative.
b) Timing. The Scottish Indy referendum is in September, and he would not want to muddy those waters with a EU referendum before or coinciding. Then there are only eight or nine months before the GE, during which he probably wouldn't want a referendum hanging around. Add in a Scottish 'yes' vote, and it becomes exceptionally muddy. He'd be mad to have the uncertainty of a second referendum hanging around before 2015.
c) It would surely depend on the Lib Dems as well, and I doubt they'd vote for one. With Labour and the Lib Dem being against, as well as possibly some Tories, he won't get a referendum bill through parliament.
Factors b & c will be less troublesome after GE2015. Therefore if you want a referendum on the EU, then the Conservatives are the only way to vote at GE2015.
On this morning's mathematics issue aside from some fairly basic statistics how much mathematics taught beyond the third form does the average person need to know? Most people in most jobs can get through life quite happily with just primary school arithmatic. Of course being able to do sums mentally at least to estimation standard would stop them getting ripped off as would an understanding of percentages and a better understanding of statistics might help in stopping politicians and lobby groups getting away with some of their more blatant misrepresentations. So if 50% of the adult population has the mathematical ability expected of 14 year olds or even 11 year olds, is that in itself a terrible thing.
The problem lies perhaps with the fact that without a solid training in mid-level mathematics so many professions and well paying jobs are going to be closed to otherwise bright children. Poor teaching of basic maths will blight the career prospects of many youngsters, perhaps that is where the scandal lies.
What should be taught is up for debate, but I note up-thread that the current A level paper still has emphasis on calculus. Why? The number of people that will need to be able to use Calculus in their lives is very small. The number of people who will benefit from Statistics is much much larger, in fact for an educated person it is probably universal. Yet Stats is an option and Calculus is a core subject. Being able to do Calculus seems to be the mathematical community's machismo, a rite of passage. It is of no more practical value than my own beloved number theory. Surely, like Complex Analysis calculus could be shuffled up to Uni and its place taken with subjects that will be of more direct use to more students. Its time that the mathematical education establishment joined the modern world.
Without for a moment wishing to deny your point re stats, which I always regret was not part of my own Maths A-level, you do say you are talking about an A level paper, so there is some selection already. Do people do calculus at the current equivalent of O level nowadays?
I would also think that some calculus is arguably necessary at A level/6th form, for instance in understanding the dynamics of motion, which involve integral and differential calculus. I did actually end up using mine on occasion for university and since - it's more the lack of stats that was a pity (though I suppose I could have remedied that with an additional course, so it's my own fault too).
Got to disagree JackW, some issues really need to be voted on independently of other domestic issues at a GE. And like Devolution or the upcoming Independence Referendum, our membership of the EU is another that has to be voted on in this way.
I find it absolutely stunning that every part of the UK bar England, and just about the whole of the rest of Europe can be trusted to be given a referendum on vital issues like devolution or joining the Eurozone. And yet, we have a main stream party in the form of the Labour party at Westminster who seems hell bent on avoiding ever giving that part of the UK a referendum in case they vote the wrong way. Seant is right, regardless of how engaged the voters are over the issue of Europe, they are going start getting even more fed up and disconnected from a political elite in their Parliament who claim to want to engage with them, but won't trust them to a vote in a referendum on a single issue.
So because we have one poll where it looks like staying in the EU might be the outcome then it's totally fine to deny the electorate a chance on voting on it?
Eh?
Yes.
Regardless of the polls it's "totally fine" to deny the electorate a referendum. Parliament should decide.
I must admit, from a purely tactical perspective, I don't see why Cameron doesn't simply call a referendum now "to give me the mandate to negotiate with the other members of the EU".
Well on one level it would be presumptious as the decision of who will negotiate on our behalf will be made in 2015.
But on another level I agree. The argument about membership of the EU is not at all likely to be swayed by the extension of QMV in Lisbon or any other treaty. Membership of the EU is a moveable feast and it is in the nature of the beast that it will evolve or change over time.
The fundamental question is do we want to share sovereignty in this way or not? The details really don't matter and it is somewhat disingenuous to argue that the issue is so finely balanced that if Cameron comes back with a deal on fishing or the Social Chapter that is going to be the thing that swings it one way or the other.
I would guess that Cameron does not want to call a referendum now for two reasons.
Firstly, he doesn't want to spend the run-up to the General Election obsessing about Europe, an issue of marginal importance to the swing voters who will decide the election in the marginal constituencies. He would prefer to be seen to be concentrating on more important issues.
Secondly, he probably does not have the votes in Parliament to call a referendum.
a) I'm not sure he wants to. Whilst he's not a Eurofanatic of the Clegg ilk, or just a Europhile of the Miliband kind, I think Cameron's cautious of this sort of change. In other words, he's slightly conservative.
