Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?
I think the public has a right to expect that any figures they are given will be complete, after any adjustments, rebates or whatever, it isn't their job to keep track of thousands of pages of EU legislation and know what the country should be paying. Its just like when you go into the supermarket for a bottle of wine, or fill up with petrol, you expect the price you are given to be what you pay, not for the sales assistant to come up to you and tell you that you need to add more for this duty or that tax.
Did you think that the actual bill was £3.4bn, and the rebate had been applied to it?
I expected the net difference to the exchequer with what ever adjustments from whatever sources was 1.7bn, its not my business to work out the minutia of European payments, that's why we employ HM Treasury. If GO has stood up and told us we had a bill the net effect of which would be 850m then I would expect the exchequer to pay 850m. There are six other adjustments still on the table which we haven't see yet, which might make the bill better or worse, we shouldn't need to know or care about the detail, we should be told how much the EU is costing us, and in the case of exceptional payments, how much extra it is costing us.
Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?
I think the public has a right to expect that any figures they are given will be complete, after any adjustments, rebates or whatever, it isn't their job to keep track of thousands of pages of EU legislation and know what the country should be paying. Its just like when you go into the supermarket for a bottle of wine, or fill up with petrol, you expect the price you are given to be what you pay, not for the sales assistant to come up to you and tell you that you need to add more for this duty or that tax.
Did you think that the actual bill was £3.4bn, and the rebate had been applied to it?
I expected the net difference to the exchequer with what ever adjustments from whatever sources was 1.7bn, its not my business to work out the minutia of European payments, that's why we employ HM Treasury. If GO has stood up and told us we had a bill the net effect of which would be 850m then I would expect the exchequer to pay 850m. There are six other adjustments still on the table which we haven't see yet, which might make the bill better or worse, we shouldn't need to know or care about the detail, we should be told how much the EU is costing us, and in the case of exceptional payments, how much extra it is costing us.
Who announced the £1.7bn figure? Was it Cameron/Osborne? Or the EU?
"I'm sure you are right that Salmond could win this seat against Alexander if so and would be a quite a blow for the Lib Dems"
But, it is not in Tory, Labour or LibDem interests for Alex to win. Which suggests an obvious possibility in this 4 way marginal.
Of course, a straight fight between Salmond and Alexander might still result in a Salmond victory, but it is a dodgier prospect.
Wouldn't surprise me if the DM was trying to stir the sharny midden yet again. My gut feeling is that Mr S should go for home ground - it's where he lives and he has a challenge against a LD there anyway.
Actually, it'll be the candidate the Scottish Libdems really fear.
'I imagine he thinks Cameron will come back from the EU with a figleaf, and will then use that as a basis to campaign for IN, backed by all his friends in big business.'
That excuse is getting very thin.
UKIP like the rest of our politicians are enjoying the gravy train and after an EU referendum,whatever the result, UKIP are redundant.
Portillo has an interesting piece in today's FT, arguing that a 'Yes' to staying in will make the UK closer to the EU project. He argues that it is better not to have the referendum at all and stay as we are on the edge of the project and out of the Euro, than risk getting a 'Yes' with all its consequences.
I can't say I agree with him on that one, principally because until we take another vote for the current generational cycle at least, the question of whether we might leave imminently will always hover over our interactions with the EU, and while being on the edge of the project is where it appears we want to be, we run the risk of being too far on the edge if the others are constantly annoyed we are trying to secure favours in order to not have to go to a vote to stay in or not.
The issue needs to be settled. Either we leave and accept the consequences of that - including a hefty price tag to opt back in in the future if it turns out we made a mistake, if they let us back in at all - or we vote to stay in and thus don't grumble as much because we made our choice. Perhaps that runs the risk of bringing us closer to to adopting bits of the project we don't like, but that isn't a certainty, we could still work for a two speed Europe, and perhaps do better as we aren't threatening to leave at any moment, and our people cannot claim they want to leave either.
Do nothing, like Portillo says, and our bitterness and the resentment it engenders from the Europcrats will fester and make things worse for us and them.
It seems to me that the SNP gaining +10 seats would be bearable (even if undesirable) from Lab/Lib/Tory view.
As most of those would be Lab/Lib loses, the Tories would see a silver lining.
But, if Alex looks as though he might cause the kind of damage that he did at the Scottish elections in 2011, with swathes of seats falling, then that will probably force his opponents to cooperate.
