Given their relative records I believe Carswell over Cameron any day.
And given the choice I would rather have a referendum on membership of the EU as soon as possible. It's the one thing I thought I had in common with UKIP supporters but it seems I was wrong about that.
Well, we still have the bad weather thing. I too think that's about gay marriage.
Sad when you refuse to debate seriously Neil.
I note you are still not willing to answer the questions I posed but would rather fall back on silly quips. .
The real question is whether you think the electorate today are any more astute than they were in 1975?
But you expect the electorate to be more astute in 2022 than 2017? Or you just dont think they can be trusted at all and the UK should be taken out of the EU without reference to the voters?
Can I just say that I dont think it's a programme that UKIP should be advertising. "Vote for us because you're too thick to make the right decision on the EU today."
God almighty, why do clever people play ignorant?
Isnt it obvious that people on positions of power get to control the media, what gets heard and what gets smothered? Look at the cases dominating the news...
If you were camapaigning for Fracking to be stopped, would you rather vote for a party you fundamentally disagreed with & who were pro Fracking, because they were promising a referendum, or get as many Green MPS into the Commons to make your position stronger before a referendum?
I believe the people of the UK should have a referendum on membership of the EU so I'm voting for a party that believes in giving one to them.
Austin Mitchell gave a totally out-of-touch interview with the World At One today in response to research showing his constituency to be one of UKIP's best prospects from Labour.
If you think a Cameron fixed referendum will in any way be a reflection of the will of the BRitish people then you are quite simply mad.
Wow. What a low opinion you have of the UK electorate.
No I have a low opinion of the politicians. I do not hold to the idea that people get the politicians they deserve. I just believe that people in power are generally well placed to deceive the electorate and will do so should the need or opportunity arise.
No one in their right mind considers that the 1975 referendum was fair given the lies that were told beforehand by the overwhelmingly pro-EU political class. We now know from looking back over the last 4 decades that both the Tories and Labour were utterly dishonest about the aims and consequences of British membership of the EEC/EU. They were willing to lie through their teeth then and will of course do so again.
Cameron has already started with the lies even before the campaign starts so I have no doubt he is aiming to emulate his predecessors and con the public into staying in.
So for anyone who actually wants to leave the EU the choice is between getting rid of Cameron and a few more years of pain before we get to leave or trusting Cameron and knowing we will not be leaving for at least another generation.
As I have said before Cameron is the guide who promises to take you half way up the mountain but then intends to throw you off before you get a chance to reach the top.
He just wants power, as Carswell said, and will make any spurious claim to deceive people into voting him back in
The UKIP position seems to be to dismiss and refuse to debate the merits of anything Cameron proposes on Europe because he is lying... I'm sure that, should he announce that he would back a No vote if renegotiations are unsuccessful, with explicit red lines set out, the charge would still be that he is deceiving people into voting him back in...
Fair enough, it's your right to declare that someone is a charlatan and not to be trusted... but is does seem to bring any discussion to an abrupt halt... Presumably, should he be involved in a Leaders' Debate, Nigel Farage will have to do a bit better than stand there and accuse the Prime Minister of lying...
Carswell has seen Cameron's views on EU negotiation at closer quarters than any of us, and he says he doesn't mean a word of it, and left the Conservative Party as a result
There was me thinking the clue was in the headline. And as an example this closing statement - ''The EU of today is very different from the EU of 30 years ago. We need to face the fact that free movement has become a trigger for vast population movements caused by huge disparities in income. That is extracting talent out of countries that need to retain their best people and placing pressure on communities. It is time for a new settlement which recognises that free movement is a central principle of the EU, but it cannot be a completely unqualified one.''
Your statement is preposterous. But it is a typical baseless anti Cameron statement bereft of logic and which stands the facts on their head. 'Free movement of labour' has limits even now. There have always been transitional arrangements and we have our problems because Labour ignored them and we became the only destination in Europe after 2004. Also the rules are to go to a job not to search for a job. So the logic behind some change is sound and there is nothing at all against the principle in modifying the rules.
Any agreement with the EU if we left would have to involve free movement of Labour and membership of the single market. The result would be very little different to now and even less different from any new agreement we could negotiate from within.
The new entrant countries will gain in prosperity over time, they will retain their own workers and we will export our added value goods to them. If we leave we will only export entire indistries to them.
The headline argued for limits to free movement of people, but nothing on free movement of labour. What restrictions has Cameron argued for in terms of limiting workers moving in the EU?
As for your comment on a post-EU deal, that's just bollocks. The Korean-EU FTA, or the coming Canadian-EU FTA don't involved free movement of labour. I have made this point a dozen times, and none of you Europhile Tories have a response to it.
The UKIP position seems to be to dismiss and refuse to debate the merits of anything Cameron proposes on Europe because he is lying... I'm sure that, should he announce that he would back a No vote if renegotiations are unsuccessful, with explicit red lines set out, the charge would still be that he is deceiving people into voting him back in...
Fair enough, it's your right to declare that someone is a charlatan and not to be trusted... but is does seem to bring any discussion to an abrupt halt... Presumably, should he be involved in a Leaders' Debate, Nigel Farage will have to do a bit better than stand there and accuse the Prime Minister of lying...
As I said to Neil the question is not some hypothetical as to whether you believe Cameron will be honest in the future but whether it is actually possible for him to achieve anything meaningful even if he starts negotiations tomorrow morning.
Anything he can achieve will be meaningless if it is not actually signed sealed and delivered before the referendum. For the sorts of things that most people would consider red lines that means treaty changes.
Do you honestly contend that we will have a treaty change done and dusted including ratification before 2017?
Anything else can and will be reneged upon.
If the legislation is passed that an in-out referendum will be held on, say, 30th November 2017, then the UK electorate can decide on that date whether they wish to stay in or leave based on where the renegotiation has got to.
From time to time during the past few months the Tories have taken the lead and promptly lost it. Therefore, it does not feel like a real crossover.
I would like to bring clarity to this situation.
The "crossover" is defined as:
-------
The polls leading party loses its position as the leader if and only if the leading party is replaced by another party [ the same party ] for the next three consecutive polls. Thereafter, the party overtaking the previous leader is defined as the new leader. ------
Interesting point I would have liked to see cleared up.
My understanding is that the European Arrest Warrant can only be used for a criminal prosecution, either to bring back someone who is to be charged or someone who has already been charged but has then absconded.
Given that neither of these apply to the current situation I was wondering on what grounds the EAW is being pursued?
There was me thinking the clue was in the headline. And as an example this closing statement - ''The EU of today is very different from the EU of 30 years ago. We need to face the fact that free movement has become a trigger for vast population movements caused by huge disparities in income. That is extracting talent out of countries that need to retain their best people and placing pressure on communities. It is time for a new settlement which recognises that free movement is a central principle of the EU, but it cannot be a completely unqualified one.''
Your statement is preposterous. But it is a typical baseless anti Cameron statement bereft of logic and which stands the facts on their head. 'Free movement of labour' has limits even now. There have always been transitional arrangements and we have our problems because Labour ignored them and we became the only destination in Europe after 2004. Also the rules are to go to a job not to search for a job. So the logic behind some change is sound and there is nothing at all against the principle in modifying the rules.
Any agreement with the EU if we left would have to involve free movement of Labour and membership of the single market. The result would be very little different to now and even less different from any new agreement we could negotiate from within.
The new entrant countries will gain in prosperity over time, they will retain their own workers and we will export our added value goods to them. If we leave we will only export entire indistries to them.
The headline argued for limits to free movement of people, but nothing on free movement of labour. What restrictions has Cameron argued for in terms of limiting workers moving in the EU?
As for your comment on a post-EU deal, that's just bollocks. The Korean-EU FTA, or the coming Canadian-EU FTA don't involved free movement of labour. I have made this point a dozen times, and none of you Europhile Tories have a response to it.
As with my questions to Neil and others on here, it is daft to expect Europhiles to ever respond to direct questions. They simply have no answers.
Given their relative records I believe Carswell over Cameron any day.
And given the choice I would rather have a referendum on membership of the EU as soon as possible. It's the one thing I thought I had in common with UKIP supporters but it seems I was wrong about that.
Well, we still have the bad weather thing. I too think that's about gay marriage.
Sad when you refuse to debate seriously Neil.
I note you are still not willing to answer the questions I posed but would rather fall back on silly quips. .
Yeah, I'm not really one for engaging with straw men. I pretty straight forwardly want a referendum on EU membership as soon as possible. I find your opposition to one surprising and your justification for that position .. well .. bizarre but that's where we are. You're not going to convince me that the voters cant be trusted with an early referendum and I'm not going to convince you that they can be so why bother posing each other questions and demanding answers to them when we're both going to stick to our positions regardless?
Interesting point I would have liked to see cleared up.
My understanding is that the European Arrest Warrant can only be used for a criminal prosecution, either to bring back someone who is to be charged or someone who has already been charged but has then absconded.
Given that neither of these apply to the current situation I was wondering on what grounds the EAW is being pursued?
Socrates raised this point a day or so ago, and at that point I wondered if they ha actually been charged with anything and if the EAW had been used. Clearly they have been charged with something as they are now in the Spanish High Court at an extradition hearing.
The UKIP position seems to be to dismiss and refuse to debate the merits of anything Cameron proposes on Europe because he is lying... I'm sure that, should he announce that he would back a No vote if renegotiations are unsuccessful, with explicit red lines set out, the charge would still be that he is deceiving people into voting him back in...
Fair enough, it's your right to declare that someone is a charlatan and not to be trusted... but is does seem to bring any discussion to an abrupt halt... Presumably, should he be involved in a Leaders' Debate, Nigel Farage will have to do a bit better than stand there and accuse the Prime Minister of lying...
As I said to Neil the question is not some hypothetical as to whether you believe Cameron will be honest in the future but whether it is actually possible for him to achieve anything meaningful even if he starts negotiations tomorrow morning.
