I agree - the suggestion that a referendum on a hypothetical renegotiation can be agreed for a specific date is a nonsense. Once an agreement is reached (which would obviously need involvement of all member states, not just some pie in the sky unilateral special deal) then it can be put to a vote - but you cannot say exactly when that would be. Therefore to say that a renegotiated deal will be put to a vote once agree is fine, but obviously no time scale. That appears to be the Labour and LibDem positions.
The Tory position is the sensible one.
The Labour/LD position is tomorrow, and tomorrow. There would always be another excuse for not doing it.
Setting a date is entirely sensible and consistent if you believe the current status quo is untenable. Negotiate what you can, vote on what you get. If you get nothing, vote out.
The UKIP position is out regardless.
So what is Dave wanting to negotiate on. Is it a secret?
Are there things so important, so damaging to Britain that we cannot know what they are?
When wil he tell us do you think?
maybe he'll tell us much closer to the election, not declaring policies is clever. Or so I'm told.
How can you set a date for a vote on a renegotiated position when the timescale of those negotiations is not under your control? You can't, it is nonsense.
The timescale is entirely under our control. The negotiations end on the date of the referendum. Whatever has been agreed is voted on. If nothing has been agreed, we vote out.
To not set a date for the end of negotiations is stupid, or Ed's position if you prefer.
The skeptics should be aware of this, because they've been spending years trying to throw sand in the gears to stop the engine of integration moving forwards. One of the British tactics was enlargement, which makes unanimous decision-making very hard. They shouldn't be surprised if they try to put the engine into reverse, and discover it's completely seized up.
This would only help the sceptics, surely, as it would prove our point that reform is impossible and we'd be better off out.
I agree - the suggestion that a referendum on a hypothetical renegotiation can be agreed for a specific date is a nonsense. Once an agreement is reached (which would obviously need involvement of all member states, not just some pie in the sky unilateral special deal) then it can be put to a vote - but you cannot say exactly when that would be. Therefore to say that a renegotiated deal will be put to a vote once agree is fine, but obviously no time scale. That appears to be the Labour and LibDem positions.
The Tory position is the sensible one.
The Labour/LD position is tomorrow, and tomorrow. There would always be another excuse for not doing it.
Setting a date is entirely sensible and consistent if you believe the current status quo is untenable. Negotiate what you can, vote on what you get. If you get nothing, vote out.
The UKIP position is out regardless.
So what is Dave wanting to negotiate on. Is it a secret?
Are there things so important, so damaging to Britain that we cannot know what they are?
When wil he tell us do you think?
maybe he'll tell us much closer to the election, not declaring policies is clever. Or so I'm told.
Leaving it close to the election is normal practice, but for whatever reason David Cameron decided to announce bits of his policy two years out, then decline to clarify what it meant.
I think the results show the wisdom of Ed Miliband's strategy of spouting meaningless bullshit like "One Nation Britain" for four years and leaving the actual policy until later.
I agree - the suggestion that a referendum on a hypothetical renegotiation can be agreed for a specific date is a nonsense. Once an agreement is reached (which would obviously need involvement of all member states, not just some pie in the sky unilateral special deal) then it can be put to a vote - but you cannot say exactly when that would be. Therefore to say that a renegotiated deal will be put to a vote once agree is fine, but obviously no time scale. That appears to be the Labour and LibDem positions.
The Tory position is the sensible one.
The Labour/LD position is tomorrow, and tomorrow. There would always be another excuse for not doing it.
Setting a date is entirely sensible and consistent if you believe the current status quo is untenable. Negotiate what you can, vote on what you get. If you get nothing, vote out.
The UKIP position is out regardless.
So what is Dave wanting to negotiate on. Is it a secret?
Are there things so important, so damaging to Britain that we cannot know what they are?
When will he tell us do you think?
Why not just reduce the Tory manifesto to "Dave says there are big issues to deal with, but he cannot tell you what they are"
Cameron's supporters on here can't even describe what a good deal would look like.
I agree - the suggestion that a referendum on a hypothetical renegotiation can be agreed for a specific date is a nonsense. Once an agreement is reached (which would obviously need involvement of all member states, not just some pie in the sky unilateral special deal) then it can be put to a vote - but you cannot say exactly when that would be. Therefore to say that a renegotiated deal will be put to a vote once agree is fine, but obviously no time scale. That appears to be the Labour and LibDem positions.
The Tory position is the sensible one.
The Labour/LD position is tomorrow, and tomorrow. There would always be another excuse for not doing it.
Setting a date is entirely sensible and consistent if you believe the current status quo is untenable. Negotiate what you can, vote on what you get. If you get nothing, vote out.
The UKIP position is out regardless.
So what is Dave wanting to negotiate on. Is it a secret?
Are there things so important, so damaging to Britain that we cannot know what they are?
When wil he tell us do you think?
maybe he'll tell us much closer to the election, not declaring policies is clever. Or so I'm told.
Leaving it close to the election is normal practice, but for whatever reason David Cameron decided to announce bits of his policy two years out, then decline to clarify what it meant.
I think the results show the wisdom of Ed Miliband's strategy of spouting meaningless bullshit like "One Nation Britain" for four years and leaving the actual policy until later.
How do you know Cameron isn't feeding you meaningless bullshit ? Quite a lot of people on here would argue he is. But at least you have the honesty to recognise that Ed's statements are essentially vacuous. 4 years of saying nothing.
Rather than worrying about referenda etc how about action now on those proposals which we think will harm our industries. For instance, the FTT which even Mervyn King said was not supported by any central banker anywhere in the EU and which a number of trade bodies and others within the Eurozone have said will be damaging.
Why not simply make such a tax illegal in London and say that any issuer wishing to trade in London will not pay it and it's their choice whether they want to raise money or trade in London and pay no tax or raise it in Paris and pay the wretched thing.
Make it clear that we won't tolerate any nonsense which is designed to and will harm our vital national interests, anymore than the Germans would accept an attack on their car industry. If they don't like our actions, we can sit down and talk about how to put this in writing in some way. Ditto re the budget: simply say that we're paying the same as last year - not a penny more etc and if they want to send in the bailiffs or whatever to HMG they're welcome to try etc. Less grumbling, in other words, and more actions - some sensible talking might come thereafter.
A) "Hi - you are the guy that is coming in for a job interview next week??" Yes that's me - for the position of widget manager A) What sort of salary will you be asking for ? I'd hope an appropriate amount for my skills, value and the market rate. A) No no you have to take out an advert in the paper telling everyone how much you want But it's negotiation 101 not to do that A) Yeah but there's a fake farmer in Liverpool who is whining about it....
I agree - the suggestion that a referendum on a hypothetical renegotiation can be agreed for a specific date is a nonsense. Once an agreement is reached (which would obviously need involvement of all member states, not just some pie in the sky unilateral special deal) then it can be put to a vote - but you cannot say exactly when that would be. Therefore to say that a renegotiated deal will be put to a vote once agree is fine, but obviously no time scale. That appears to be the Labour and LibDem positions.
The Tory position is the sensible one.
The Labour/LD position is tomorrow, and tomorrow. There would always be another excuse for not doing it.
Setting a date is entirely sensible and consistent if you believe the current status quo is untenable. Negotiate what you can, vote on what you get. If you get nothing, vote out.
The UKIP position is out regardless.
So what is Dave wanting to negotiate on. Is it a secret?
Are there things so important, so damaging to Britain that we cannot know what they are?
When will he tell us do you think?
Why not just reduce the Tory manifesto to "Dave says there are big issues to deal with, but he cannot tell you what they are"
Cameron's supporters on here can't even describe what a good deal would look like.
The problem is, I'm not sure that there is "a good deal" which is possible.