Nick Boles is a total prat. The worst form of moderniser. The Matthew d'Ancona of the parliamentary party. This is the man who managed to achieve a swing *against* him in Hove in 2005, achieving a worse poll share for the Conservatives than in 2001, thus ruining their chance of regaining the seat.
He only got into power through riding his connections into a safe seat. Even then the BNP and Liberal Democrats achieved a bigger increase in their vote than he did. Technically, there was a swing away from the Conservatives in Grantham and Stamford as well.
FFS Farage already can't believe his luck with the two main parties queuing up to make pratfalls in front of the voters, and now he has Cameron employing his recruiting sergeant for him as well "Roll up, Roll up, social conservatives please step this way to the UKIP booth"
It seems to me that the SNP gaining +10 seats would be bearable (even if undesirable) from Lab/Lib/Tory view.
As most of those would be Lab/Lib loses, the Tories would see a silver lining.
But, if Alex looks as though he might cause the kind of damage that he did at the Scottish elections in 2011, with swathes of seats falling, then that will probably force his opponents to cooperate.
Mm, interesting thought, one to bear in mind indeed. But what it would add to the loss of SLAB credibility after two years of indyref Tory-hugging I shudder to think. And, ultimately, it would involve SLAB voters being asked to vote Tory, or Tory voters being asked to vote Labour, in Westminster, where exactly those votes are seen by many to matter.
Some people on the net have been asking ironically when SLAB and the Scottish Tories might merge - not entirely seriously, but all the same one wonders ...
Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?
I think the public has a right to expect that any figures they are given will be complete, after any adjustments, rebates or whatever, it isn't their job to keep track of thousands of pages of EU legislation and know what the country should be paying. Its just like when you go into the supermarket for a bottle of wine, or fill up with petrol, you expect the price you are given to be what you pay, not for the sales assistant to come up to you and tell you that you need to add more for this duty or that tax.
Did you think that the actual bill was £3.4bn, and the rebate had been applied to it?
I expected the net difference to the exchequer with what ever adjustments from whatever sources was 1.7bn, its not my business to work out the minutia of European payments, that's why we employ HM Treasury. If GO has stood up and told us we had a bill the net effect of which would be 850m then I would expect the exchequer to pay 850m. There are six other adjustments still on the table which we haven't see yet, which might make the bill better or worse, we shouldn't need to know or care about the detail, we should be told how much the EU is costing us, and in the case of exceptional payments, how much extra it is costing us.
Who announced the £1.7bn figure? Was it Cameron/Osborne? Or the EU?
The UK government had presumably been hoping nobody would notice.
Looking at the EU doc the €2.1bn number seems to be a figure for the amount that was supposed to be settled in December, so it wouldn't cover what might then happen in the next rebate calculation.
Owen Paterson is putting out a 'get Britain out of the EU' message, no mention of any referendum, just a straight policy if he wins Tory leadership. Referendums are always carefully handled by the State to bring the answer they want with loaded questions such as ' do you agree that...' Voting is easily rigged. The Paterson route out of the EU, would be more sure, eclipsing UKIP nicely. That's why his speech at the Chartered Surveyors was totally blanked by the main media. If he'd drop his appalling environmental policies, GMs and glyphosate, neocicotinoids killing bees and fracking, destroying all water reserves, I might even support him myself.
Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?
I think the public has a right to expect that any figures they are given will be complete, after any adjustments, rebates or whatever, it isn't their job to keep track of thousands of pages of EU legislation and know what the country should be paying. Its just like when you go into the supermarket for a bottle of wine, or fill up with petrol, you expect the price you are given to be what you pay, not for the sales assistant to come up to you and tell you that you need to add more for this duty or that tax.
Did you think that the actual bill was £3.4bn, and the rebate had been applied to it?
I expected the net difference to the exchequer with what ever adjustments from whatever sources was 1.7bn, its not my business to work out the minutia of European payments, that's why we employ HM Treasury. If GO has stood up and told us we had a bill the net effect of which would be 850m then I would expect the exchequer to pay 850m. There are six other adjustments still on the table which we haven't see yet, which might make the bill better or worse, we shouldn't need to know or care about the detail, we should be told how much the EU is costing us, and in the case of exceptional payments, how much extra it is costing us.
Who announced the £1.7bn figure? Was it Cameron/Osborne? Or the EU?
The UK government had presumably been hoping nobody would notice.