Anything he can achieve will be meaningless if it is not actually signed sealed and delivered before the referendum. For the sorts of things that most people would consider red lines that means treaty changes.
Do you honestly contend that we will have a treaty change done and dusted including ratification before 2017?
Anything else can and will be reneged upon.
If the legislation is passed that an in-out referendum will be held on, say, 30th November 2017, then the UK electorate can decide on that date whether they wish to stay in or leave based on where the renegotiation has got to.
And you really believe , given all he has said, that Cameron would be an honest broker in that situation?
(By the way, thanks for answering. I have been asking that same question for the last couple of years and you are the first person to actually respond openly and honestly).
Carswell has seen Cameron's views on EU negotiation at closer quarters than any of us, and he says he doesn't mean a word of it, and left the Conservative Party as a result
If we are going to go down this line what should we make of the opinions of all the rest of the Conservative Parliamentary Party? Many of them will have been even closer to Cameron and will say he does mean it. Should their views then trump Carswell's?
Given their relative records I believe Carswell over Cameron any day.
And given the choice I would rather have a referendum on membership of the EU as soon as possible. It's the one thing I thought I had in common with UKIP supporters but it seems I was wrong about that.
Well, we still have the bad weather thing. I too think that's about gay marriage.
Sad when you refuse to debate seriously Neil.
I note you are still not willing to answer the questions I posed but would rather fall back on silly quips. .
Yeah, I'm not really one for engaging with straw men. I pretty straight forwardly want a referendum on EU membership as soon as possible. I find your opposition to one surprising and your justification for that position .. well .. bizarre but that's where we are. You're not going to convince me that the voters cant be trusted with an early referendum and I'm not going to convince you that they can be so why bother posing each other questions and demanding answers to them when we're both going to stick to our positions regardless?
As for your comment on a post-EU deal, that's just bollocks. The Korean-EU FTA, or the coming Canadian-EU FTA don't involved free movement of labour. I have made this point a dozen times, and none of you Europhile Tories have a response to it.
Poppycock. Yes, you've made this silly point many times, and many times it has been rebutted.
It's nonsense like that which convinces me that the Out side can never win. To persuade people to make the leap, the Out side will have to address genuine (and some spurious) concerns about the effect on jobs and prosperity. The idea that voters will accept the proposition that 'it's OK, the very limited access to the Single Market which South Korea has is enough' is preposterous.
Quite apart from anything else, it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK.
But if you really think the arguments are so strong, why on earth are you so afraid of a referendum that you want to torpedo it?
Interesting point I would have liked to see cleared up.
My understanding is that the European Arrest Warrant can only be used for a criminal prosecution, either to bring back someone who is to be charged or someone who has already been charged but has then absconded.
Given that neither of these apply to the current situation I was wondering on what grounds the EAW is being pursued?
Socrates raised this point a day or so ago, and at that point I wondered if they ha actually been charged with anything and if the EAW had been used. Clearly they have been charged with something as they are now in the Spanish High Court at an extradition hearing.
Can they be charged in secret? No one seems to know anything about any charges.
Given their relative records I believe Carswell over Cameron any day.
And given the choice I would rather have a referendum on membership of the EU as soon as possible. It's the one thing I thought I had in common with UKIP supporters but it seems I was wrong about that.
Well, we still have the bad weather thing. I too think that's about gay marriage.
Sad when you refuse to debate seriously Neil.
I note you are still not willing to answer the questions I posed but would rather fall back on silly quips. .
Yeah, I'm not really one for engaging with straw men. I pretty straight forwardly want a referendum on EU membership as soon as possible. I find your opposition to one surprising and your justification for that position .. well .. bizarre but that's where we are. You're not going to convince me that the voters cant be trusted with an early referendum and I'm not going to convince you that they can be so why bother posing each other questions and demanding answers to them when we're both going to stick to our positions regardless?
You can't even admit whether it's legal or illegal because the whole thing is clouded in secrecy! You dismiss newspaper reports of wrongdoing as untrustworthy, while having complete faith in the political elite doing the right thing, even when they won't admit what it actually is they are doing or not doing. This is even the case in areas like spying on webcam content that you think is wrong. It's amazing. You don't base your apologism for the security state on any information - you do it on blind faith in the state. This is the same state covered up the torture of the Mau Mau and the killings on Bloody Sunday, for God's sake.
And if you really think parliament is independent of the executive then you have absolutely no knowledge of how parliamentary governance works.
Well, have you any better ideas? I most certainly do not have blind faith in the state, but we currently have supervision by an independent Commissioner, who is a very respected Judge and whose independence and probity have not, as far as I know, ever been doubted, and a cross-party Select Committee which is most certainly independent of the executive. Can you come up with a better way of overseeing the secret services (the clue to the difficulty is in the word 'secret')?
We also have a free and independent press, which still plays an important part despite the best efforts of Hacked Off and Ed Miliband to submit it to state-approved supervision.
A free and independent press that you simply disbelieve when they report things that cut your case to ribbons. Cross-party select committees are certainly not independent of the executive. Their members are MPs and virtually all MPs depend on the executive (or the future executive) for promotion. As for the independent commissioners, they merely check whether the security services are operating within the law. Given that the complaint is that the law is far too lax, they are not really relevant to the conversation.
If you want my better ideas, I'm happy to tell them to you: a new British bill of rights, guaranteeing liberties including the right of privacy, a ban on unreasonable searches, and a requirement that all searches of private information require an individual warrant. The police also keep their investigations secret, but that doesn't stop us knowing where their limits to infringe our privacy lie.
Given their relative records I believe Carswell over Cameron any day.
And given the choice I would rather have a referendum on membership of the EU as soon as possible. It's the one thing I thought I had in common with UKIP supporters but it seems I was wrong about that.
Well, we still have the bad weather thing. I too think that's about gay marriage.
Sad when you refuse to debate seriously Neil.
I note you are still not willing to answer the questions I posed but would rather fall back on silly quips. .
Yeah, I'm not really one for engaging with straw men. I pretty straight forwardly want a referendum on EU membership as soon as possible. I find your opposition to one surprising and your justification for that position .. well .. bizarre but that's where we are. You're not going to convince me that the voters cant be trusted with an early referendum and I'm not going to convince you that they can be so why bother posing each other questions and demanding answers to them when we're both going to stick to our positions regardless?
Perhaps because the answers to those questions are fundamental to the basic question of whether Cameron is serious or not.
Of course given that you are in favour of continued UK membership of the EU it is hardly surprising that you wouldn't want to give a straight answer to those questions since they would clearly expose the dishonesty of the current process... if it can even be called current since it hasn't even started yet.
Carswell has seen Cameron's views on EU negotiation at closer quarters than any of us, and he says he doesn't mean a word of it, and left the Conservative Party as a result
If we are going to go down this line what should we make of the opinions of all the rest of the Conservative Parliamentary Party? Many of them will have been even closer to Cameron and will say he does mean it. Should their views then trump Carswell's?
Not all of the Tory party want out
But as for the Eurosceptics, maybe they will once the most likely winner of a seat wins his?
Austin Mitchell gave a totally out-of-touch interview with the World At One today in response to research showing his constituency to be one of UKIP's best prospects from Labour.
In 2005, David Cameron MP voted for a reasoned amendment on the second reading of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill (which introduced control orders). It was that
This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, because it contains excessive powers in relation to requirements on a person to remain at a particular place when such powers are not presently necessary; gives to the Executive powers that should be exercised by the judiciary; allows decisions to be made on an insufficient standard of proof; fails to address the need to bring terrorists to trial on the basis of all evidence available; and thus wrongly infringes the right to liberty of the individual. [HC Deb, 23 Feb 2005, cols 434-438]
Today, as Prime Minister, he announces the reintroduction of control orders, by amendments to their slightly re-branded and watered-down form. There is no conclusion to be drawn other than that the man is a base charlatan of the lowest kind.
Or that (a) as PM he has access to different information than he had as a junior shadow cabinet member or (b) the threat assessment has changed since that time.
Quite apart from anything else, it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK.
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
"It also includes provisions on issues ranging from services and investments, competition, government procurement, intellectual property rights, transparency in regulation to sustainable development."
But if you really think the arguments are so strong, why on earth are you so afraid of a referendum that you want to torpedo it?
I'm not afraid of a referendum. I'd love one. How about one this parliament? Why is your party so scared of one that they kicked it into the long grass of an imaginary Tory majority?
If you want my better ideas, I'm happy to tell them to you: a new British bill of rights, guaranteeing liberties including the right of privacy, a ban on unreasonable searches, and a requirement that all searches of private information require an individual warrant. The police also keep their investigations secret, but that doesn't stop us knowing where their limits to infringe our privacy lie.
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
"all searches of private information require an individual warrant". If by that you mean metadata, it's impossible in practice. There are simply too many millions of links. If you mean content, we have it already.
As for the rest, I don't see the difference between that and what we have. Parliament lays down the limits of what is legal. That's democracy. We have independent oversight to ensure that the security services follow the law. Your 'guarantees' are no more than that, and would STILL have be overseen by someone with access to classified information. How else do you know if the search is 'unreasonable'?
In 2005, David Cameron MP voted for a reasoned amendment on the second reading of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill (which introduced control orders). It was that
This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, because it contains excessive powers in relation to requirements on a person to remain at a particular place when such powers are not presently necessary; gives to the Executive powers that should be exercised by the judiciary; allows decisions to be made on an insufficient standard of proof; fails to address the need to bring terrorists to trial on the basis of all evidence available; and thus wrongly infringes the right to liberty of the individual. [HC Deb, 23 Feb 2005, cols 434-438]
Today, as Prime Minister, he announces the reintroduction of control orders, by amendments to their slightly re-branded and watered-down form. There is no conclusion to be drawn other than that the man is a base charlatan of the lowest kind.
Or that (a) as PM he has access to different information than he had as a junior shadow cabinet member or (b) the threat assessment has changed since that time.
Quite. I like to think that he would be able to change his decision in the light of new evidence, rather than sticking to a previous stance.