I'm sure the economics could be fixed: simple things like formalising the Luxembourg Compromise so that we can veto things that really matter. For example, it's daft that policy related to financial services - where the UK is by far the most significant player - is determined by votes of countries that don't really have a stake in the matter. Free trade, CAP reform, CFP reform etc are all more difficult, but something could be agreed.
The biggest issue is the direction of travel. The EZ, by necessity if nothing else, is moving towards a unified polity. I'm not sure I want to UK to be part of a unified polity. So the question becomes, is it feasible to be a member of a EU in which an agreed EZ position will always have a majority under QMV. I'm not sure that there *are* any terms that could be put in place which will sufficiently protect the UK's strategic interests in such circumstances
Is the UKIP-SNP spat being engineered by both parties, desperate to stay in the news? They do share a defect in each only having one policy."
Greg Hands might as well put a sticker on his head saying "I know nothing about the SNP".
The irony is that the protest had absolutely nothing to do with the SNP anyway - it was organised by Radical Independence, which is associated with the Greens and the pro-independence socialist parties.
The problem is, I'm not sure that there is "a good deal" which is possible.
In which case your options are
Walk away now before you have even looked. UKIP. Barking Talk about it for ever. Labour. Barking Have a look and see with a defined end date. If there is no good deal, walk away. Tory. Obvious
Having thought about it, this is what I do not get:
The Tories tell us we need to renegotiate the terms of our membership in order for being in the EU to make sense. In other words, what they are saying is that right now being in the EU is detrimental to our national interest. Richard Nabavi tells us that we will need to safeguard the City if we are to stay in. If we can't we should withdraw. But the implication of this is that leaving will not hurt the City.
Given all of that, what is the point of wasting the next four years obsessing about the whole thing? Why not just get back the powers we need now by withdrawing, while also saving ourselves a great deal of money every year?
The whole Tory position is surely a tacit admission that everything Farage says about us leaving the EU is correct. And if that is the case, advocating that we should waste time (and more money we cannot afford to spend) trying for a renegotiation that will not actually make much difference to us is absurd.
Of course, the alternative is that Cameron and co actually believe it would be disastrous for us to leave the EU, do not havew the guts to say so and are using the referendum as a ploy to make the argument go away unti after the next GE.
Nah, what you are missing is the following:
1. There are benefits to staying in the EU 2. Currently the benefits are outweighed by the costs/risks 3. If you believe that you can renegotiate the terms of our membership so that the benefits are increased or the costs/risks reduced then there potential could be a case for staying in 4. If this is the situation, then the net cost of membership on sub-optimal terms for the next 4 years could be more than offset by the improved benefits in future years 5. However, if you believe that there are no circumstances in which a meaningful renegotiation is possible then it becomes rational to leave now 6. We will be fine either way. Life is rarely as dramatic as people like to believe.
If we will be fine either way, then we should leave.
If the renegotiation is about things that will make only a very slight difference, then we should leave.
The only reason to stay in is if it is overwhelmingly in our national interest. Otherwise, the sacrifices we make in terms of sovereignty and monetary contribution are just too great.
Indeed, and neither you nor I are in a position to judge what the outcome of the renegotiation will be. For it to be worth staying in it needs to be meaningful. But the PM is arguing that it will be meaningful (potentially) and so we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
It's Dave as Lear
I will negotiate so meaningfully, That all the world shall--I will do such things,-- What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
The problem is, I'm not sure that there is "a good deal" which is possible.
In which case your options are
Walk away now before you have even looked. UKIP. Barking Talk about it for ever. Labour. Barking Have a look and see with a defined end date. If there is no good deal, walk away. Tory. Obvious
You are trying to use logic with a toddler in the huff.
@Charles: "So the question becomes, is it feasible to be a member of a EU in which an agreed EZ position will always have a majority under QMV. I'm not sure that there *are* any terms that could be put in place which will sufficiently protect the UK's strategic interests in such circumstances."
One possibility is to say that nothing can be passed unless there is a majority of the EZ countries and a unanimous majority of the non-EZ countries (or at least a majority where the UK would always be able to block a proposal).
Otherwise our strategic interests will be outvoted and in those circumstances the balance of convenience tilts to Out.
The direction of travel has always been to countries joining / closer union etc. If one country finally said no - we're off - a nice try but no cigar etc - the shock would I think be enormous (whatever the bluffing from the French or others). The UK is not what it was in terms of world power but it is not a Malta or an insignificant player. It would I think cause some heartache among some European countries if the UK were to turn away from the EU as currently constituted, particularly since it has hardly been a rip roaring success in recent years.
How can you set a date for a vote on a renegotiated position when the timescale of those negotiations is not under your control? You can't, it is nonsense.
The timescale is entirely under our control. The negotiations end on the date of the referendum. Whatever has been agreed is voted on. If nothing has been agreed, we vote out.
To not set a date for the end of negotiations is stupid, or Ed's position if you prefer.
Surely you negotiate until you get what you want, unless you are not that bothered about getting it. And if you are not that bothered why start negotiating in the first place?
In any case, the argument that we can't get anything different to the current deal and therefore Cameron is wasting his time makes zero sense whatever view you take.
If you take the UKIP view, what does it matter if he can't? You'll be be proved right, and we'll have the In/Out referendum you want. So what are you bitching about?
If you take the Labour view, the EU as it is currently set up is the best of all attainable worlds, Cameron won't be able to change it, and the issue will be closed down by a referendum giving an In result. So what is the problem?
The irony is that the protest had absolutely nothing to do with the SNP anyway - it was organised by Radical Independence, which is associated with the Greens and the pro-independence socialist parties.
BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front? REG: F*ck off! BRIAN: What? REG: Judean People's Front?! We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front? Tuh!
@patrickwintour Labour has suspended the Falkirk parliamentary selection process to investigate membership irregularities. Monday Guardian for b/ground.
@patrickwintour "Unite is fully confident that in relation to Falkirk West, as in all seats, our conduct is correct and fully compliant with party rules"
@patrickwintour Labour has suspended the Falkirk parliamentary selection process to investigate membership irregularities. Monday Guardian for b/ground.
@patrickwintour "Unite is fully confident that in relation to Falkirk West, as in all seats, our conduct is correct and fully compliant with party rules"
One Nation, Under Len !!
Whats this Labour party members trying to apply to stand as candidates for the UNITE party ?
Why not simply make such a tax illegal in London and say that any issuer wishing to trade in London will not pay it and it's their choice whether they want to raise money or trade in London and pay no tax or raise it in Paris and pay the wretched thing.
The problem is that the way it has been defined, if any part of the transaction touches the EZ then the tax will be liable. They have also said that if the UK doesn't charge FTT then it will be collected 100% by the other country involved.
I would suggest that in these circumstances, we make the FTT payable to the UK government, but that participants receive a 100% tax credit against UK corporation tax valid for, say, 3 years. That way the money stays in the UK, the government that gets it upfront and anyone who tries anything cute with tax losses (I'm looking at you, BofA) doesn't get any discount.
Having thought about it, this is what I do not get:
The Tories tell us we need to renegotiate the terms of our membership in order for being in the EU to make sense. In other words, what they are saying is that right now being in the EU is detrimental to our national interest. Richard Nabavi tells us that we will need to safeguard the City if we are to stay in. If we can't we should withdraw. But the implication of this is that leaving will not hurt the City.
Given all of that, what is the point of wasting the next four years obsessing about the whole thing? Why not just get back the powers we need now by withdrawing, while also saving ourselves a great deal of money every year?
The whole Tory position is surely a tacit admission that everything Farage says about us leaving the EU is correct. And if that is the case, advocating that we should waste time (and more money we cannot afford to spend) trying for a renegotiation that will not actually make much difference to us is absurd.
Of course, the alternative is that Cameron and co actually believe it would be disastrous for us to leave the EU, do not havew the guts to say so and are using the referendum as a ploy to make the argument go away unti after the next GE.