Looking at the EU doc the €2.1bn number seems to be a figure for the amount that was supposed to be settled in December, so it wouldn't cover what might then happen in the next rebate calculation.
Can you conceive a reason that any of Osborne's critics would have known and considered the fact that the rebate was due to be deducted and either not have realised that he was bound to use it politically, or realised but not preempted him?
Can you conceive a reason that any of Osborne's critics would have known and considered the fact that the rebate was due to be deducted and either not have realised that he was bound to use it politically, or realised but not preempted him?
The media reported the initial figure from the FT. Anything beyond that is too complicated for anyone to talk to the voters about, and everybody who is affecting to be outraged about the number would obviously prefer to be outraged about a larger one.
Can you conceive a reason that any of Osborne's critics would have known and considered the fact that the rebate was due to be deducted and either not have realised that he was bound to use it politically, or realised but not preempted him?
The media reported the initial figure from the FT. Anything beyond that is too complicated for anyone to talk to the voters about, and everybody who is affecting to be outraged about the number would obviously prefer to be outraged about a larger one.
I agree, especially with the implication that the outrage is synthetic, and so dishonest. Much like it was over the cast-iron guarantee.
To be honest I think most of the country is more interested in the Remembrance Plot, followed by the Cannibal, Strictly and X-factor. For those paying much attention to the EU budget, it will look like a good deal. For those in the know, many will think, like David, that it shows a good negotiating hand. We need to get along and this is the way forward.
Only for the miseries in Ukip will this be something else for them to moan about.
Re. the much more interesting Miliband, you don't think, then, that Cameron and Osborne did this deliberately …?
Yesterday you were saying how brilliant this negotiation was - today, it's nothing to see.
mhhhh - Are you now admitting that this wasn't such a triumph as you were claiming yesterday?
This sort of spin really puts off us floating voters you know.
Yet again we have an unnecessary own goal by Osborne trying to be too clever with tactics without thinking through the overall strategy. Osborne should have draped himself in the acts of Thatcher and praised the terms of that rebate for why the £1.7bn is halved.
He could then have pointed out what Blair gave away for an empty pocket full of EC promises...
It should not be necessary on a sophisiticated site like PB.com explain to the tories why the promise that 'only dave will give you the referendum you claim to want' doesn't attract UKIP supporters. "If you don't vote tory, you must be frit of losing it".
Of course we're frightened of losing it. If we weren't, we'd be daft. We'll get one, and only one, vote. Why wouldn't we want to get our ducks in a row?
A win for out in referendum organised by Cameron, recommending we stay in, would be very unlikely.
Do we think socialism and Miliband is the answer? Of course not. But a weak Miliband govt (both in number and capability) is not unimaginable. There will be a referendum, at some stage. What we need is different circumstances, when campaigning for 'out' is separately led by a resurgent tory party. They would be explaining in their words why quitting the EU is right and different reasons, but the same answer from UKIP---then we'd be on our way out.
I'd vote for a party that just took us out of Europe. We're currently debating what variety of chains we'd prefer in attaching ourselves to the corpse that is the EU.
On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?
Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.
The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.
What George Osborne has achieved is (a) correcting the EU's error in not including the rebate in the initial calculation, (b) deferring payments by up to 9 months on an interest free basis and (c) changing the rules in future
It's probably the best he could have realistically achieved.
But it's Jena not Austerlitz
Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).
Achieving b) and c) is in my view worth some credit and the best outcome he could have hoped for.
As for this halving the bill bollox. Well lets see what the voters think.
I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.
But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:
Lt Saavik: "You lied!" Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!"
That's Undiscovered Country, I think Or is there just similar dialogue in both films??
No, Saavik didn't appear in Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). She remained on Vulcan at the start of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
I bow to your superior knowledge
This is I think is the Star Trek VI convo you're thinking of
Mr Spock: "Names, Lieutenant!" Lt Valeris: "I do not remember!" Mr Spock: "A lie?" Lt Valeris: "A choice!"
There's also the one where he tells Scotty to tell Starfleet their engines are bust.. "a lie?", "no, an error!"
Possibly - I may need to re-watch it to confirm!
Seeing that you're a trekker perhaps you know where this comes from?
Someone: You lied! Spock: I...exaggerated.
I mentioned it already earlier in the thread! Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The "someone" was Lt. Saavik (Kirstie Alley).
Guardian Front Page takes Ossie to task, but above it ex BBC woman journalist takes BBC to task for dropping her, and shunting other women off the screens as they age.