Interesting point I would have liked to see cleared up.
My understanding is that the European Arrest Warrant can only be used for a criminal prosecution, either to bring back someone who is to be charged or someone who has already been charged but has then absconded.
Given that neither of these apply to the current situation I was wondering on what grounds the EAW is being pursued?
A European Arrest Warrant has been obtained, under section 142(1) of the Extradition Act 2003. That means that a District Judge (MC) had to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person has committed an extradition offence, and that a domestic warrant has been issued in respect of the person. The warrant will presumably have to be produced in the High Court in Madrid, although reports suggest that it may allege contravention of section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Given their relative records I believe Carswell over Cameron any day.
And given the choice I would rather have a referendum on membership of the EU as soon as possible. It's the one thing I thought I had in common with UKIP supporters but it seems I was wrong about that.
Well, we still have the bad weather thing. I too think that's about gay marriage.
Sad when you refuse to debate seriously Neil.
I note you are still not willing to answer the questions I posed but would rather fall back on silly quips. .
Yeah, I'm not really one for engaging with straw men. I pretty straight forwardly want a referendum on EU membership as soon as possible. I find your opposition to one surprising and your justification for that position .. well .. bizarre but that's where we are. You're not going to convince me that the voters cant be trusted with an early referendum and I'm not going to convince you that they can be so why bother posing each other questions and demanding answers to them when we're both going to stick to our positions regardless?
The real question is whether you think the electorate today are any more astute than they were in 1975?
But you expect the electorate to be more astute in 2022 than 2017? Or you just dont think they can be trusted at all and the UK should be taken out of the EU without reference to the voters?
Can I just say that I dont think it's a programme that UKIP should be advertising. "Vote for us because you're too thick to make the right decision on the EU today."
I certainly do not think the UK should leave without a referendum. It is far too large a constitutional change for that to be the case.
What I do know is that if Cameron gets his way then in 2017 he will be calling a referendum on the basis that he and all the other main party leaders want to stay in and he will have it in his power to make the case that what he has negotiated is sufficient of a change to have us vote to remain in the EU.
Now clearly given that he has no way on earth of making that claim honestly because he simply hasn't enough time between now and 2017 to negotiate anything substantial that would be binding on the EU after the referendum. so we already know he is planning to deceive the electorate with what he has won back.
Do you disagree with that? Do you actually believe Cameron can get any significant and fundamental changes to the UK relationship with the EU that would be enforceable and in place before 2017? That is the basic question all those arguing for Cameron's referendum need to ask.
If the answer is yes then perhaps you can outline how that can happen (bearing in mind it would need a treaty change ratified by all the other EU member states)
If the answer is no then why should anyone who wants to leave believe that Cameron is playing honest broker here?
If you have a vote w/o renegotiating the "in" side can pretend they can reform. This eliminates that argument. Cameron won't be able to dissemble. On the extent of the reforms unless he can take his party with him, which offers some protection against that.
If you want my better ideas, I'm happy to tell them to you: a new British bill of rights, guaranteeing liberties including the right of privacy, a ban on unreasonable searches, and a requirement that all searches of private information require an individual warrant. The police also keep their investigations secret, but that doesn't stop us knowing where their limits to infringe our privacy lie.
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
"all searches of private information require an individual warrant". If by that you mean metadata, it's impossible in practice. There are simply too many millions of links. If you mean content, we have it already.
As for the rest, I don't see the difference between that and what we have. Parliament lays down the limits of what is legal. That's democracy. We have independent oversight to ensure that the security services follow the law. Your 'guarantees' are no more than that, and would STILL have be overseen by someone with access to classified information. How else do you know if the search is 'unreasonable'?
How is "we're accessing innocent people's webcam images" or "we're not accessing innocent people's webcam images" classified information?
Parliament laying down the limits of the law, in absence of public debate, because the public aren't being informed of the how intrusive the searches are, is certainly not democracy. MPs are supposed to be the public's representative. If the public are being kept in the dark, then how can MPs represent what their views are?
Austin Mitchell gave a totally out-of-touch interview with the World At One today in response to research showing his constituency to be one of UKIP's best prospects from Labour.
Given their relative records I believe Carswell over Cameron any day.
And given the choice I would rather have a referendum on membership of the EU as soon as possible. It's the one thing I thought I had in common with UKIP supporters but it seems I was wrong about that.
Well, we still have the bad weather thing. I too think that's about gay marriage.
Sad when you refuse to debate seriously Neil.
I note you are still not willing to answer the questions I posed but would rather fall back on silly quips. .
Yeah, I'm not really one for engaging with straw men. I pretty straight forwardly want a referendum on EU membership as soon as possible. I find your opposition to one surprising and your justification for that position .. well .. bizarre but that's where we are. You're not going to convince me that the voters cant be trusted with an early referendum and I'm not going to convince you that they can be so why bother posing each other questions and demanding answers to them when we're both going to stick to our positions regardless?
So you are voting Tory?
No.
So why should I???
Wow - why would you think that I care who you vote for?
Of course given that you are in favour of continued UK membership of the EU
As I said, make up all the straw men that you like, it's not really a basis for a constructive debate though, is it?
It is not straw man. Simply claiming it as such is not going to change the basic facts. If you cannot answer those basic questions then I am afraid your whole position is based on flawed logic.
Of course given that you want to stay in I would hardly expect you to give an honest answer.
"It also includes provisions on issues ranging from services and investments, competition, government procurement, intellectual property rights, transparency in regulation to sustainable development."
But if you really think the arguments are so strong, why on earth are you so afraid of a referendum that you want to torpedo it?
I'm not afraid of a referendum. I'd love one. How about one this parliament? Why is your party so scared of one that they kicked it into the long grass of an imaginary Tory majority?
So, you are maintaining, presumably with a straight face, that South Korea has the same access to the Single Market as the UK does? For heaven's sake, of all absurdities, that is beyond the absurd.
On the referendum, you'd better sort it out with you UKIP friends. They now say the last thing they want is a referendum. When offered one they run a mile and try to get a Labour government installed in order to avoid one.
As for your last point, yes, it is quite true that I don't want a referendum in this parliament. That is because, without renegotiation, it would still produce a Stay In result and thereby lock in the unsatisfactory state inherited from Labour for a generation.
"... it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK."
Just out if interest has the single market for services been finalised within the EU? I don't think it has and what is more nor does the European Commission
So if the market for services is absolutely key for the UK where does that leave us in relation to our EU "partners"? Please note the dates in that article,.
"all searches of private information require an individual warrant". If by that you mean metadata, it's impossible in practice. There are simply too many millions of links. If you mean content, we have it already.
As for the rest, I don't see the difference between that and what we have. Parliament lays down the limits of what is legal. That's democracy. We have independent oversight to ensure that the security services follow the law. Your 'guarantees' are no more than that, and would STILL have be overseen by someone with access to classified information. How else do you know if the search is 'unreasonable'?
Let's just remember that interception warrants, whether under s. 8(1) or (4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, are granted by the executive, not by any court of record. Secondly, unlike other warrants, their validity cannot be challenged by way of judicial review in a superior court, and they are therefore contrary to the principle of legality. As for the lawfulness of the government's interpretation of the law, that is a live issue before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which, given its use of closed material procedures, must be regarded as materially unfair to those aggrieved by interception of communications.
It seems that the UKIP position is that Cameron, if re-elected, would renege on his referendum pledge. He would of course almost certainly be overthrown by his own party if he did so, but never mind that for now.
I have asked this question before but without any response, so let's try again. What plausible trajectory of events is envisaged by UKIP which will culminate in our leaving in EU?
How is "we're accessing innocent people's webcam images" or "we're not accessing innocent people's webcam images" classified information?
Parliament laying down the limits of the law, in absence of public debate, because the public aren't being informed of the how intrusive the searches are, is certainly not democracy. MPs are supposed to be the public's representative. If the public are being kept in the dark, then how can MPs represent what their views are?
Well, the security service say they are not breaking the law. The Guardian says they are, and systematically so. One is right, and one is wrong. I can't tell which. Neither can you.
The only people who can make anything vaguely representing a sensible judgement on this are those with access to classified information and who are able to quiz the security services about what they are up to. And that brings us back to where we are: we need an independent supervisor who has such access and the power to investigate. And that is exactly what we have.
Kippers faith in their cause and the British public is touching they don't want to hold a referendum lest they lose it.
Sack up you Kippers.
Will you head off to Syria or Iraq if Ed wins in 2015?
Nah. I'm staying. It'll be fun winding up the Kippers for not giving us a referendum.
I must assume TSE that you do not wish for the UK to leave the EU. Because if you did support BOO then the calculation is very simple. If Cameron gets re - elected in 2015 then the chances of the UK leaving the EU in the next couple of decades is practically zero.
I can see myself voting no in a referendum.
Unlike you Kippers I want a referendum pdq.
But thanks for admitting you're scared of democracy and the will of the British people
I can see myself voting OUT in a referendum. The big worry about voting OUT is how we then negotiate our relationship with the EU. This is of course the big flaw in the SNP argument. Assuming we find we cannot gain any sense from the EU then I would accept the EEA like Norway. We would be outside political and taxation and currency closer union. But in most respects we would be little different from now. If the deal was effectively like Norway but still officially in then i would probably vote IN - because we can still vote to suit our interests.
But just what would we know about our future when voting. Would the EEA be on the cards and would any deal that protected our finance industry and for instance our car industry?
In virtually any alternative scenario that involves a deal with the EU we would be little different from now - and even less from any other deal we might make by 2017.
It seems that the UKIP position is that Cameron, if re-elected, would renege on his referendum pledge. He would of course almost certainly be overthrown by his own party if he did so, but never mind that for now.
I have asked this question before but without any response, so let's try again. What plausible trajectory of events is envisaged by UKIP which will culminate in our leaving in EU?
There's a referendum and the people vote to leave.
"... it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK."