Nah, what you are missing is the following:
1. There are benefits to staying in the EU 2. Currently the benefits are outweighed by the costs/risks 3. If you believe that you can renegotiate the terms of our membership so that the benefits are increased or the costs/risks reduced then there potential could be a case for staying in 4. If this is the situation, then the net cost of membership on sub-optimal terms for the next 4 years could be more than offset by the improved benefits in future years 5. However, if you believe that there are no circumstances in which a meaningful renegotiation is possible then it becomes rational to leave now 6. We will be fine either way. Life is rarely as dramatic as people like to believe.
If we will be fine either way, then we should leave.
If the renegotiation is about things that will make only a very slight difference, then we should leave.
The only reason to stay in is if it is overwhelmingly in our national interest. Otherwise, the sacrifices we make in terms of sovereignty and monetary contribution are just too great.
Indeed, and neither you nor I are in a position to judge what the outcome of the renegotiation will be. For it to be worth staying in it needs to be meaningful. But the PM is arguing that it will be meaningful (potentially) and so we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
It's Dave as Lear
I will negotiate so meaningfully, That all the world shall--I will do such things,-- What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be The terrors of the earth.
We appoint our political leaders to represent us, and to exercise their judgement on our behalf. So, absolutely, Dave doesn't know what the future is, so he shouldn't box himself in for the negotiations and he should negotiate meaningfully in due course. We will then have the option to review the outcome and determine whether it is in our national interest to remain or not.
I thought Blair was angling for a way back in to British politics? Would he not want to lead a pro-Europe campaign?
One of the reasons that Blair appeared to be such a successful politician is that he knew very clearly which battles he was not guaranteed to win and he chose not to fight them. That is why we never had a referendum on joining the Euro, and why Brown was never levered out of the Treasury.
It is also why his Premiership achieved so little.
That is why the pro-Europe campaign is left to Danny Alexander.
"BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front? REG: F*ck off! BRIAN: What? REG: Judean People's Front?! We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front? Tuh!
Splitters!"
Well, the Radical Independence folk are in a sense "splitters", but not from the SNP. The Scottish Green Party used to be part of a unified UK Green Party (until 1990, I think), while the pro-independence socialist parties have their origins in Scottish Militant Labour. The clue's in the title with that one.
How can you set a date for a vote on a renegotiated position when the timescale of those negotiations is not under your control? You can't, it is nonsense.
The timescale is entirely under our control. The negotiations end on the date of the referendum. Whatever has been agreed is voted on. If nothing has been agreed, we vote out.
To not set a date for the end of negotiations is stupid, or Ed's position if you prefer.
Surely you negotiate until you get what you want, unless you are not that bothered about getting it. And if you are not that bothered why start negotiating in the first place?
The answer to that is obvious, the Tory party has a billion different things they want to negotiate and as soon as Dave stops saying "what I will negotiate on is a secret" they hang him from a lamp post
Indeed - the whole thing is about getting to the other side of a GE before the final battle for the Conservative Party is fought. Should the Tories win, Dave will almost immediately have to do what he will have refused to do before the election - reveal his red lines. Then the carnage will begin.
How do you know Cameron isn't feeding you meaningless bullshit ? Quite a lot of people on here would argue he is. But at least you have the honesty to recognise that Ed's statements are essentially vacuous. 4 years of saying nothing.
Being reticent about policy in opposition is sensible until an election comes round. Being reticent about policy in government is ridiculous.
UKIP don't need to worry about closer scrutiny of their policies. Very few voters are interested in policy---they are grossly over-rated for all parties. Every time I meet Farage, I urge him not to succumb to the temptation to produce another policy.
But BOO is different. My son asked me, 'How much better off?'. I told him about costs of membership...gold-plating...instituitional corruption...BRICS....Then I wheeled out my clincher: we wouldn't join now, would we?
'I can accept that, on balance, we'd be BOO. However, it seems to me closer than you think it is. And I wouldn't vote to join now, if we weren't in. But that's a non-point, because that's not what we will be asked. You've given me nothing that I could use to persuade my peer group, most of whom are both undecided and disinterested, that the UK should give notice to quit the EU'.
'Remember, most of them don't have the priviledge of a father who is a UKIP candidate'.
I hope David is getting personal votes - I doubt if we'd agree on much, but I really admire his calm, lucid posts.
"James, serious question: how do you think the oikish harrassment of Farage will have gone down in Scotland?"
If he had played it better he might have gained some sympathy, but that went out of the window with his idiotic radio interview where he directly conflated people wanting to leave the United Kingdom with anti-English racism and fascism.
Whatever their views on independence, people just don't have time for that kind of nonsense. Farage seems to think that campaigning for a Yes vote is the rough equivalent of Islamic extremism.
Just received an email from Radical Independence Edinburgh -
Alice Bowman, a leader of Radical Independence Edinburgh who is originally from Carlisle, said: "As one of many English people on the protest, I find it insulting that Farage is painting us as anti-English. I think it is appalling that he conflates being English with support for his crazy anti-immigrant politics.
“We campaign for Scottish Independence on an internationalist basis. Scotland welcomes English people who want to work, study, and live here. But as we have seen, Scotland doesn’t want racist thugs like Farage, and that’s a good thing. We are proud that Farage’s attempts to bring his nonsense up here have been a dismal failure. He’ll be followed by protesters wherever he goes in Scotland.”
Why not simply make such a tax illegal in London and say that any issuer wishing to trade in London will not pay it and it's their choice whether they want to raise money or trade in London and pay no tax or raise it in Paris and pay the wretched thing.
The problem is that the way it has been defined, if any part of the transaction touches the EZ then the tax will be liable. They have also said that if the UK doesn't charge FTT then it will be collected 100% by the other country involved.
I would suggest that in these circumstances, we make the FTT payable to the UK government, but that participants receive a 100% tax credit against UK corporation tax valid for, say, 3 years. That way the money stays in the UK, the government that gets it upfront and anyone who tries anything cute with tax losses (I'm looking at you, BofA) doesn't get any discount.
I think the important thing to do is to signal clearly to those affected by the tax that the UK wants to be open to business, it is not going to impose silly taxes which have the effect of making it more expensive for companies and investors (including pensioners and the rest) and it will take all practicable measures to make the UK an attractive place for that business. I know that it is arguing the legal case but it needs to do something more upfront to highlight the business absurdity of this tax and how it is being implemented and also that it is designed to try and hurt the UK.
Essentially it needs to tell the EZ to get its tanks off our lawn and reinforce the doubts of those within the EZ about the whole proposal. If it really is going to harm a vital national interest then it needs to play rather more hardball than it is at present.
How do you know Cameron isn't feeding you meaningless bullshit ? Quite a lot of people on here would argue he is. But at least you have the honesty to recognise that Ed's statements are essentially vacuous. 4 years of saying nothing.
Being reticent about policy in opposition is sensible until an election comes round. Being reticent about policy in government is ridiculous.
UKIP don't need to worry about closer scrutiny of their policies. Very few voters are interested in policy---they are grossly over-rated for all parties. Every time I meet Farage, I urge him not to succumb to the temptation to produce another policy.
But BOO is different. My son asked me, 'How much better off?'. I told him about costs of membership...gold-plating...instituitional corruption...BRICS....Then I wheeled out my clincher: we wouldn't join now, would we?
'I can accept that, on balance, we'd be BOO. However, it seems to me closer than you think it is. And I wouldn't vote to join now, if we weren't in. But that's a non-point, because that's not what we will be asked. You've given me nothing that I could use to persuade my peer group, most of whom are both undecided and disinterested, that the UK should give notice to quit the EU'.
'Remember, most of them don't have the priviledge of a father who is a UKIP candidate'.
I hope David is getting personal votes - I doubt if we'd agree on much, but I really admire his calm, lucid posts.