I suppose it is one way to keep Labour's trouble away from the front pages. Oh look but Ed has more women in his team stuff was on Twitter last night.
If you read the article it makes clear that the deal has saved around half the initial EU Bill which no-one was aware of when it was first raised. If Balls, Farage , etc had known they'd have said so at the time. The smoke and mirrors lie within the Lab/UKIP pact.
The deal hasn't 'saved' half of anything. It's just merged the second payment with an earlier than scheduled rebate. It's a positive cashflow outcome but once everything is paid and settled the UK and EU will be in the same place they were when the EU calcukated the charge. In other words the EU was right and the Bullingdon boys were wrong and made total tits of themselves.
I see the Tory meme is that somehow the rebate wasn't known about which is utter drivel. Before anyone could mention this the Tories were already off hystericaly whingeing to uncritical press allies about how unfair it all was.
Any swing voter thinking about voting Tory in May ought to take note of the lying, hysteria and obfuscation from these bunch of amateurs.
You think we should choose that other bunch of proven amateurs, liars and hysterical spin merchants who will feck up the economy even more (aka Labour)?
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
Does you think it would be acceptable for a vegetarian restaurant worker to refuse to serve meat-eaters because it was "at odds" with his/her beliefs?
To be honest I think most of the country is more interested in the Remembrance Plot, followed by the Cannibal, Strictly and X-factor. For those paying much attention to the EU budget, it will look like a good deal. For those in the know, many will think, like David, that it shows a good negotiating hand. We need to get along and this is the way forward.
Only for the miseries in Ukip will this be something else for them to moan about.
Re. the much more interesting Miliband, you don't think, then, that Cameron and Osborne did this deliberately …?
Yesterday you were saying how brilliant this negotiation was - today, it's nothing to see.
mhhhh - Are you now admitting that this wasn't such a triumph as you were claiming yesterday?
This sort of spin really puts off us floating voters you know.
@audreyanne is one of those tories that feed directly from the CGHQ tit. No mind of it's own, [I say it's, because we don't know whether audreyanne is male female or hermaphrodite] and a constant yammering of Tory propaganda.
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
Exactly why Boles banging the National Liberal drum is idiocy on stilts. If they try and move the Tory party further to the centre, even more of that socially conservative voting group seen above is going to peel off to UKIP, and yet they are never going to move it left enough to attract "real" liberals from Lab and LD.
Not to mention that Maria Miller said : ‘The Government is clear that the Bill does not prevent people, whether at work or outside, from expressing their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. In no way will the measure undermine those who believe, for whatever reason, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is their right.’
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
Do you think it would be acceptable for a vegetarian restaurant worker to refuse to serve meat-eaters because it was "at odds" with his beliefs?
Depends if the restaurant was mixed carnivorous/herbivorous or not when the worker was taken on, I should think.
Also your instance is to do with individual employee not the firm as a whole, which the NI case is.
[Edit} The other thing that I notice is that providing a service t a person is not the same thing as being asked to provide a service to a political activity (which I assume the cake is). It's one thing to refuse to do a cake for a gay couple (which is rightly illegal, prima facie, though I don't know the law in NI), but another to refuse to do a political activist cake. This would be the case for other forms of activity - for instance one should not refuse to serve someone because they are Tories, or LDs, but one needn;t accept a request to [edit] cater for a Tory election rally if it is against one's views.
In the book, Ygritte is a rebel from the frozen North and the insult is aimed at the ambitious John Snow, who despite being an outcast, is still an establishment figure with an establishment outlook.
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
Exactly why Boles banging the National Liberal drum is idiocy on stilts. If they try and move the Tory party further to the centre, even more of that socially conservative voting group seen above is going to peel off to UKIP, and yet they are never going to move it left enough to attract "real" liberals from Lab and LD.
A good friend of mine, who is not white, of African heritage, considers himself an arch socialist, has a gay brother and supports gay marriage, spoke to me about this yesterday and said he can see why people vote Ukip when such utternonsense is happening in the name of political correctness
suedehead @suedehead42 9m9 minutes ago @MSmithsonPB Don't suppose papers like the Express will find space for that. After all "Hob Nobs may cure dementia" is far more important.
In 1975, the full weight of the media and establishment was all in favour of a Yes vote for Europe. No attempt at balance, I was in favour too, but I was mightily embarrassed by the whole charade.
Why will it be different this time?