Just out if interest has the single market for services been finalised within the EU? I don't think it has and what is more nor does the European Commission
So if the market for services is absolutely key for the UK where does that leave us in relation to our EU "partners"? Please note the dates in that article,.
No, it hasn't been finalised. But, for example, there is considerable freedom for cross-border sales in financial services already, and for cross-border tendering for government outsourcing contracts. It's true that more is needed (and that will no doubt be a key part of any renegotiation, or of any negotiation on terms if we do leave the EU).
"... it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK."
Just out if interest has the single market for services been finalised within the EU? I don't think it has and what is more nor does the European Commission
So if the market for services is absolutely key for the UK where does that leave us in relation to our EU "partners"? Please note the dates in that article,.
Why rush Mr L, the way Aldi are ripping holes in to Tesco our services need the protection.
A Southampton Health Authority spokesman was criticising the King family for taking the child on a long car journey to Spain. Now the family is facing an extradition order. Are they expected to leave their child in Spain or will he be subjected to another journey back? FGS can't a common sense arrangement be made so that the parents can be with their dying son?
It seems that the UKIP position is that Cameron, if re-elected, would renege on his referendum pledge. He would of course almost certainly be overthrown by his own party if he did so, but never mind that for now.
I have asked this question before but without any response, so let's try again. What plausible trajectory of events is envisaged by UKIP which will culminate in our leaving in EU?
There's a referendum and the people vote to leave.
The plausible trajectory of events does need to include detail on how you will get to the referendum.
It seems that the UKIP position is that Cameron, if re-elected, would renege on his referendum pledge. He would of course almost certainly be overthrown by his own party if he did so, but never mind that for now.
I have asked this question before but without any response, so let's try again. What plausible trajectory of events is envisaged by UKIP which will culminate in our leaving in EU?
Evening Peter
In UKIP but not agreeing with their stance on this seems to be a common position for me.
I do not believe that Cameron would renege. I just believe he would make sure there was no way on earth he could lose.
However in answer to your question I suspect firstly that the UKIP position would be that they would win enough seats to influence the decision directly in Parliament by being [part of a coalition.
Personally I think this is unlikely so I am relying on the fact that were Cameron to lose the next election then the Tories would choose someone more Eurosceptic who would then be in a position post 2020 to give us a fair referendum with the party of government campaigning to leave.
Cameron supporters on here - along with some disingenuous Europhiles - claim that this is an unlikely scenario. Personally though I think it would be a difficult road it si still more likely to have us leaving the EU than a 2017 referendum run and dominated by both the main parties campaigning for In and Cameron misleading the electorate about what he had achieved.
I think what you have to understand is that for Eurosceptics all the political possibilities look pretty bleak looking at the current state of politics in the UK. So we are left with choosing what we consider to be the most likely course to get BOO in the long run.
As for your comment on a post-EU deal, that's just bollocks. The Korean-EU FTA, or the coming Canadian-EU FTA don't involved free movement of labour. I have made this point a dozen times, and none of you Europhile Tories have a response to it.
Poppycock. Yes, you've made this silly point many times, and many times it has been rebutted.
It's nonsense like that which convinces me that the Out side can never win. To persuade people to make the leap, the Out side will have to address genuine (and some spurious) concerns about the effect on jobs and prosperity. The idea that voters will accept the proposition that 'it's OK, the very limited access to the Single Market which South Korea has is enough' is preposterous.
Quite apart from anything else, it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK.
But if you really think the arguments are so strong, why on earth are you so afraid of a referendum that you want to torpedo it?
@HurstLlama has made my point already - but -'d amplify that it's the French that keep frustrating things.
Additionally they seemed determined to try and loot one of our leading industries with an extraterritorial tax that will dramatically reduce the competitiveness of the UK
As for your comment on a post-EU deal, that's just bollocks. The Korean-EU FTA, or the coming Canadian-EU FTA don't involved free movement of labour. I have made this point a dozen times, and none of you Europhile Tories have a response to it.
Poppycock. Yes, you've made this silly point many times, and many times it has been rebutted.
It's nonsense like that which convinces me that the Out side can never win. To persuade people to make the leap, the Out side will have to address genuine (and some spurious) concerns about the effect on jobs and prosperity. The idea that voters will accept the proposition that 'it's OK, the very limited access to the Single Market which South Korea has is enough' is preposterous.
Quite apart from anything else, it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK.
But if you really think the arguments are so strong, why on earth are you so afraid of a referendum that you want to torpedo it?
@HurstLlama has made my point already - but -'d amplify that it's the French that keep frustrating things.
Additionally they seemed determined to try and loot one of our leading industries with an extraterritorial tax that will dramatically reduce the competitiveness of the UK
If you call rip-offs and recurrent criminality one of our key industries .......
mr Tyndall says - ''Do you actually believe Cameron can get any significant and fundamental changes to the UK relationship with the EU that would be enforceable and in place before 2017? ''
Why should we not believe that. There is no reason to believe the opposite.
But why on earth do you want a referendum before the opportunity is there? Simply to have a referendum before that will encourage more people to vote IN since there is no evidence about the possibilities of reform. To argue that Labour and Liberal and Tory will all campaign to stay in is no argument because the same would apply if we had a referendum now. But in fact that only applies to Lab and LD since various tories would campaign differently under both circumstances.
The UKIP position seems to be to dismiss and refuse to debate the merits of anything Cameron proposes on Europe because he is lying... I'm sure that, should he announce that he would back a No vote if renegotiations are unsuccessful, with explicit red lines set out, the charge would still be that he is deceiving people into voting him back in...
Fair enough, it's your right to declare that someone is a charlatan and not to be trusted... but is does seem to bring any discussion to an abrupt halt... Presumably, should he be involved in a Leaders' Debate, Nigel Farage will have to do a bit better than stand there and accuse the Prime Minister of lying...
As I said to Neil the question is not some hypothetical as to whether you believe Cameron will be honest in the future but whether it is actually possible for him to achieve anything meaningful even if he starts negotiations tomorrow morning.
Anything he can achieve will be meaningless if it is not actually signed sealed and delivered before the referendum. For the sorts of things that most people would consider red lines that means treaty changes.
Do you honestly contend that we will have a treaty change done and dusted including ratification before 2017?
Anything else can and will be reneged upon.
If the legislation is passed that an in-out referendum will be held on, say, 30th November 2017, then the UK electorate can decide on that date whether they wish to stay in or leave based on where the renegotiation has got to.
And you really believe , given all he has said, that Cameron would be an honest broker in that situation?
(By the way, thanks for answering. I have been asking that same question for the last couple of years and you are the first person to actually respond openly and honestly).
I do believe that a sufficiently objective view of where the renegotiation has got to, independent of anything David Cameron says, will be available to enable to inform people's choice. I have no doubt the claims and counter claims will create confusion, much of it deliberate, but that will be the case whenever the referendum happens. I expect little real progress to have been made and anticipate voting out.
mr Tyndall says - ''Do you actually believe Cameron can get any significant and fundamental changes to the UK relationship with the EU that would be enforceable and in place before 2017? ''
Why should we not believe that. There is no reason to believe the opposite.
But why on earth do you want a referendum before the opportunity is there? Simply to have a referendum before that will encourage more people to vote IN since there is no evidence about the possibilities of reform. To argue that Labour and Liberal and Tory will all campaign to stay in is no argument because the same would apply if we had a referendum now. But in fact that only applies to Lab and LD since various tories would campaign differently under both circumstances.
We should not believe it because it is already too late. The only way we could get something that we could be sure would not be reneged upon would be for it to be subject to a treaty change or a new treaty. Given that it would need all 29 member states to agree to that and ratify it is simply not possible for that to happen before the planned referendum.
And without such assurances all Cameron's claims would not be worth the paper they were written on even if he believed them himself.
Is this woman some sort of avatar of Athena that she must be foist upon Parliament, and Parliament's own structures gerrymandered to hasten her inclusion?
Better to axe Bercow than accept this nonsense.
Wonderful. I'd go for Pandora myself. And keep her box tightly shut. I'd vote for Prometheus.
It seems that the UKIP position is that Cameron, if re-elected, would renege on his referendum pledge. He would of course almost certainly be overthrown by his own party if he did so, but never mind that for now.
I have asked this question before but without any response, so let's try again. What plausible trajectory of events is envisaged by UKIP which will culminate in our leaving in EU?
Evening Peter
In UKIP but not agreeing with their stance on this seems to be a common position for me.
I do not believe that Cameron would renege. I just believe he would make sure there was no way on earth he could lose.
However in answer to your question I suspect firstly that the UKIP position would be that they would win enough seats to influence the decision directly in Parliament by being [part of a coalition.
Personally I think this is unlikely so I am relying on the fact that were Cameron to lose the next election then the Tories would choose someone more Eurosceptic who would then be in a position post 2020 to give us a fair referendum with the party of government campaigning to leave.
Cameron supporters on here - along with some disingenuous Europhiles - claim that this is an unlikely scenario. Personally though I think it would be a difficult road it si still more likely to have us leaving the EU than a 2017 referendum run and dominated by both the main parties campaigning for In and Cameron misleading the electorate about what he had achieved.
I think what you have to understand is that for Eurosceptics all the political possibilities look pretty bleak looking at the current state of politics in the UK. So we are left with choosing what we consider to be the most likely course to get BOO in the long run.
Cameron's phony renegotiation ain't it.
That is a clear and reasoned response, Richard.
I do think it is clouded with tremendous uncertainty though. Just as likely there would be a bitter dog-fight on the Right and Labour would be in office for at least two terms: we would be back the Blair/Brown 'heart of Europe' position. That is just about as far away from UKIP as it is possible to get.
When the referendum comes, if it ever does, there will be in IN and and OUT campaign. IN will always include the Establishment regardless, and there will be a tremendous scare narrative, just like 1975. (The SNP is the Scottish government and therefore 'Establishment', but they are struggling to overcome the innate fear of independence which their opponents are putting about.) UKIP can only prepare for this in my opinion: in Farage they have an excellent advocate, who easily flattened Clegg. But they must get to the referendum first. UKIP should take the offer on the table and seek to ensure that the parliament elected in May will pass the legislation necessary to give us all a referendum.