Well so you keep saying Nick. But Miliband is having his script written for him by others in saying nothing, and I'll be interested to see how Labour will counter UKIP by saying nothing.
CDU roughly=SPD+Greens. Left Party in, FDP out, both by slender margins. Pirates and anti-Euro AfD probably not in. Bear in mind that polls in Germany are very stable - a shift of say 2% is rare.
Plasusible outcomes: 1. Left gets in, FDP doesn't. Result: grand coalition. 2. Left and FDP both get in. Result: grand coalition. 3. Left goes out, FDP gets in. Result: CDU+FDP continue. 4. Left and FDP both out. Result: toss-up between CDU and SPD+Greens. 5. Pirates or AFD surge and get in after all. Result: grand coalition.
"James, serious question: how do you think the oikish harrassment of Farage will have gone down in Scotland?"
If he had played it better he might have gained some sympathy, but that went out of the window with his idiotic radio interview where he directly conflated people wanting to leave the United Kingdom with anti-English racism and fascism.
Whatever their views on independence, people just don't have time for that kind of nonsense. Farage seems to think that campaigning for a Yes vote is the rough equivalent of Islamic extremism.
Yes I rather thought that. He went over the top on R4 this morning. Doesn't bode well for him if interviewers start questioning him more closely in future.
"The fact that it hasn't tells me that the Scots have already made up their minds - and it's No, and only something VERY dramatic will change that now.
Of course you differ, and fair enough."
It's not just me that differs - there's also that famous Panelbase poll that shows Yes in a clear lead if people anticipate a Tory victory, which now looks increasingly likely. Oh, and if Mike's suggestion that there may be a general election as early as this year proves right, all best are truly off.
"3. Left goes out, FDP gets in. Result: CDU+FDP continue."
Nick, is it true that the Left has three constituency seats that are pretty much guaranteed - ie. they don't need to worry about missing the 5% threshold?
NIGEL: Are you the Scottish National Party? Student: F*ck off! NIGEL: What? Student: Scottish National Party?! We're the Radical Independence! Scottish National Party? Tuh! Splitters!
"Since we abandoned the death penalty, an average of three murders a year have been committed by paroled 'lifers'. That adds up to about 150 innocents lying in their graves in order to satisfy the liberal-elite talking-head 'we-know-bests' who presently rule. A pox on the lot of them. "
If that is true - is it? - then it is a very powerful argument in favour of capital punishment. Hmmm.
Seems a better argument for never letting people sentenced to life out of prison.
"Since we abandoned the death penalty, an average of three murders a year have been committed by paroled 'lifers'. That adds up to about 150 innocents lying in their graves in order to satisfy the liberal-elite talking-head 'we-know-bests' who presently rule. A pox on the lot of them. "
If that is true - is it? - then it is a very powerful argument in favour of capital punishment. Hmmm.
Or an argument for leaving people in a cell to rot.
Just received an email from Radical Independence Edinburgh -
Alice Bowman, a leader of Radical Independence Edinburgh who is originally from Carlisle, said: "As one of many English people on the protest, I find it insulting that Farage is painting us as anti-English. I think it is appalling that he conflates being English with support for his crazy anti-immigrant politics.
“We campaign for Scottish Independence on an internationalist basis. Scotland welcomes English people who want to work, study, and live here. But as we have seen, Scotland doesn’t want racist thugs like Farage, and that’s a good thing. We are proud that Farage’s attempts to bring his nonsense up here have been a dismal failure. He’ll be followed by protesters wherever he goes in Scotland.”
Hilarious. Nigel "the Racist Thug" Farage. Yes, he's just the type you see smashing bottles into black guys faces...
I think Farage was wrong in the way he reacted - though on the wider point I do believe that these sorts of left wing mob attacks which are very common in England (more so than in Scotland) are indeed 'fascistic' in that they mimic the sort of actions taken by right wing parties and groups across Europe in the 1930s to try and suppress political opposition.
But the interesting point for me is the way it has been received amongst the English in Aberdeen. In an office with at least 50% English, every one of them had been supportive of Farage and critical of the mob. For them at least this has reinforced their (mis)-preconceptions of the nationalists.
Of course this is not rational - I have seen far more of these mindless mobs south of the border - but if it plays this way in England as well then it will do Farage no harm at all.
Just received an email from Radical Independence Edinburgh -
Alice Bowman, a leader of Radical Independence Edinburgh who is originally from Carlisle, said: "As one of many English people on the protest, I find it insulting that Farage is painting us as anti-English. I think it is appalling that he conflates being English with support for his crazy anti-immigrant politics.
“We campaign for Scottish Independence on an internationalist basis. Scotland welcomes English people who want to work, study, and live here. But as we have seen, Scotland doesn’t want racist thugs like Farage, and that’s a good thing. We are proud that Farage’s attempts to bring his nonsense up here have been a dismal failure. He’ll be followed by protesters wherever he goes in Scotland.”
I'm no UKIP supporter, but saying Farage is a 'racist thug' is highly stupid. In fact, it seems like it is confusing UKIP with the BNP and other groups. I really hope someone involved with the protest did not make that mistake.
And wanting to leave Europe is hardly nonsense. You may not agree with the view, but there is a point to be debated there. As there is with the 'nonsense' of Scotland leaving the UK.
"Liam O'Hare, the Radical Independence Edinburgh organiser, denied his group were fascist or racist. "We're absolutely not. The people who demonstrated yesterday were internationalist."
Liam O'Hare , internationalist , proud Scot and anglophile.
I think Farage was wrong in the way he reacted - though on the wider point I do believe that these sorts of left wing mob attacks which are very common in England (more so than in Scotland) are indeed 'fascistic' in that they mimic the sort of actions taken by right wing parties and groups across Europe in the 1930s to try and suppress political opposition.
But the interesting point for me is the way it has been received amongst the English in Aberdeen. In an office with at least 50% English, every one of them had been supportive of Farage and critical of the mob. For them at least this has reinforced their (mis)-preconceptions of the nationalists.
Of course this is not rational - I have seen far more of these mindless mobs south of the border - but if it plays this way in England as well then it will do Farage no harm at all.
In 1992-4 I lived on the Isle of Dogs, during Derek Beackon (sp?)'s term on Tower Hamlet council. There were plenty of posters from the Anti-Nazi League proclaiming 'Kill the Nazi Scum'.
I guess they missed the irony.
(Note: I have no time for far-right organisations. I have no time for far-left ones either).
Just received an email from Radical Independence Edinburgh -
Alice Bowman, a leader of Radical Independence Edinburgh who is originally from Carlisle, said: "As one of many English people on the protest, I find it insulting that Farage is painting us as anti-English. I think it is appalling that he conflates being English with support for his crazy anti-immigrant politics.
“We campaign for Scottish Independence on an internationalist basis. Scotland welcomes English people who want to work, study, and live here. But as we have seen, Scotland doesn’t want racist thugs like Farage, and that’s a good thing. We are proud that Farage’s attempts to bring his nonsense up here have been a dismal failure. He’ll be followed by protesters wherever he goes in Scotland.”
I'm no UKIP supporter, but saying Farage is a 'racist thug' is highly stupid. In fact, it seems like it is confusing UKIP with the BNP and other groups. I really hope someone involved with the protest did not make that mistake.
And wanting to leave Europe is hardly nonsense. You may not agree with the view, but there is a point to be debated there. As there is with the 'nonsense' of Scotland leaving the UK.
I hope all Edinburgh students are not as stupid.
I'm surprised that this sort of thing could happen in Edinburgh. BTW mum and dad spent the Bank Holiday there (after something like 25 years since their last vist) and were suitably impressed by the architecture, the combined bus and boat tours and general atmosphere.