He would still be offering a 2017 referendum - it would just seem a much more realistic prospect from someone who had already offered a referendum.
Scotland’s finances are almost £300 per person deeper in the red than the UK’s, according to figures unveiled by Alex Salmond today that prompted warnings taxes would increase after independence.
MS Vance, The figures unveiled by Mr. Salmond demonstrate beyond all shadow of a doubt that an independent Scotland would be one of the wealthiest countries on the planet (on a per capita basis) and will have more than adequate capability to save up for a rainy day.
Mr. Salmond's announcement is being misrepresented and spun by Tory lickspittles, cowards, liars, stalinist revanchists, maoist running-dogs and splitters who are determined to hold Scotland back from its manifest destiny of showing the way forward for the down trodden masses labouring under the jackboot of Thatcherite neo-conservatism.
I think I covered all the points there that Messrs G and Pork would have had they been on line to read your post.
A referendum would also have the positive effect - for Tories - of lancing the EU boil, whatever the result. I think a lot of euroscepticism is just frustration at all the different ways we have not been asked, and all the many lies we have been told en route, and all the devious methods pols have used to deny us a say.
I really don't see referenda as the only way in which people can have a say on the EU. UKIP have contested seats for several general elections now. Your frustration seems to stem mainly from the fact that most people do not agree with you, and have stubbornly failed to elect a majority of Eurosceptic MPs to Parliament.
Referenda can be a really poor way of deciding these issues. Some people voted NO in the AV referendum because they wanted to give Nick Clegg a kicking for joining a Coalition with the Tories, for example, and some people voted YES under the mistaken belief that AV would prevent Tories from ever becoming part of Government.
Scotland’s finances are almost £300 per person deeper in the red than the UK’s, according to figures unveiled by Alex Salmond today that prompted warnings taxes would increase after independence.
MS Vance, The figures unveiled by Mr. Salmond demonstrate beyond all shadow of a doubt that an independent Scotland would be one of the wealthiest countries on the planet (on a per capita basis) and will have more than adequate capability to save up for a rainy day.
Mr. Salmond's announcement is being misrepresented and spun by Tory lickspittles, cowards, liars, stalinist revanchists, maoist running-dogs and splitters who are determined to hold Scotland back from its manifest destiny of showing the way forward for the down trodden masses labouring under the jackboot of Thatcherite neo-conservatism.
I think I covered all the points there that Messrs G and Pork would have had they been on line to read your post.
Hurst , thanks I could not have put it better myself.
Comments
Latest ARSE 2015 GE Projection published on 4 Mar :
Con 302 .. Lab 276 .. LibDem 39 .. Others 33
The EZ countries need to integrate more deeply if the euro is to become fully functional. In particular they will want to ensure that no country in the future is allowed to get to the point that Greece got to before intervention is possible.
It seems a reasonable quid pro quo from that that countries such as the UK which are not in the euro should have certain protections built in, probably some tweeking of the qualified majority rule so that the euro bloc cannot force things through without outside support.
A treaty along these lines will not transfer UK sovereignty to the EU, it might even do the reverse. Presumably in Ed's mind such a treaty would not trigger a referendum even although the future shape of the EU will have changed once again with the core being ever more integrated?
I think Labour are gambling that the vast majority of the population just don't care. And they are probably right.
The father was a rich, self-made builder, who'd left school at 14, and couldn't really see the point of education. And he hated Jews.
A riproaring success that was!
That said, I doubt the main political fissure in the EU is going to be Euro in vs out, and the ins won't be very interested in ganging up on the outs, so they won't mind tweaking the voting to make it official that some future government wouldn't be allowed to do that if they wanted to.
The difficult part of this (hypothetical) treaty is going to be getting it past the countries it actually affects: Voters who have to pay for it, and the voters of the countries that have to let some foreigner have a veto on their budgets.
Although I worry for Lady Jack..... She may need to double his bromide!
Clegg knocked Harman out of the park during her questions.
He was less able during backbench questions.
Since the deputy leaders questions will take prominence on the news, it was a distinct win for Clegg.
As someone on DP said: how come Harman, or any Labour figures, not bring up Crow's death? It was left to an SNP MP.
Since you did not mention positive integers, surely the answer should be a massively low negative integer, somewhere about 4950 below infinity, or infinity itself?
However may I assure you Mrs JackW is also on "sparkling form" too and her stocks of bromide have never been lower or less required !!
"STJOHN" had the last winner yesterday at 9/1.