I was hoping this would come up at some point. Galloway is a loathsome man, but attacking one's political opponents is absolutely disgusting. Given that Galloway is probably a Muslim, and people know he fights for a Muslim-dominated party, it's quite likely this is a hate crime.
How is "we're accessing innocent people's webcam images" or "we're not accessing innocent people's webcam images" classified information?
Parliament laying down the limits of the law, in absence of public debate, because the public aren't being informed of the how intrusive the searches are, is certainly not democracy. MPs are supposed to be the public's representative. If the public are being kept in the dark, then how can MPs represent what their views are?
Well, the security service say they are not breaking the law. The Guardian says they are, and systematically so. One is right, and one is wrong. I can't tell which. Neither can you.
The only people who can make anything vaguely representing a sensible judgement on this are those with access to classified information and who are able to quiz the security services about what they are up to. And that brings us back to where we are: we need an independent supervisor who has such access and the power to investigate. And that is exactly what we have.
Richard, How independent do you think this supervisor actually is? My guess (and that is all that it is) is that he is from the Desmond Glazebrook school of banking regulation.
I was hoping this would come up at some point. Galloway is a loathsome man, but attacking one's political opponents is absolutely disgusting. Given that Galloway is probably a Muslim, and people know he fights for a Muslim-dominated party, it's quite likely this is a hate crime.
How is "we're accessing innocent people's webcam images" or "we're not accessing innocent people's webcam images" classified information?
Parliament laying down the limits of the law, in absence of public debate, because the public aren't being informed of the how intrusive the searches are, is certainly not democracy. MPs are supposed to be the public's representative. If the public are being kept in the dark, then how can MPs represent what their views are?
Well, the security service say they are not breaking the law. The Guardian says they are, and systematically so. One is right, and one is wrong. I can't tell which. Neither can you.
The only people who can make anything vaguely representing a sensible judgement on this are those with access to classified information and who are able to quiz the security services about what they are up to. And that brings us back to where we are: we need an independent supervisor who has such access and the power to investigate. And that is exactly what we have.
There's two parts of this: (1) what the law actually is and (2) whether or not the security services are breaking it. I agree that (2) is something only someone with access to the classified stuff can decide on but that doesn't mean (1) should be wrapped in secretly. Oh, and the independent commissioner should make his findings public. Instead we're met with a wall of silence, suggesting the independent commisioner has done sweet FA.
mr Tyndall says - ''Do you actually believe Cameron can get any significant and fundamental changes to the UK relationship with the EU that would be enforceable and in place before 2017? ''
Why should we not believe that. There is no reason to believe the opposite.
But why on earth do you want a referendum before the opportunity is there? Simply to have a referendum before that will encourage more people to vote IN since there is no evidence about the possibilities of reform. To argue that Labour and Liberal and Tory will all campaign to stay in is no argument because the same would apply if we had a referendum now. But in fact that only applies to Lab and LD since various tories would campaign differently under both circumstances.
We should not believe it because it is already too late. The only way we could get something that we could be sure would not be reneged upon would be for it to be subject to a treaty change or a new treaty. Given that it would need all 29 member states to agree to that and ratify it is simply not possible for that to happen before the planned referendum.
And without such assurances all Cameron's claims would not be worth the paper they were written on even if he believed them himself.
Since we are in, would it not be more sensible to stop being paranoid. "Europe" isn't a bloc of states trying to do down Perfidious Albion; it's a group of 20+ other state, all of whom have their own hopes and concerns. If our leaders, and that includes the Press, spent 10% of the time they spend on manufactured "scares" about Europe on the positives we'd all be a lot better off. And our politics would be a lot more sensible, too.
A Southampton Health Authority spokesman was criticising the King family for taking the child on a long car journey to Spain. Now the family is facing an extradition order. Are they expected to leave their child in Spain or will he be subjected to another journey back? FGS can't a common sense arrangement be made so that the parents can be with their dying son?
To be fair to the hospital, you are comparing a long journey by car, with medically unqualified people, bags, and possibly other family members inside, with what would probably be a medical return journey in ambulance, or regular flight with suitable medical staff.
It's quite possible we don't have the whole story here. Certainly the family's side of things has seemed very odd, to say the least. Amongst many other things, diagnosis by Internet is not exactly robust.
On the other hand, and letting my own biases get involved, if the family courts are, or have been, involved, then anything is possible.
mr Tyndall says - ''Do you actually believe Cameron can get any significant and fundamental changes to the UK relationship with the EU that would be enforceable and in place before 2017? ''
Why should we not believe that. There is no reason to believe the opposite.
But why on earth do you want a referendum before the opportunity is there? Simply to have a referendum before that will encourage more people to vote IN since there is no evidence about the possibilities of reform. To argue that Labour and Liberal and Tory will all campaign to stay in is no argument because the same would apply if we had a referendum now. But in fact that only applies to Lab and LD since various tories would campaign differently under both circumstances.
We should not believe it because it is already too late. The only way we could get something that we could be sure would not be reneged upon would be for it to be subject to a treaty change or a new treaty. Given that it would need all 29 member states to agree to that and ratify it is simply not possible for that to happen before the planned referendum.
And without such assurances all Cameron's claims would not be worth the paper they were written on even if he believed them himself.
The UK government has set out changes to EU treaties that have been agreed with our European partners. Do you agree that the UK should now ratify these changes and remain a member of the EU? Do you further agree that if our European partners fail to ratify these changes the UK should leave the. EU?
"It also includes provisions on issues ranging from services and investments, competition, government procurement, intellectual property rights, transparency in regulation to sustainable development."
But if you really think the arguments are so strong, why on earth are you so afraid of a referendum that you want to torpedo it?
I'm not afraid of a referendum. I'd love one. How about one this parliament? Why is your party so scared of one that they kicked it into the long grass of an imaginary Tory majority?
So, you are maintaining, presumably with a straight face, that South Korea has the same access to the Single Market as the UK does? For heaven's sake, of all absurdities, that is beyond the absurd.
No, I am merely maintaining, that you were completely wrong when you claimed that the South Korea deal didn't cover services. It does, and your revealed lack of knowledge here is telling. At least have the good grace to admit you were wrong.
On the referendum, you'd better sort it out with you UKIP friends. They now say the last thing they want is a referendum. When offered one they run a mile and try to get a Labour government installed in order to avoid one.
Which UKIP friends are you talking about? The official position of the party?
When offered one they don't rule a mile. They just don't throw in everything they've worked for decades to achieve for the unlikely chance that Cameron gets an absolutel majority. As it is, UKIP could well win Labour seats at the next election, which would increase the pro-referendum forces in parliament.
As for your last point, yes, it is quite true that I don't want a referendum in this parliament. That is because, without renegotiation, it would still produce a Stay In result and thereby lock in the unsatisfactory state inherited from Labour for a generation.
You'd prefer to get a referendum on the minimum Cameron can negotiate to fool the public into staying in? Because that's his position.
As for your comment on a post-EU deal, that's just bollocks. The Korean-EU FTA, or the coming Canadian-EU FTA don't involved free movement of labour. I have made this point a dozen times, and none of you Europhile Tories have a response to it.
Poppycock. Yes, you've made this silly point many times, and many times it has been rebutted.
It's nonsense like that which convinces me that the Out side can never win. To persuade people to make the leap, the Out side will have to address genuine (and some spurious) concerns about the effect on jobs and prosperity. The idea that voters will accept the proposition that 'it's OK, the very limited access to the Single Market which South Korea has is enough' is preposterous.
Quite apart from anything else, it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK.
But if you really think the arguments are so strong, why on earth are you so afraid of a referendum that you want to torpedo it?
@HurstLlama has made my point already - but -'d amplify that it's the French that keep frustrating things.
Additionally they seemed determined to try and loot one of our leading industries with an extraterritorial tax that will dramatically reduce the competitiveness of the UK
If you call rip-offs and recurrent criminality one of our key industries .......
The industry in which I operate clearly took a number of wrong turns in the last 20 years.
That doesn't mean that the sector itself is without value. A large part of it provides significant value to customers and is truly differentiated in a competitive global market. The trick is to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Richard, How independent do you think this supervisor actually is? My guess (and that is all that it is) is that he is from the Desmond Glazebrook school of banking regulation.
The Interception of Communications Commissioner is Sir Anthony May, a former President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. The issue is not whether he is personally in the pocket of the Security Services (which would be an outrageous and defamatory suggestion), but whether the system of oversight will inevitably tend to produce results which favour of the government.
There's two parts of this: (1) what the law actually is and (2) whether or not the security services are breaking it. I agree that (2) is something only someone with access to the classified stuff can decide on but that doesn't mean (1) should be wrapped in secretly. Oh, and the independent commissioner should make his findings public. Instead we're met with a wall of silence, suggesting the independent commisioner has done sweet FA.
Best to stick to the facts. The 2013 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications CommissionerHC 1184 is available for all to read.
How is "we're accessing innocent people's webcam images" or "we're not accessing innocent people's webcam images" classified information?
Parliament laying down the limits of the law, in absence of public debate, because the public aren't being informed of the how intrusive the searches are, is certainly not democracy. MPs are supposed to be the public's representative. If the public are being kept in the dark, then how can MPs represent what their views are?
Well, the security service say they are not breaking the law. The Guardian says they are, and systematically so. One is right, and one is wrong. I can't tell which. Neither can you.
The only people who can make anything vaguely representing a sensible judgement on this are those with access to classified information and who are able to quiz the security services about what they are up to. And that brings us back to where we are: we need an independent supervisor who has such access and the power to investigate. And that is exactly what we have.
There's two parts of this: (1) what the law actually is and (2) whether or not the security services are breaking it. I agree that (2) is something only someone with access to the classified stuff can decide on but that doesn't mean (1) should be wrapped in secretly. Oh, and the independent commissioner should make his findings public. Instead we're met with a wall of silence, suggesting the independent commisioner has done sweet FA.