Thomas Hoof @hooflaa @UKIP Cllrs in Lincolnshire have voted against a phony bill that was dressed as "antiracism" but in fact pro pc and forced multiculturalism ------------------ Joel Pearce @Joel_Pearce #UKIP councillors refuse to back anti-racism pledge because multiculturalism is 'fundamentally wrong' http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/UKIP-members-Lincolnshire-County-Council-refuse/story-19015707-detail/story.html#ixzz2TZEZ4J93 … -------------------- One of UKIPs policies is to stop the spread of multiculturalism, where every community stays in its little ghettos. A start has been made on Lincolnshire, where UKIP has 16new councillors. NOTICE HOW THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CON/LAB/LIB PARTY
"Since we abandoned the death penalty, an average of three murders a year have been committed by paroled 'lifers'. That adds up to about 150 innocents lying in their graves in order to satisfy the liberal-elite talking-head 'we-know-bests' who presently rule. A pox on the lot of them. "
If that is true - is it? - then it is a very powerful argument in favour of capital punishment. Hmmm.
Isn't the whole point that drone attacks are summary executions carried out at arm's length (and from 20,000 feet)?
"3. Left goes out, FDP gets in. Result: CDU+FDP continue."
Nick, is it true that the Left has three constituency seats that are pretty much guaranteed - ie. they don't need to worry about missing the 5% threshold?
"BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front? REG: F*ck off! BRIAN: What? REG: Judean People's Front?! We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front? Tuh!
Splitters!"
Well, the Radical Independence folk are in a sense "splitters", but not from the SNP. The Scottish Green Party used to be part of a unified UK Green Party (until 1990, I think), while the pro-independence socialist parties have their origins in Scottish Militant Labour. The clue's in the title with that one.
James, serious question: how do you think the oikish harrassment of Farage will have gone down in Scotland?
I am genuinely curious. I am pretty sure that if this had happened in England, it would be bad for the anti-Farage mob, and whatever cause they espoused. Because the English hate people who make a scene, and they easily tire of studenty troublemakers, especially if they seem to be anti-democratic.
And, of course, Farage is popular in England.
But I find it hard to tell how Scots will react. Is Farage so hated north of the border that most Scots will approve of the monstering? Or will it have no effect at all, as most won't even notice?
I was quite amused, he was like a rabbit caught in the headlights. It was a small group of extreme students. Most people would have enjoyed it , especially after his cringe making ranting afterwards about all Scots hating the English. Only against the weak opposition in Westminster could this dumpling flourish.
But Chris Pain, leader of the county council’s UKIP group, the official opposition, told today’s annual meeting of the council: “I cannot support this document. “It actually pushes forward the chance of multiculturalism, one of the fundamental things that’s wrong with our society.
No idea what the document says, but I can't imagine it was radical Marxism if the Lincolnshire Tories signed it.
Is UNS valid for an election where turnout is much lower than at a GE?
Who knows? I'll have to check the historic stats to see how it compares to Westminster. I have a feeling it's more uniform, not least because there are only 11 constituencies!
You're going to look a proper tool if you don't know what the document says.
Could you link to it for us?
"We, in Lincolnshire, are proud of our diverse and multi-racial heritage, which we regard as a source of cultural, social and economic strength. We will work vigorously to combat all forms of racism to rid Lincolnshire of racial discrimination and to enshrine the principle that individuality and universality are the foundations of justice and peace.
We declare that:
• We value the contribution that all communities make to the quality of life in Lincolnshire and recognise ethnic and cultural diversity as a source of cultural, social and economic enrichment.
• We endorse the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are opposed to racism in all its forms.
• We will encourage a changing culture within the public services and the wider community that recognises the unacceptability of all forms of racism and takes action to combat it.
• We acknowledge that progress towards a more just society may not always be smooth, but as partners we are committed to maintaining dialogue and resolving our differences.
• We accept that without transparency and openness in the public services, progress towards a successful multi-cultural community will be hampered.
• We believe that the composition of the public services workforce should reflect that of the wider community, and will work to break down perceptions and barriers that prevent equal access to employment.
• We believe that all citizens should have the right to expect equal protection and equal treatment from all public services.
• We believe that children from all backgrounds are entitled to an education free from discrimination and harassment.
• We understand the essential role of the education system in Lincolnshire in developing the future of our multi-cultural community and commit ourselves to supporting and enhancing this work.
• We believe that our success will properly be measured not by our policies but by our actions in promoting equality for all the people of Lincolnshire.
• We call upon the residents of Lincolnshire to support us in this by respecting the dignity of all people and by constant vigilance for any expression of racism or racial discrimination."
I can see exactly why UKIP wouldn't sign it. Just as they say, it is not a simple anti-racist statement but rather enshrines basic principles of multiculturalism.
It would have been entirely possible to have a similar statement that retained all the anti-racist elements but removed the hugely divisive multi-cultural rubbish.
Of course I didn't say any of this. As I can now reveal (I was obliged to stay schtoom yesterday) my blog was, at the last moment, and without my knowledge, drastically edited by a Telegraph dude. They were worried that the paper might seem pro-BNP.
My original blogpost said that Griffin might be odious but the sad fact is that he was right, and if we'd listened to him, horrible crimes would have been prevented.
The Telegraph's editing was so cack-handed they made it look like I was blaming Griffin for the grooming. Grrr. As a result I got about 3000 angry emails from BNP members, and they had a point.
The blog has now been re-edited to make it a bit better - and the editors have attached an apology to me - go and have a look. But what's done is done.
On the other hand the blogpost generated an enormous number of clicks which has now carried over to my next post, and the Telegraph editors are now flattering me and promising me chocolates and champagne. So it's not all bad.
So there really is no such thing as "bad" publicity?
In fairness to Farrage, I do think the BBC Scotland interviewer's question :
"This is a hugely objectionable point you're making isn't it? Suggesting that anti-English racism is somehow conflated with the campaign for a 'yes' vote in the forthcoming independence referendum?"
Could have been posed better.
For example (giving him enough rope):
"So you are saying that the independence campaign is rooted in anti-English racism?"
However, the interviewer led with the value judgement (one I share, but that's not the BBC's job) that Farrage's comment was 'hugely objectionable".....
Just received an email from Radical Independence Edinburgh -
Alice Bowman, a leader of Radical Independence Edinburgh who is originally from Carlisle, said: "As one of many English people on the protest, I find it insulting that Farage is painting us as anti-English. I think it is appalling that he conflates being English with support for his crazy anti-immigrant politics.
“We campaign for Scottish Independence on an internationalist basis. Scotland welcomes English people who want to work, study, and live here. But as we have seen, Scotland doesn’t want racist thugs like Farage, and that’s a good thing. We are proud that Farage’s attempts to bring his nonsense up here have been a dismal failure. He’ll be followed by protesters wherever he goes in Scotland.”
I'm no UKIP supporter, but saying Farage is a 'racist thug' is highly stupid. In fact, it seems like it is confusing UKIP with the BNP and other groups. I really hope someone involved with the protest did not make that mistake.
And wanting to leave Europe is hardly nonsense. You may not agree with the view, but there is a point to be debated there. As there is with the 'nonsense' of Scotland leaving the UK.
I hope all Edinburgh students are not as stupid.
I'm surprised that this sort of thing could happen in Edinburgh. BTW mum and dad spent the Bank Holiday there (after something like 25 years since their last vist) and were suitably impressed by the architecture, the combined bus and boat tours and general atmosphere.
I'm on the record as saying how much I love Scotland, the Scottish people, and Edinburgh.
Strangely, I've never really got on well with Glasgow. Possibly because I've only ever really visited for conferences, to pick up new boots, or to change trains at Queen Street. I don't know the place, although the Clyde waterfront to the Erskine Bridge was picking up a little ten years ago.
But Edinburgh... oh, Edinburgh. Mrs J's company has an office up there. Last year's Christmas party was the first time I've ever seen her so drunk that she's been sick. And I met a lovely Aussie ex whilst staying in a backpacker's hostel in Cockburn Street.