Because (a) people are more cynical about politicians and (b) there are multiple sources of news so much less easy to control the message and (c) even the "Establishment" is split
As an example of (c) my father is very pro staying in, my mother has moved from being "in" in 1975 to "regretfully out" while I am very much on the fence, but leaning out.
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
Exactly why Boles banging the National Liberal drum is idiocy on stilts. If they try and move the Tory party further to the centre, even more of that socially conservative voting group seen above is going to peel off to UKIP, and yet they are never going to move it left enough to attract "real" liberals from Lab and LD.
A good friend of mine, who is not white, of African heritage, considers himself an arch socialist, has a gay brother and supports gay marriage, spoke to me about this yesterday and said he can see why people vote Ukip when such utternonsense is happening in the name of political correctness
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
Suffice to say that I side with the Bakery in this. The Cake was a propaganda piece and an affront to the Christian beliefs of the family. It is my personal belief that a shop has the right to refuse service tocustomers if it wants. The shop is a business and if it wants to lose custom at times, well so be it.
The cake was ordered from Asher's Belfast shop in May, by a gay rights activist who wanted it to feature the logo of a campaign group called 'Queerspace'.
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
Enjoy your meal Sir hope you like the added salt!!
You need to view EU contributions like a cashback deal. In the case of the UK the cashback deal is circa 50% (ok for some nations the deal is >100%!)
So if we make a payment to the EU we can expect to get 50% back on that at some point. The rebate is the best example of this.
So when the announcement of the EU's £1.7bn charge to cover 15 years worth of underpayments was announced, it wasn't much of a stretch to understand that the UK would get a lot of this back at some point thanks to increased rebate plus other funding.
The timing of cashflow would have been the issue, with the payment out in Dec 2014 and much of the rebate and funding receipt being around 2016. But make no mistake, the net cost of the adjustment exercise would have been £850m.
So, the EU was right and the cosseted Bullingdon poshos are left looking utterly friendless and naive.
This would have been well understood in Whitehall I can assure you.
Well, that's exactly the point at issue.
It wasn't included in the initial adjustments.
Now that *may* have been the EU just dealing with one thing at a time. Or it may have been the EU trying it on.
I'm inclined to the latter, especially as this is a one-off payment rather than part of the normal flow that the rebate is calculated on.
I strong suspect if Osborne hadn't called foul then we would never have got the £850m back. Because that's the way the world works.
I agree with you that Osborne was asleep at the wheel when the initial bill was announced and so didn't make the right connections.
The £850m rebate/funding receipt would have been a legal obligation like the £1.7bn contribution is. The EU works within a substantial legal framework.
British eurosceptic paranoia blinkers its victims to this fact.
What I am doubtful about is that it is 100% clear.
I've never looked at the legal wording, but it's quite possible the rebate is defined as the surplus of annual contributions vs. annual receipts.
If so, then special payments may well not have been caught.
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
Delete the word "worker" from your post and the answer is yes.
On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?
Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.
The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.
What George Osborne has achieved is (a) correcting the EU's error in not including the rebate in the initial calculation, (b) deferring payments by up to 9 months on an interest free basis and (c) changing the rules in future
It's probably the best he could have realistically achieved.
But it's Jena not Austerlitz
Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).
Achieving b) and c) is in my view worth some credit and the best outcome he could have hoped for.
As for this halving the bill bollox. Well lets see what the voters think.
I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.
But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:
Lt Saavik: "You lied!" Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!"
That's Undiscovered Country, I think Or is there just similar dialogue in both films??
No, Saavik didn't appear in Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). She remained on Vulcan at the start of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
I bow to your superior knowledge
This is I think is the Star Trek VI convo you're thinking of
Mr Spock: "Names, Lieutenant!" Lt Valeris: "I do not remember!" Mr Spock: "A lie?" Lt Valeris: "A choice!"
There's also the one where he tells Scotty to tell Starfleet their engines are bust.. "a lie?", "no, an error!"
To be honest I think most of the country is more interested in the Remembrance Plot, followed by the Cannibal, Strictly and X-factor. For those paying much attention to the EU budget, it will look like a good deal. For those in the know, many will think, like David, that it shows a good negotiating hand. We need to get along and this is the way forward.
Only for the miseries in Ukip will this be something else for them to moan about.
Re. the much more interesting Miliband, you don't think, then, that Cameron and Osborne did this deliberately …?