Read the laws. USSID 18, USSID 9, for USA, HRA & RIPA for UK for starters and you may more informed and less paranoid.
As for your comment on a post-EU deal, that's just bollocks. The Korean-EU FTA, or the coming Canadian-EU FTA don't involved free movement of labour. I have made this point a dozen times, and none of you Europhile Tories have a response to it.
Poppycock. Yes, you've made this silly point many times, and many times it has been rebutted.
It's nonsense like that which convinces me that the Out side can never win. To persuade people to make the leap, the Out side will have to address genuine (and some spurious) concerns about the effect on jobs and prosperity. The idea that voters will accept the proposition that 'it's OK, the very limited access to the Single Market which South Korea has is enough' is preposterous.
Quite apart from anything else, it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK.
But if you really think the arguments are so strong, why on earth are you so afraid of a referendum that you want to torpedo it?
@HurstLlama has made my point already - but -'d amplify that it's the French that keep frustrating things.
Additionally they seemed determined to try and loot one of our leading industries with an extraterritorial tax that will dramatically reduce the competitiveness of the UK
If you call rip-offs and recurrent criminality one of our key industries .......
The industry in which I operate clearly took a number of wrong turns in the last 20 years.
That doesn't mean that the sector itself is without value. A large part of it provides significant value to customers and is truly differentiated in a competitive global market. The trick is to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Really/
UK banking works like most other UK businesses, high margins, crap service and hiding behind legalities. The fault isn't necessarily the management's as they are required to target unrealistic returns by so-called investors. So we get the usual strategies of pump up the prices until the house of cards collapses ( the BTR approach or noughties financial services ) or sell the thing before we get found out .
maybe if we just stuck with the simple things like customer service and cost control we'd be better off.
"Ashya King’s entire family has been banned from visiting him in hospital in Spain as part of “inhuman” restrictions placed on them after the five-year-old cancer patient was made a ward of court by a judge. "
As for your comment on a post-EU deal, that's just bollocks. The Korean-EU FTA, or the coming Canadian-EU FTA don't involved free movement of labour. I have made this point a dozen times, and none of you Europhile Tories have a response to it.
Poppycock. Yes, you've made this silly point many times, and many times it has been rebutted.
It's nonsense like that which convinces me that the Out side can never win. To persuade people to make the leap, the Out side will have to address genuine (and some spurious) concerns about the effect on jobs and prosperity. The idea that voters will accept the proposition that 'it's OK, the very limited access to the Single Market which South Korea has is enough' is preposterous.
Quite apart from anything else, it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK.
But if you really think the arguments are so strong, why on earth are you so afraid of a referendum that you want to torpedo it?
@HurstLlama has made my point already - but -'d amplify that it's the French that keep frustrating things.
Additionally they seemed determined to try and loot one of our leading industries with an extraterritorial tax that will dramatically reduce the competitiveness of the UK
If you call rip-offs and recurrent criminality one of our key industries .......
Oi! Be fair, Mr Brooke, I carry no flame for bankers, though Mr Charles seems a good egg and the ladies at the Lloyds Bank Branch in Hassocks are always charming, but banking and associated services are about the only thing that have kept this country afloat for as long as I can remember. Probably not a good thing, not a healthy thing, but until you metal-bashers start generating gazillions of profits from overseas sales we haven't got anything else.
"Ashya King’s entire family has been banned from visiting him in hospital in Spain as part of “inhuman” restrictions placed on them after the five-year-old cancer patient was made a ward of court by a judge. "
There was me thinking the clue was in the headline. And as an example this closing statement -
.....
.
As with my questions to Neil and others on here, it is daft to expect Europhiles to ever respond to direct questions. They simply have no answers.
Oh dear how sad for you but...
''A priority of CETA is to promote the movement of skilled labour between the EU and Canada. The agreement will accordingly include provisions for the temporary entry of a wide range of workers from various categories of business persons, including short-term business visitors, investors, intra-company transferees, and various professionals.The agreement will accordingly substantially facilitate the movement of workers and investors between the EU and Canada.
There are already several provisions under the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) that facilitates the movement of workers between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. NAFTA specifically encourages the movement of a range of skilled workers such as Accountants, Management Consultants, Engineers, and various categories of Scientists. NAFTA also has a broad range of business visitor categories, along with provisions intended to facilitate intra-company transferees. CETA will further open of Canada’s labour market to foreign markets. In return, Canadians will find it easier to search for and secure investment and work opportunities abroad.''
The notion that 'free trade' in the modern world does not include movement of labour and indeed labour standards is crass and naive. CETA includes provisions for common labour standards. Its true (but no surprise) that movement within the Continent of Europe is more general than across the Atlantic Ocean - but our economy is closer to Canada's anyway - move free movement there is. No answers? Will Kippers admit to the lies of their leadership?
"Ashya King’s entire family has been banned from visiting him in hospital in Spain as part of “inhuman” restrictions placed on them after the five-year-old cancer patient was made a ward of court by a judge. "
Since we are in, would it not be more sensible to stop being paranoid. "Europe" isn't a bloc of states trying to do down Perfidious Albion; it's a group of 20+ other state, all of whom have their own hopes and concerns. If our leaders, and that includes the Press, spent 10% of the time they spend on manufactured "scares" about Europe on the positives we'd all be a lot better off. And our politics would be a lot more sensible, too.
It is not paranoia at all.
It is acceptance that our membership of the EEC/EU has been bad for the UK at almost every level, economically, politically and socially.
It is an acceptance that there are indeed 29 members and that they all have their own aspirations, cultures and ideals and that in many cases these are mutually incompatible - at least to the extent of having a one size fits all system of law, trade and politics.
It is an acceptance of the fact that the underlying principle of the EU, written into every treaty, is that of ever closer union, something that most people in the UK are opposed to.
I have spent my whole life working in other countries round the world. I certainly do not believe that everything we do in the UK is better than the way it is done elsewhere - I would be very happy for example with the healthcare systems in place in much of the rest of Europe instead of the NHS. But the idea that we can or should have a tier of government that tries to legislate for the whole of a bloc of 29 countries as diverse as those in Europe is not only impractical but undemocratic.
The EU is a failed experiment. The trouble is that those running it and those seeking jobs in it refuse to realise that.
The industry in which I operate clearly took a number of wrong turns in the last 20 years.
That doesn't mean that the sector itself is without value. A large part of it provides significant value to customers and is truly differentiated in a competitive global market. The trick is to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Really/
UK banking works like most other UK businesses, high margins, crap service and hiding behind legalities. The fault isn't necessarily the management's as they are required to target unrealistic returns by so-called investors. So we get the usual strategies of pump up the prices until the house of cards collapses ( the BTR approach or noughties financial services ) or sell the thing before we get found out .
maybe if we just stuck with the simple things like customer service and cost control we'd be better off.
I'm not going to try to defend the high street banks because they are pretty dreadful: it's a good example of what you get with an oligopoly with high barriers to entry. Shame that the regulators are being lobbied to lift the barriers even higher.
That said, with firms like Metro, Shawbrook, Handelsbanken, etc, now operating at scale in the UK I think there is scope for change. Fundamentally, though, the issue lies with the consumers who are too lazy to switch banks and too willing to accept poor service.
(and, of course, there are banks who have tolerant shareholders, who are willing to invest in the business on a sustained basis in order to facilitate high quality service and have the philosophical approach that customers should be treated like employees would want to be treated themselves. And the returns on capital are reasonable - certainly sufficient to keep the business ticking over)
First thoughts on Germany. As this is the first time I've been here in 5 years.
I'm in Koblenz, a mildly handsome town where the Rhine meets the Mosel (I'm writing a piece on touring the Rhineland).
This is the most export driven part of Germany. Yet it doesn't feel like the engine room of a European hegemon. It feels mildly prosperous yet there are lots of scruffy bits. I took a notably knackered inter city train from Frankfurt, to get here. Weeds sprout in city squares.
You can tell that German wages are static. This is not a booming country. It's doing ok, but no more. Sehr interessante. .
Out of interest, how's your internet connection? All my German friends tell me get outside of the major cities and internet (mobile and static) is bloody awful, certainly not what you would expect given Germany's reputation for efficiency and as you put it the engine room of Europe.
I was in Koblenz myself 2 months ago, and I would totally agree with your immediate assessment.
First thoughts on Germany. As this is the first time I've been here in 5 years.
I'm in Koblenz, a mildly handsome town where the Rhine meets the Mosel (I'm writing a piece on touring the Rhineland).
This is the most export driven part of Germany. Yet it doesn't feel like the engine room of a European hegemon. It feels mildly prosperous yet there are lots of scruffy bits. I took a notably knackered inter city train from Frankfurt, to get here. Weeds sprout in city squares.
You can tell that German wages are static. This is not a booming country. It's doing ok, but no more. Sehr interessante. .
Koblenz isn't really export territory its wine country. Exports are more the South ( BW and Bavaria ) and further up the Rhine from Cologne on and into the Ruhr.
Are you doing Burg Eltz it's just down the Mosel and worth a visit, The Mosel is nicer than the Rhine imo.
Richard, How independent do you think this supervisor actually is? My guess (and that is all that it is) is that he is from the Desmond Glazebrook school of banking regulation.
The Interception of Communications Commissioner is Sir Anthony May, a former President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. The issue is not whether he is personally in the pocket of the Security Services (which would be an outrageous and defamatory suggestion), but whether the system of oversight will inevitably tend to produce results which favour of the government.
I'm sure the Americans would have said everything was absolutely peachy right up to Ed Snowden's inconvenient leaks. Is the UK really any better? I would reckon that we are just as bad.
The industry in which I operate clearly took a number of wrong turns in the last 20 years.