The taxi driver who took us from the centre to Leith whilst Mrs J was drunk had a son who was a professional railway photographer - result!
And no-one I talked to was in favour of independence. Although they might have been polite because I'm English... ;-)
You're going to look a proper tool if you don't know what the document says.
Could you link to it for us?
"We, in Lincolnshire, are proud of our diverse and multi-racial heritage, which we regard as a source of cultural, social and economic strength. We will work vigorously to combat all forms of racism to rid Lincolnshire of racial discrimination and to enshrine the principle that individuality and universality are the foundations of justice and peace.
We declare that:
• We value the contribution that all communities make to the quality of life in Lincolnshire and recognise ethnic and cultural diversity as a source of cultural, social and economic enrichment.
• We endorse the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are opposed to racism in all its forms.
• We will encourage a changing culture within the public services and the wider community that recognises the unacceptability of all forms of racism and takes action to combat it.
• We acknowledge that progress towards a more just society may not always be smooth, but as partners we are committed to maintaining dialogue and resolving our differences.
• We accept that without transparency and openness in the public services, progress towards a successful multi-cultural community will be hampered.
• We believe that the composition of the public services workforce should reflect that of the wider community, and will work to break down perceptions and barriers that prevent equal access to employment.
• We believe that all citizens should have the right to expect equal protection and equal treatment from all public services.
• We believe that children from all backgrounds are entitled to an education free from discrimination and harassment.
• We understand the essential role of the education system in Lincolnshire in developing the future of our multi-cultural community and commit ourselves to supporting and enhancing this work.
• We believe that our success will properly be measured not by our policies but by our actions in promoting equality for all the people of Lincolnshire.
• We call upon the residents of Lincolnshire to support us in this by respecting the dignity of all people and by constant vigilance for any expression of racism or racial discrimination."
I can see exactly why UKIP wouldn't sign it. Just as they say, it is not a simple anti-racist statement but rather enshrines basic principles of multiculturalism.
It would have been entirely possible to have a similar statement that retained all the anti-racist elements but removed the hugely divisive multi-cultural rubbish.
It was so obviously a trap for UKIP. It's good to know that the new UKIP faction in the council have their eyes open to all tricks of this kind.
It's quite extra-ordinary that Salmond , Scotland's FM , has attacked Farage and given his tacit support to a group of hooligans.
It's actually more extraordinary that Salmond should accuse another politician of being "a man who doesn't like getting challenged because when the... views of his party are put to him then his bubble deflates very quickly...."
It's quite extra-ordinary that Salmond , Scotland's FM , has attacked Farage and given his tacit support to a group of hooligans.
Silly mistake by Salmond. He is so obviously the tweedledum of Scottish Nationalism to Farage's tweedledee of English nationalism, he really doesn't want to underline this comparison by taking on Farage directly.
He should have loftily dismissed it as a silly stramash between student politicians, of no concern to a statesman such as himself - i.e. the soon-to-be Life President of the great independent Democratic Scottish Jamahiriya.
Salmond is as small minded and dangerous as Joyce Thacker of Rotherham Borough Council and UKIP foster parents infamy. He finds UKIP upsetting to his narrow world view and believes they should be treated with extreme prejudice.
For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Salmond did absolutely the right thing in speaking out for the right of students to peacefully protest. It would have been extraordinary if he had done anything else.
The BBC Scotland interviewer was also simply doing his job by challenging Farage on an outrageous statement.
"It is quite likely that a portion of the ‘cybernat’ storm and fury that regularly greets articles ... comes from the offices of MSPs at the Holyrood Parliament.
Last October, 230 people engaged in media and public relations work on behalf of the Scottish state were grouped into a new Communications Directorate."
For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Salmond did absolutely the right thing in speaking out for the right of students to peacefully protest. It would have been extraordinary if he had done anything else.
The BBC Scotland interviewer was also simply doing his job by challenging Farage on an outrageous statement.
Has the word peaceful lost its meaning as well?
Peaceful doesn't just mean not physically violent.
These students or whoever they were, weren't exactly the women at Greenham Common.
I bet most people would have found it quite intimidating
For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Salmond did absolutely the right thing in speaking out for the right of students to peacefully protest. It would have been extraordinary if he had done anything else.
The BBC Scotland interviewer was also simply doing his job by challenging Farage on an outrageous statement.
So you are accusing the Edinburgh police of over-reaction ?
Ukip are certain to come out of this stronger than they went in.
Shouldn't think too many people who are thinking about voting for them give a toss about Scottish independence anyway, if they do have an opinion it would probably be let them go.
Next Ukip PPB should be Nuttall leading a hodge podge cross section of English people singing "No one likes us we don't care"
The founder of UKIP thinks Farage is a racist. Of course just because he says it doesn't mean it's true. Otoh it doesn't mean it isn't either.
'Later asked to justify his remarks, Mr Cameron said: "I don't think I'm saying anything that hasn't been said before. UKIP have some issues - not least that their own founding member Dr Sked left the party because he thought they had been infiltrated by the far Right." That was a reference to Alan Sked, who quit the party in 1999. Mr Sked had also alleged that Nigel Farage, UKIP's leader in the European Parliament, once told him: "We will never win the n****r vote. The n**-n**s will never vote for us." Mr Farage said the story was "absolute lies".'
The founder of UKIP thinks Farage is a racist. Of course just because he says it doesn't mean it's true. Otoh it doesn't mean it isn't either.
'Later asked to justify his remarks, Mr Cameron said: "I don't think I'm saying anything that hasn't been said before. UKIP have some issues - not least that their own founding member Dr Sked left the party because he thought they had been infiltrated by the far Right." That was a reference to Alan Sked, who quit the party in 1999. Mr Sked had also alleged that Nigel Farage, UKIP's leader in the European Parliament, once told him: "We will never win the n****r vote. The n**-n**s will never vote for us." Mr Farage said the story was "absolute lies".'
Sentiments like that document are all well and good till Linc Council has to fork out to someone denied a job who takes them to court because they didn't keep up with their diversity quota.
Nice and woolly and cuddly in principle, downright dangerous when a lawyer starts using such declarations against you.
Tell us about the founders of the SNP and their interesting opinions in the 1930's and early 1940's.
Oh dear, Monica's gone straight to her favourite comfort food. Do you think that's more than a hundred times you've brought up that well-gummed titbit?
'Why not just reduce the Tory manifesto to "Dave says there are big issues to deal with, but he cannot tell you what they are" '
Which is far better than - "We can see what the big issues are, but we're not going to tell you our policy on them, because ......... err ....... we don't have one."
For a Scot Nat of any stripe to accuse someone else of "xenophobia" is so injudicious I originally presumed you were being ironic. But you're serious??
You've put quotes around xenophobia. I presume you're quoting the founder of UKIP rather than me?
The founder of UKIP thinks Farage is a racist. Of course just because he says it doesn't mean it's true. Otoh it doesn't mean it isn't either.
'Later asked to justify his remarks, Mr Cameron said: "I don't think I'm saying anything that hasn't been said before. UKIP have some issues - not least that their own founding member Dr Sked left the party because he thought they had been infiltrated by the far Right." That was a reference to Alan Sked, who quit the party in 1999. Mr Sked had also alleged that Nigel Farage, UKIP's leader in the European Parliament, once told him: "We will never win the n****r vote. The n**-n**s will never vote for us." Mr Farage said the story was "absolute lies".'
Clearly both Alan Sked and yourself have a problem with basic definitions. Being anti-immigration does not make one racist. Nor does being anti-Islam though in my case that is because I am anti-all religions. Are atheists who want to limit immigration automatically to be considered as racist?
Tell us about the founders of the SNP and their interesting opinions in the 1930's and early 1940's.
Oh dear, Monica's gone straight to her favourite comfort food. Do you think that's more than a hundred times you've brought up that well-gummed titbit?