Today "STJOHN" is backing
1.30 Red Sherlock win at 5/1
2.05 Morning Assembly win at 15/2
2.40 Bayan each way at 12/1; 5 places
3.20 Captain Conan win at 5/1
4.00 A Stray Shot each way at 25/1
4.40 Dawalan win at 15/2
5.15 Modus win at 11/1
Also win double Captain Conan and Dawalan.
Good luck everyone having a bet.
Eh?
Unless I'm missing something?
Regardless of the polls it's "totally fine" to deny the electorate a referendum. Parliament should decide.
It was different in mid-crisis - there was then some serious, if vague, speculation. It's gone away, and basically nobody wants the hassle. This is in fact a valid criticism of the EU - the system is impossibly slow in making even sensible changes that everyone would like.
I find it absolutely stunning that every part of the UK bar England, and just about the whole of the rest of Europe can be trusted to be given a referendum on vital issues like devolution or joining the Eurozone. And yet, we have a main stream party in the form of the Labour party at Westminster who seems hell bent on avoiding ever giving that part of the UK a referendum in case they vote the wrong way. Seant is right, regardless of how engaged the voters are over the issue of Europe, they are going start getting even more fed up and disconnected from a political elite in their Parliament who claim to want to engage with them, but won't trust them to a vote in a referendum on a single issue.
In the very unlikely event that there is no progress at all on renegotiation, there would still be a referendum. UKIP voters therefore have a simple choice; if they want the opportunity to leave the EU, they should vote Conservative. If they don't they should vote UKIP, LibDem or Labour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10692466/Scotland-300-per-person-deeper-in-the-red-than-the-UK.html
However, the voter may not want it to be assumed they don't give a toss. The attitude of 'our voters would care more if we denied them a vote on the X Factor' may perhaps be a bit toxic.
Mr. Stjohn, whilst not my cup of tea, cheers for those tips.
But on another level I agree. The argument about membership of the EU is not at all likely to be swayed by the extension of QMV in Lisbon or any other treaty. Membership of the EU is a moveable feast and it is in the nature of the beast that it will evolve or change over time.
The fundamental question is do we want to share sovereignty in this way or not? The details really don't matter and it is somewhat disingenuous to argue that the issue is so finely balanced that if Cameron comes back with a deal on fishing or the Social Chapter that is going to be the thing that swings it one way or the other.
2. That's probably true. But if he uses it now, he won't be under such a gun to have a referendum in 2017. "We are still negotiating we our European neighbours. As you can see from our 2014 referendum, we are not afraid to offer the people of Britain a choice. However, until the ink is dry, it would be precipitous to go to the country."
b) Timing. The Scottish Indy referendum is in September, and he would not want to muddy those waters with a EU referendum before or coinciding. Then there are only eight or nine months before the GE, during which he probably wouldn't want a referendum hanging around. Add in a Scottish 'yes' vote, and it becomes exceptionally muddy. He'd be mad to have the uncertainty of a second referendum hanging around before 2015.
c) It would surely depend on the Lib Dems as well, and I doubt they'd vote for one. With Labour and the Lib Dem being against, as well as possibly some Tories, he won't get a referendum bill through parliament.
Factors b & c will be less troublesome after GE2015. Therefore if you want a referendum on the EU, then the Conservatives are the only way to vote at GE2015.
;-)
I would also think that some calculus is arguably necessary at A level/6th form, for instance in understanding the dynamics of motion, which involve integral and differential calculus. I did actually end up using mine on occasion for university and since - it's more the lack of stats that was a pity (though I suppose I could have remedied that with an additional course, so it's my own fault too).
Firstly, he doesn't want to spend the run-up to the General Election obsessing about Europe, an issue of marginal importance to the swing voters who will decide the election in the marginal constituencies. He would prefer to be seen to be concentrating on more important issues.
Secondly, he probably does not have the votes in Parliament to call a referendum.
And if the LibDems block it, all the better.
Smad place runs a corker but gets pipped.
European egg production fell 0.6% in January, but was still up 5.1% year-over-year.
Mr. Salmond's announcement is being misrepresented and spun by Tory lickspittles, cowards, liars, stalinist revanchists, maoist running-dogs and splitters who are determined to hold Scotland back from its manifest destiny of showing the way forward for the down trodden masses labouring under the jackboot of Thatcherite neo-conservatism.
I think I covered all the points there that Messrs G and Pork would have had they been on line to read your post.
Referenda can be a really poor way of deciding these issues. Some people voted NO in the AV referendum because they wanted to give Nick Clegg a kicking for joining a Coalition with the Tories, for example, and some people voted YES under the mistaken belief that AV would prevent Tories from ever becoming part of Government.