That doesn't mean that the sector itself is without value. A large part of it provides significant value to customers and is truly differentiated in a competitive global market. The trick is to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Really/
UK banking works like most other UK businesses, high margins, crap service and hiding behind legalities. The fault isn't necessarily the management's as they are required to target unrealistic returns by so-called investors. So we get the usual strategies of pump up the prices until the house of cards collapses ( the BTR approach or noughties financial services ) or sell the thing before we get found out .
maybe if we just stuck with the simple things like customer service and cost control we'd be better off.
I'm not going to try to defend the high street banks because they are pretty dreadful: it's a good example of what you get with an oligopoly with high barriers to entry. Shame that the regulators are being lobbied to lift the barriers even higher.
That said, with firms like Metro, Shawbrook, Handelsbanken, etc, now operating at scale in the UK I think there is scope for change. Fundamentally, though, the issue lies with the consumers who are too lazy to switch banks and too willing to accept poor service.
(and, of course, there are banks who have tolerant shareholders, who are willing to invest in the business on a sustained basis in order to facilitate high quality service and have the philosophical approach that customers should be treated like employees would want to be treated themselves. And the returns on capital are reasonable - certainly sufficient to keep the business ticking over)
Actually Charles in case you think I'm having a go at you I'm not. I quite admire the business model your bank uses if only there were more we'd be in better shape.
First thoughts on Germany. As this is the first time I've been here in 5 years.
I'm in Koblenz, a mildly handsome town where the Rhine meets the Mosel (I'm writing a piece on touring the Rhineland).
This is the most export driven part of Germany. Yet it doesn't feel like the engine room of a European hegemon. It feels mildly prosperous yet there are lots of scruffy bits. I took a notably knackered inter city train from Frankfurt, to get here. Weeds sprout in city squares.
You can tell that German wages are static. This is not a booming country. It's doing ok, but no more. Sehr interessante. .
Out of interest, how's your internet connection? All my German friends tell me get outside of the major cities and internet (mobile and static) is bloody awful, certainly not what you would expect given Germany's reputation for efficiency and as you put it the engine room of Europe.
I was in Koblenz myself 2 months ago, and I would totally agree with your immediate assessment.
From my train safari with foxinsoxjr, I can verify that German railways do not run to time nowadays.
If they want to re-run the Schlieffen plan now most of the Landwehr would be stuck on a siding in Hannover.
"Ashya King’s entire family has been banned from visiting him in hospital in Spain as part of “inhuman” restrictions placed on them after the five-year-old cancer patient was made a ward of court by a judge. "
"David Cameron gave his personal backing to the Kings yesterday, saying the couple were only trying to “do the very best for” their son."
Yes good on him, I agree
Agreed. On a personal empathic level I think Cameron is very good. Hence his clear (and to my mind absolutely correct) position on Gay Marriage. I am mildly surprised that as a politician he was willing to make such a clear statement of support for them. but he should be commended for that.
Astonishing ignorant comment in the Evening Standard by George Eaton (political editor of the New Statesman) on the importance of David Cameron's response to the UKIP defection of Carswell.
Usual clichéd guff about 'holding his nerve', avoiding 'lurching to the Right', 'toxifying the brand' and not 'losing centrist voters' if he ever wants to get a majority again. Of course, there's no mention at all of the conservative voters and party members (or even candidates) he'd also need to get that majority.
I honestly wonder how some people manage to keep a job in journalism continually recycling this tosh. Him and D'Ancona must be drinking buddies.
"Ashya King’s entire family has been banned from visiting him in hospital in Spain as part of “inhuman” restrictions placed on them after the five-year-old cancer patient was made a ward of court by a judge. "
He is under the Spanish authorities at present, not our own. Whatever ones sympathies, one cannot deny the parents have form for taking the child without permission.
Mr Tyndall - ''And you really believe , given all he has said, that Cameron would be an honest broker in that situation? ''
You are becoming tiresome. I should be more patient but your words are absurd beyond parody. Cameron has been clear in what he has said. I'm fed up of quoting it. Its clear enough. It might not go far enough for you and you are perfectly free to vote against whatever results come out. There are sensible arguments to be had. But your irrational stance to pretend that he will not negotiate hard enough makes no sense. Not least because you are actively working to ensure a man in power who will not even negotiate at all and not offer a referendum at all.
UKIP and the extreme right are simply using the issue to destroy the centre right. Farage and Carswell want to destroy the rational right. Its nihilism in action.
As for your comment on a post-EU deal, that's just bollocks. The Korean-EU FTA, or the coming Canadian-EU FTA don't involved free movement of labour. I have made this point a dozen times, and none of you Europhile Tories have a response to it.
Poppycock. Yes, you've made this silly point many times, and many times it has been rebutted.
It's nonsense like that which convinces me that the Out side can never win. To persuade people to make the leap, the Out side will have to address genuine (and some spurious) concerns about the effect on jobs and prosperity. The idea that voters will accept the proposition that 'it's OK, the very limited access to the Single Market which South Korea has is enough' is preposterous.
Quite apart from anything else, it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK.
But if you really think the arguments are so strong, why on earth are you so afraid of a referendum that you want to torpedo it?
@HurstLlama has made my point already - but -'d amplify that it's the French that keep frustrating things.
Additionally they seemed determined to try and loot one of our leading industries with an extraterritorial tax that will dramatically reduce the competitiveness of the UK
If you call rip-offs and recurrent criminality one of our key industries .......
Oi! Be fair, Mr Brooke, I carry no flame for bankers, though Mr Charles seems a good egg and the ladies at the Lloyds Bank Branch in Hassocks are always charming, but banking and associated services are about the only thing that have kept this country afloat for as long as I can remember. Probably not a good thing, not a healthy thing, but until you metal-bashers start generating gazillions of profits from overseas sales we haven't got anything else.
Every time we generate cash we get sold off and our operations closed down and shipped overseas. Go figure as the colonials would say.
Maybe if we had a CoE who understood setting up a factory is a damned sight more complex than a hairdressing parlour we'd be in better shape.
"Ashya King’s entire family has been banned from visiting him in hospital in Spain as part of “inhuman” restrictions placed on them after the five-year-old cancer patient was made a ward of court by a judge. "
He is under the Spanish authorities at present, not our own. Whatever ones sympathies, one cannot deny the parents have form for taking the child without permission.
So separating a sick 5 year old from his parents is a good thing ?
Comments
I note you are still not willing to answer the questions I posed but would rather fall back on silly quips. .
Starts at 31:30 mins.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fyz56
As for your comment on a post-EU deal, that's just bollocks. The Korean-EU FTA, or the coming Canadian-EU FTA don't involved free movement of labour. I have made this point a dozen times, and none of you Europhile Tories have a response to it.
From time to time during the past few months the Tories have taken the lead and promptly lost it. Therefore, it does not feel like a real crossover.
I would like to bring clarity to this situation.
The "crossover" is defined as:
-------
The polls leading party loses its position as the leader if and only if the leading party is replaced by another party [ the same party ] for the next three consecutive polls.
Thereafter, the party overtaking the previous leader is defined as the new leader.
------
My understanding is that the European Arrest Warrant can only be used for a criminal prosecution, either to bring back someone who is to be charged or someone who has already been charged but has then absconded.
Given that neither of these apply to the current situation I was wondering on what grounds the EAW is being pursued?
(By the way, thanks for answering. I have been asking that same question for the last couple of years and you are the first person to actually respond openly and honestly).
It's nonsense like that which convinces me that the Out side can never win. To persuade people to make the leap, the Out side will have to address genuine (and some spurious) concerns about the effect on jobs and prosperity. The idea that voters will accept the proposition that 'it's OK, the very limited access to the Single Market which South Korea has is enough' is preposterous.
Quite apart from anything else, it doesn't include the market for services, which is absolutely key for the UK.
But if you really think the arguments are so strong, why on earth are you so afraid of a referendum that you want to torpedo it?
If you want my better ideas, I'm happy to tell them to you: a new British bill of rights, guaranteeing liberties including the right of privacy, a ban on unreasonable searches, and a requirement that all searches of private information require an individual warrant. The police also keep their investigations secret, but that doesn't stop us knowing where their limits to infringe our privacy lie.
Of course given that you are in favour of continued UK membership of the EU it is hardly surprising that you wouldn't want to give a straight answer to those questions since they would clearly expose the dishonesty of the current process... if it can even be called current since it hasn't even started yet.
Not all of the Tory party want out
But as for the Eurosceptics, maybe they will once the most likely winner of a seat wins his?
Or that (a) as PM he has access to different information than he had as a junior shadow cabinet member or (b) the threat assessment has changed since that time.
"It also includes provisions on issues ranging from services and investments, competition, government procurement, intellectual property rights, transparency in regulation to sustainable development."
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/south-korea/ I'm not afraid of a referendum. I'd love one. How about one this parliament? Why is your party so scared of one that they kicked it into the long grass of an imaginary Tory majority?
"all searches of private information require an individual warrant". If by that you mean metadata, it's impossible in practice. There are simply too many millions of links. If you mean content, we have it already.
As for the rest, I don't see the difference between that and what we have. Parliament lays down the limits of what is legal. That's democracy. We have independent oversight to ensure that the security services follow the law. Your 'guarantees' are no more than that, and would STILL have be overseen by someone with access to classified information. How else do you know if the search is 'unreasonable'?
Quite. I like to think that he would be able to change his decision in the light of new evidence, rather than sticking to a previous stance.
But why would they have left a car in the hospital car park?
Parliament laying down the limits of the law, in absence of public debate, because the public aren't being informed of the how intrusive the searches are, is certainly not democracy. MPs are supposed to be the public's representative. If the public are being kept in the dark, then how can MPs represent what their views are?
Of course given that you want to stay in I would hardly expect you to give an honest answer.
On the referendum, you'd better sort it out with you UKIP friends. They now say the last thing they want is a referendum. When offered one they run a mile and try to get a Labour government installed in order to avoid one.
As for your last point, yes, it is quite true that I don't want a referendum in this parliament. That is because, without renegotiation, it would still produce a Stay In result and thereby lock in the unsatisfactory state inherited from Labour for a generation.