Monica's a self proclaimed Fascist. Nobody really treats his screeching and whining seriously.
You're going to look a proper tool if you don't know what the document says.
Could you link to it for us?
I can see exactly why UKIP wouldn't sign it. Just as they say, it is not a simple anti-racist statement but rather enshrines basic principles of multiculturalism.
It would have been entirely possible to have a similar statement that retained all the anti-racist elements but removed the hugely divisive multi-cultural rubbish.
Quite right. Ridiculous document. It's saying you HAVE to agree with multiculturalism to be allowed a role in local politics. This egregious, sinister bullshit is one very significant reason people vote UKIP in the first place.
The atrocious thing is that, presumably, the local Tories just meekly swallowed this crap, and signed on the dotted line.
Clearly both Alan Sked and yourself have a problem with basic definitions. Being anti-immigration does not make one racist. Nor does being anti-Islam though in my case that is because I am anti-all religions. Are atheists who want to limit immigration automatically to be considered as racist?
Since Farage has been rather incontinently throwing around terms like 'anti English racism' and 'Fascist scum', I think it's good to get a bit of background. I have no opinion on the veracity of Alan Sked, but as we see endlessly from Monica the views of founding members of parties are fair game, and those expressed in the nineties and noughties might be just a tad more relevant.
For a Scot Nat of any stripe to accuse someone else of "xenophobia" is so injudicious I originally presumed you were being ironic. But you're serious??
You've put quotes around xenophobia. I presume you're quoting the founder of UKIP rather than me?
He's a as serious as anyone gullible enough to believe Cammie over his flounce that wasn't and his Cast Iron Referendum pledge. Best let him flounder lest he get too upset over Chicken Farage.
Comments
To not set a date for the end of negotiations is stupid, or Ed's position if you prefer.
I think the results show the wisdom of Ed Miliband's strategy of spouting meaningless bullshit like "One Nation Britain" for four years and leaving the actual policy until later.
Why not simply make such a tax illegal in London and say that any issuer wishing to trade in London will not pay it and it's their choice whether they want to raise money or trade in London and pay no tax or raise it in Paris and pay the wretched thing.
Make it clear that we won't tolerate any nonsense which is designed to and will harm our vital national interests, anymore than the Germans would accept an attack on their car industry. If they don't like our actions, we can sit down and talk about how to put this in writing in some way. Ditto re the budget: simply say that we're paying the same as last year - not a penny more etc and if they want to send in the bailiffs or whatever to HMG they're welcome to try etc. Less grumbling, in other words, and more actions - some sensible talking might come thereafter.
A) What sort of salary will you be asking for ?
A) No no you have to take out an advert in the paper telling everyone how much you want
A) Yeah but there's a fake farmer in Liverpool who is whining about it....
I'm sure the economics could be fixed: simple things like formalising the Luxembourg Compromise so that we can veto things that really matter. For example, it's daft that policy related to financial services - where the UK is by far the most significant player - is determined by votes of countries that don't really have a stake in the matter. Free trade, CAP reform, CFP reform etc are all more difficult, but something could be agreed.
The biggest issue is the direction of travel. The EZ, by necessity if nothing else, is moving towards a unified polity. I'm not sure I want to UK to be part of a unified polity. So the question becomes, is it feasible to be a member of a EU in which an agreed EZ position will always have a majority under QMV. I'm not sure that there *are* any terms that could be put in place which will sufficiently protect the UK's strategic interests in such circumstances
Is the UKIP-SNP spat being engineered by both parties, desperate to stay in the news? They do share a defect in each only having one policy."
Greg Hands might as well put a sticker on his head saying "I know nothing about the SNP".
The irony is that the protest had absolutely nothing to do with the SNP anyway - it was organised by Radical Independence, which is associated with the Greens and the pro-independence socialist parties.
Walk away now before you have even looked. UKIP. Barking
Talk about it for ever. Labour. Barking
Have a look and see with a defined end date. If there is no good deal, walk away. Tory. Obvious
I will negotiate so meaningfully,
That all the world shall--I will do such things,--
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth.
http://www.channel4.com/news/jamie-oliver-on-michael-gove-eating-ranting-and-ukip
One possibility is to say that nothing can be passed unless there is a majority of the EZ countries and a unanimous majority of the non-EZ countries (or at least a majority where the UK would always be able to block a proposal).
Otherwise our strategic interests will be outvoted and in those circumstances the balance of convenience tilts to Out.
The direction of travel has always been to countries joining / closer union etc. If one country finally said no - we're off - a nice try but no cigar etc - the shock would I think be enormous (whatever the bluffing from the French or others). The UK is not what it was in terms of world power but it is not a Malta or an insignificant player. It would I think cause some heartache among some European countries if the UK were to turn away from the EU as currently constituted, particularly since it has hardly been a rip roaring success in recent years.
Waiting for Godot Negotiations End...
http://www.eufreshstart.org/downloads/executivesummary.pdf
In any case, the argument that we can't get anything different to the current deal and therefore Cameron is wasting his time makes zero sense whatever view you take.
If you take the UKIP view, what does it matter if he can't? You'll be be proved right, and we'll have the In/Out referendum you want. So what are you bitching about?
If you take the Labour view, the EU as it is currently set up is the best of all attainable worlds, Cameron won't be able to change it, and the issue will be closed down by a referendum giving an In result. So what is the problem?
REG: F*ck off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front?! We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front? Tuh!
Splitters!
Back in the Real World, at some point negotiations come to an end, normally due to a deadline.
Labour has suspended the Falkirk parliamentary selection process to investigate membership irregularities. Monday Guardian for b/ground.
@patrickwintour
"Unite is fully confident that in relation to Falkirk West, as in all seats, our conduct is correct and fully compliant with party rules"
One Nation, Under Len !!
I would suggest that in these circumstances, we make the FTT payable to the UK government, but that participants receive a 100% tax credit against UK corporation tax valid for, say, 3 years. That way the money stays in the UK, the government that gets it upfront and anyone who tries anything cute with tax losses (I'm looking at you, BofA) doesn't get any discount.
One of the reasons that Blair appeared to be such a successful politician is that he knew very clearly which battles he was not guaranteed to win and he chose not to fight them. That is why we never had a referendum on joining the Euro, and why Brown was never levered out of the Treasury.
It is also why his Premiership achieved so little.
That is why the pro-Europe campaign is left to Danny Alexander.
REG: F*ck off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front?! We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front? Tuh!
Splitters!"
Well, the Radical Independence folk are in a sense "splitters", but not from the SNP. The Scottish Green Party used to be part of a unified UK Green Party (until 1990, I think), while the pro-independence socialist parties have their origins in Scottish Militant Labour. The clue's in the title with that one.
If he had played it better he might have gained some sympathy, but that went out of the window with his idiotic radio interview where he directly conflated people wanting to leave the United Kingdom with anti-English racism and fascism.
Whatever their views on independence, people just don't have time for that kind of nonsense. Farage seems to think that campaigning for a Yes vote is the rough equivalent of Islamic extremism.
Alice Bowman, a leader of Radical Independence Edinburgh who is originally from Carlisle, said: "As one of many English people on the protest, I find it insulting that Farage is painting us as anti-English. I think it is appalling that he conflates being English with support for his crazy anti-immigrant politics.
“We campaign for Scottish Independence on an internationalist basis. Scotland welcomes English people who want to work, study, and live here. But as we have seen, Scotland doesn’t want racist thugs like Farage, and that’s a good thing. We are proud that Farage’s attempts to bring his nonsense up here have been a dismal failure. He’ll be followed by protesters wherever he goes in Scotland.”
Essentially it needs to tell the EZ to get its tanks off our lawn and reinforce the doubts of those within the EZ about the whole proposal. If it really is going to harm a vital national interest then it needs to play rather more hardball than it is at present.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
CDU roughly=SPD+Greens. Left Party in, FDP out, both by slender margins. Pirates and anti-Euro AfD probably not in. Bear in mind that polls in Germany are very stable - a shift of say 2% is rare.
Plasusible outcomes:
1. Left gets in, FDP doesn't. Result: grand coalition.
2. Left and FDP both get in. Result: grand coalition.
3. Left goes out, FDP gets in. Result: CDU+FDP continue.
4. Left and FDP both out. Result: toss-up between CDU and SPD+Greens.
5. Pirates or AFD surge and get in after all. Result: grand coalition.
Thus probably grand coalition, but not nailed on.
Of course you differ, and fair enough."
It's not just me that differs - there's also that famous Panelbase poll that shows Yes in a clear lead if people anticipate a Tory victory, which now looks increasingly likely. Oh, and if Mike's suggestion that there may be a general election as early as this year proves right, all best are truly off.
Nick, is it true that the Left has three constituency seats that are pretty much guaranteed - ie. they don't need to worry about missing the 5% threshold?
NIGEL: Are you the Scottish National Party?
Student: F*ck off!
NIGEL: What?
Student: Scottish National Party?! We're the Radical Independence! Scottish National Party? Tuh!
Splitters!
My 2014 Euro election forecaster, based on UNS-D'Hondt...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AswNZWYSW1uvdFFtVGpSQzVoVXpGM253UkhrTEdFbVE&usp=sharing
any probs, give me a shout
But the interesting point for me is the way it has been received amongst the English in Aberdeen. In an office with at least 50% English, every one of them had been supportive of Farage and critical of the mob. For them at least this has reinforced their (mis)-preconceptions of the nationalists.
Of course this is not rational - I have seen far more of these mindless mobs south of the border - but if it plays this way in England as well then it will do Farage no harm at all.
And wanting to leave Europe is hardly nonsense. You may not agree with the view, but there is a point to be debated there. As there is with the 'nonsense' of Scotland leaving the UK.
I hope all Edinburgh students are not as stupid.
Liam O'Hare , internationalist , proud Scot and anglophile.
I guess they missed the irony.
(Note: I have no time for far-right organisations. I have no time for far-left ones either).
@UKIP Cllrs in Lincolnshire have voted against a phony bill that was dressed as "antiracism" but in fact pro pc and forced multiculturalism
------------------
Joel Pearce @Joel_Pearce
#UKIP councillors refuse to back anti-racism pledge because multiculturalism is 'fundamentally wrong' http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/UKIP-members-Lincolnshire-County-Council-refuse/story-19015707-detail/story.html#ixzz2TZEZ4J93 …
--------------------
One of UKIPs policies is to stop the spread of multiculturalism, where every community stays in its little ghettos. A start has been made on Lincolnshire, where UKIP has 16new councillors.
NOTICE HOW THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CON/LAB/LIB PARTY
Innocent face ;-)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/17/nigel-farage-alex-salmond-clash-protesters
We are all Kippers now!
We declare that:
• We value the contribution that all communities make to the quality of life in Lincolnshire and recognise ethnic and cultural diversity as a source of cultural, social and economic enrichment.
• We endorse the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are opposed to racism in all its forms.
• We will encourage a changing culture within the public services and the wider community that recognises the unacceptability of all forms of racism and takes action to combat it.
• We acknowledge that progress towards a more just society may not always be smooth, but as partners we are committed to maintaining dialogue and resolving our differences.
• We accept that without transparency and openness in the public services, progress towards a successful multi-cultural community will be hampered.
• We believe that the composition of the public services workforce should reflect that of the wider community, and will work to break down perceptions and barriers that prevent equal access to employment.
• We believe that all citizens should have the right to expect equal protection and equal treatment from all public services.
• We believe that children from all backgrounds are entitled to an education free from discrimination and harassment.
• We understand the essential role of the education system in Lincolnshire in developing the future of our multi-cultural community and commit ourselves to supporting and enhancing this work.
• We believe that our success will properly be measured not by our policies but by our actions in promoting equality for all the people of Lincolnshire.
• We call upon the residents of Lincolnshire to support us in this by respecting the dignity of all people and by constant vigilance for any expression of racism or racial discrimination."
I can see exactly why UKIP wouldn't sign it. Just as they say, it is not a simple anti-racist statement but rather enshrines basic principles of multiculturalism.
It would have been entirely possible to have a similar statement that retained all the anti-racist elements but removed the hugely divisive multi-cultural rubbish.
"This is a hugely objectionable point you're making isn't it? Suggesting that anti-English racism is somehow conflated with the campaign for a 'yes' vote in the forthcoming independence referendum?"
Could have been posed better.
For example (giving him enough rope):
"So you are saying that the independence campaign is rooted in anti-English racism?"
However, the interviewer led with the value judgement (one I share, but that's not the BBC's job) that Farrage's comment was 'hugely objectionable".....
Strangely, I've never really got on well with Glasgow. Possibly because I've only ever really visited for conferences, to pick up new boots, or to change trains at Queen Street. I don't know the place, although the Clyde waterfront to the Erskine Bridge was picking up a little ten years ago.
But Edinburgh... oh, Edinburgh. Mrs J's company has an office up there. Last year's Christmas party was the first time I've ever seen her so drunk that she's been sick. And I met a lovely Aussie ex whilst staying in a backpacker's hostel in Cockburn Street.
The taxi driver who took us from the centre to Leith whilst Mrs J was drunk had a son who was a professional railway photographer - result!
And no-one I talked to was in favour of independence. Although they might have been polite because I'm English... ;-)
http://antiracistnetwork.wordpress.com/2007/03/12/lincolnshire-county-council-declaration/
And the reaction on here if Farage blamed him for it rather than the protesters
The BBC Scotland interviewer was also simply doing his job by challenging Farage on an outrageous statement.
Last October, 230 people engaged in media and public relations work on behalf of the Scottish state were grouped into a new Communications Directorate."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomgallagher/100217573/nigel-farage-and-scotlands-left-wing-media-mafia/
Peaceful doesn't just mean not physically violent.
These students or whoever they were, weren't exactly the women at Greenham Common.
I bet most people would have found it quite intimidating
Multiculturalism has poisoned race relations in Britain and has been as damaging in its own way as the racists on the right.
That some on the left are still so blind that they cannot see that is very sad.
Shouldn't think too many people who are thinking about voting for them give a toss about Scottish independence anyway, if they do have an opinion it would probably be let them go.
Next Ukip PPB should be Nuttall leading a hodge podge cross section of English people singing "No one likes us we don't care"
'Later asked to justify his remarks, Mr Cameron said: "I don't think I'm saying anything that hasn't been said before. UKIP have some issues - not least that their own founding member Dr Sked left the party because he thought they had been infiltrated by the far Right."
That was a reference to Alan Sked, who quit the party in 1999. Mr Sked had also alleged that Nigel Farage, UKIP's leader in the European Parliament, once told him: "We will never win the n****r vote. The n**-n**s will never vote for us."
Mr Farage said the story was "absolute lies".'
http://tinyurl.com/clsup8y
'Asked if Ukip is a xenophobic party, he replied: "It seems to be anti-Islam and anti-immigrant. If that adds up to xenophobic, then yes."'
http://tinyurl.com/c7agd3w
Nice and woolly and cuddly in principle, downright dangerous when a lawyer starts using such declarations against you.
'Why not just reduce the Tory manifesto to "Dave says there are big issues to deal with, but he cannot tell you what they are" '
Which is far better than - "We can see what the big issues are, but we're not going to tell you our policy on them, because ......... err ....... we don't have one."
He's a as serious as anyone gullible enough to believe Cammie over his flounce that wasn't and his Cast Iron Referendum pledge. Best let him flounder lest he get too upset over Chicken Farage.