Just out if interest has the single market for services been finalised within the EU? I don't think it has and what is more nor does the European Commission
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/top_layer/services/index_en.htm
So if the market for services is absolutely key for the UK where does that leave us in relation to our EU "partners"? Please note the dates in that article,.
I have asked this question before but without any response, so let's try again. What plausible trajectory of events is envisaged by UKIP which will culminate in our leaving in EU?
The only people who can make anything vaguely representing a sensible judgement on this are those with access to classified information and who are able to quiz the security services about what they are up to. And that brings us back to where we are: we need an independent supervisor who has such access and the power to investigate. And that is exactly what we have.
Assuming we find we cannot gain any sense from the EU then I would accept the EEA like Norway. We would be outside political and taxation and currency closer union. But in most respects we would be little different from now.
If the deal was effectively like Norway but still officially in then i would probably vote IN - because we can still vote to suit our interests.
But just what would we know about our future when voting. Would the EEA be on the cards and would any deal that protected our finance industry and for instance our car industry?
In virtually any alternative scenario that involves a deal with the EU we would be little different from now - and even less from any other deal we might make by 2017.
If only someone could start on our crappy banks.
Although it would have better if it had been: "charging them for the rental of the equipment the child was using."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29010835
Any connection between this story and the independence referendum is purely coincidental.
FGS can't a common sense arrangement be made so that the parents can be with their dying son?
In UKIP but not agreeing with their stance on this seems to be a common position for me.
I do not believe that Cameron would renege. I just believe he would make sure there was no way on earth he could lose.
However in answer to your question I suspect firstly that the UKIP position would be that they would win enough seats to influence the decision directly in Parliament by being [part of a coalition.
Personally I think this is unlikely so I am relying on the fact that were Cameron to lose the next election then the Tories would choose someone more Eurosceptic who would then be in a position post 2020 to give us a fair referendum with the party of government campaigning to leave.
Cameron supporters on here - along with some disingenuous Europhiles - claim that this is an unlikely scenario. Personally though I think it would be a difficult road it si still more likely to have us leaving the EU than a 2017 referendum run and dominated by both the main parties campaigning for In and Cameron misleading the electorate about what he had achieved.
I think what you have to understand is that for Eurosceptics all the political possibilities look pretty bleak looking at the current state of politics in the UK. So we are left with choosing what we consider to be the most likely course to get BOO in the long run.
Cameron's phony renegotiation ain't it.
Additionally they seemed determined to try and loot one of our leading industries with an extraterritorial tax that will dramatically reduce the competitiveness of the UK
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100284716/why-the-silence-over-the-assault-on-george-galloway/
Why should we not believe that. There is no reason to believe the opposite.
But why on earth do you want a referendum before the opportunity is there?
Simply to have a referendum before that will encourage more people to vote IN since there is no evidence about the possibilities of reform.
To argue that Labour and Liberal and Tory will all campaign to stay in is no argument because the same would apply if we had a referendum now. But in fact that only applies to Lab and LD since various tories would campaign differently under both circumstances.
The attack on GG was plain thuggery, yet no-one speaks
Rotherham still sits behind a wall of silence - nothing from Baroness Warsi, or Tom Watson let alone the party leaders.
And without such assurances all Cameron's claims would not be worth the paper they were written on even if he believed them himself.
That is a clear and reasoned response, Richard.
I do think it is clouded with tremendous uncertainty though. Just as likely there would be a bitter dog-fight on the Right and Labour would be in office for at least two terms: we would be back the Blair/Brown 'heart of Europe' position. That is just about as far away from UKIP as it is possible to get.
When the referendum comes, if it ever does, there will be in IN and and OUT campaign. IN will always include the Establishment regardless, and there will be a tremendous scare narrative, just like 1975. (The SNP is the Scottish government and therefore 'Establishment', but they are struggling to overcome the innate fear of independence which their opponents are putting about.) UKIP can only prepare for this in my opinion: in Farage they have an excellent advocate, who easily flattened Clegg. But they must get to the referendum first. UKIP should take the offer on the table and seek to ensure that the parliament elected in May will pass the legislation necessary to give us all a referendum.
My guess (and that is all that it is) is that he is from the Desmond Glazebrook school of banking regulation.
And our politics would be a lot more sensible, too.
It's quite possible we don't have the whole story here. Certainly the family's side of things has seemed very odd, to say the least. Amongst many other things, diagnosis by Internet is not exactly robust.
On the other hand, and letting my own biases get involved, if the family courts are, or have been, involved, then anything is possible.
When offered one they don't rule a mile. They just don't throw in everything they've worked for decades to achieve for the unlikely chance that Cameron gets an absolutel majority. As it is, UKIP could well win Labour seats at the next election, which would increase the pro-referendum forces in parliament. You'd prefer to get a referendum on the minimum Cameron can negotiate to fool the public into staying in? Because that's his position.
That doesn't mean that the sector itself is without value. A large part of it provides significant value to customers and is truly differentiated in a competitive global market. The trick is to sort the wheat from the chaff.
"I really hope my cohorts don't stoop to the depths that leftists do when they advocate and condone violence and vandalism today."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/29/Wish-Galloway-A-Speedy-Recovery
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29018884
UK banking works like most other UK businesses, high margins, crap service and hiding behind legalities. The fault isn't necessarily the management's as they are required to target unrealistic returns by so-called investors. So we get the usual strategies of pump up the prices until the house of cards collapses ( the BTR approach or noughties financial services ) or sell the thing before we get found out .
maybe if we just stuck with the simple things like customer service and cost control we'd be better off.
"Ashya King’s entire family has been banned from visiting him in hospital in Spain as part of “inhuman” restrictions placed on them after the five-year-old cancer patient was made a ward of court by a judge. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/11068877/Ashya-Kings-entire-family-banned-from-seeing-him-as-part-of-inhuman-treatment-after-he-is-made-a-ward-of-court.html
"David Cameron gave his personal backing to the Kings yesterday, saying the couple were only trying to “do the very best for” their son."
''A priority of CETA is to promote the movement of skilled labour between the EU and Canada. The agreement will accordingly include provisions for the temporary entry of a wide range of workers from various categories of business persons, including short-term business visitors, investors, intra-company transferees, and various professionals.The agreement will accordingly substantially facilitate the movement of workers and investors between the EU and Canada.
There are already several provisions under the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) that facilitates the movement of workers between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. NAFTA specifically encourages the movement of a range of skilled workers such as Accountants, Management Consultants, Engineers, and various categories of Scientists. NAFTA also has a broad range of business visitor categories, along with provisions intended to facilitate intra-company transferees.
CETA will further open of Canada’s labour market to foreign markets. In return, Canadians will find it easier to search for and secure investment and work opportunities abroad.''
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=36f4f92e-57a7-4c21-a0f8-63a6af488ee7
The notion that 'free trade' in the modern world does not include movement of labour and indeed labour standards is crass and naive. CETA includes provisions for common labour standards. Its true (but no surprise) that movement within the Continent of Europe is more general than across the Atlantic Ocean - but our economy is closer to Canada's anyway - move free movement there is.
No answers? Will Kippers admit to the lies of their leadership?
It is acceptance that our membership of the EEC/EU has been bad for the UK at almost every level, economically, politically and socially.
It is an acceptance that there are indeed 29 members and that they all have their own aspirations, cultures and ideals and that in many cases these are mutually incompatible - at least to the extent of having a one size fits all system of law, trade and politics.
It is an acceptance of the fact that the underlying principle of the EU, written into every treaty, is that of ever closer union, something that most people in the UK are opposed to.
I have spent my whole life working in other countries round the world. I certainly do not believe that everything we do in the UK is better than the way it is done elsewhere - I would be very happy for example with the healthcare systems in place in much of the rest of Europe instead of the NHS. But the idea that we can or should have a tier of government that tries to legislate for the whole of a bloc of 29 countries as diverse as those in Europe is not only impractical but undemocratic.
The EU is a failed experiment. The trouble is that those running it and those seeking jobs in it refuse to realise that.
That said, with firms like Metro, Shawbrook, Handelsbanken, etc, now operating at scale in the UK I think there is scope for change. Fundamentally, though, the issue lies with the consumers who are too lazy to switch banks and too willing to accept poor service.
(and, of course, there are banks who have tolerant shareholders, who are willing to invest in the business on a sustained basis in order to facilitate high quality service and have the philosophical approach that customers should be treated like employees would want to be treated themselves. And the returns on capital are reasonable - certainly sufficient to keep the business ticking over)
I was in Koblenz myself 2 months ago, and I would totally agree with your immediate assessment.
Are you doing Burg Eltz it's just down the Mosel and worth a visit, The Mosel is nicer than the Rhine imo.
Is the UK really any better? I would reckon that we are just as bad.
If they want to re-run the Schlieffen plan now most of the Landwehr would be stuck on a siding in Hannover.
Usual clichéd guff about 'holding his nerve', avoiding 'lurching to the Right', 'toxifying the brand' and not 'losing centrist voters' if he ever wants to get a majority again. Of course, there's no mention at all of the conservative voters and party members (or even candidates) he'd also need to get that majority.
I honestly wonder how some people manage to keep a job in journalism continually recycling this tosh. Him and D'Ancona must be drinking buddies.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/george-eaton-david-camerons-reponse-to-ukip-defection-is-crucial-9703691.html
You are becoming tiresome. I should be more patient but your words are absurd beyond parody.
Cameron has been clear in what he has said. I'm fed up of quoting it. Its clear enough. It might not go far enough for you and you are perfectly free to vote against whatever results come out. There are sensible arguments to be had. But your irrational stance to pretend that he will not negotiate hard enough makes no sense. Not least because you are actively working to ensure a man in power who will not even negotiate at all and not offer a referendum at all.
UKIP and the extreme right are simply using the issue to destroy the centre right. Farage and Carswell want to destroy the rational right. Its nihilism in action.
Maybe if we had a CoE who understood setting up a factory is a damned sight more complex than a hairdressing parlour we'd be in better shape.