Yesterday you were saying how brilliant this negotiation was - today, it's nothing to see.
mhhhh - Are you now admitting that this wasn't such a triumph as you were claiming yesterday?
This sort of spin really puts off us floating voters you know.
@audreyanne is one of those tories that feed directly from the CGHQ tit. No mind of it's own, [I say it's, because we don't know whether audreyanne is male female or hermaphrodite] and a constant yammering of Tory propaganda.
Given that if Farage decreed that all UKIP supporters should act like seals, you'd be the first balancing a ball on your nose, you'd recognise that behaviour.
Can't decide if Pelle or Aguero has the better chance of scoring (I do fantasy football). Man City not good after midweek fixtures but QPRs defence almost nonexistent.
I've gone for Aguero so based on experience of my captain picks you should select Pelle
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
Suffice to say that I side with the Bakery in this. The Cake was a propaganda piece and an affront to the Christian beliefs of the family. It is my personal belief that a shop has the right to refuse service tocustomers if it wants. The shop is a business and if it wants to lose custom at times, well so be it.
The cake was ordered from Asher's Belfast shop in May, by a gay rights activist who wanted it to feature the logo of a campaign group called 'Queerspace'.
To be honest I think most of the country is more interested in the Remembrance Plot, followed by the Cannibal, Strictly and X-factor. For those paying much attention to the EU budget, it will look like a good deal. For those in the know, many will think, like David, that it shows a good negotiating hand. We need to get along and this is the way forward.
Only for the miseries in Ukip will this be something else for them to moan about.
Re. the much more interesting Miliband, you don't think, then, that Cameron and Osborne did this deliberately …?
Yesterday you were saying how brilliant this negotiation was - today, it's nothing to see.
mhhhh - Are you now admitting that this wasn't such a triumph as you were claiming yesterday?
This sort of spin really puts off us floating voters you know.
@audreyanne is one of those tories that feed directly from the CGHQ tit. No mind of it's own, [I say it's, because we don't know whether audreyanne is male female or hermaphrodite] and a constant yammering of Tory propaganda.
Given that if Farage decreed that all UKIP supporters should act like seals, you'd be the first balancing a ball on your nose, you'd recognise that behaviour.
You'd be totally wrong there @matt as I have sometimes been very critical of the UKIP Exec'.
On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?
Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.
The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.
What George Osborne has achieved is (a) correcting the EU's error in not including the rebate in the initial calculation, (b) deferring payments by up to 9 months on an interest free basis and (c) changing the rules in future
It's probably the best he could have realistically achieved.
But it's Jena not Austerlitz
Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).
Achieving b) and c) is in my view worth some credit and the best outcome he could have hoped for.
As for this halving the bill bollox. Well lets see what the voters think.
I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.
But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:
Lt Saavik: "You lied!" Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!"
That's Undiscovered Country, I think Or is there just similar dialogue in both films??
No, Saavik didn't appear in Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). She remained on Vulcan at the start of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
I bow to your superior knowledge
This is I think is the Star Trek VI convo you're thinking of
Mr Spock: "Names, Lieutenant!" Lt Valeris: "I do not remember!" Mr Spock: "A lie?" Lt Valeris: "A choice!"
There's also the one where he tells Scotty to tell Starfleet their engines are bust.. "a lie?", "no, an error!"
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
Suffice to say that I side with the Bakery in this. The Cake was a propaganda piece and an affront to the Christian beliefs of the family. It is my personal belief that a shop has the right to refuse service tocustomers if it wants. The shop is a business and if it wants to lose custom at times, well so be it.
The cake was ordered from Asher's Belfast shop in May, by a gay rights activist who wanted it to feature the logo of a campaign group called 'Queerspace'.
I pointed that out below. The question is are we paying £850m due to a discount of £850m or paying £1.7bn with £850m coming from the discount we would otherwise have received...
The reporting on this has been from October 17th as clear as mud and nothing has changed.
We are getting the extra £850m rebate as a result of paying the £1.7bn (i.e. the rebate is not deducted from money we would otherwise have received).
The net cost is £850m.
Whether this was "always" going to be applied or not is clear as mud.
Basically what we know is:
(a) the original bill did not mention the rebate (b) none of the opposition or the media mentioned the rebate ahead of the event (c) George announced the application of the rebate and spun it as a triumph (d) The opposition and the media says "well of course it was always going to apply"
Conclusion is either:
(a) Osborne achieved something (probably only clarification of a grey area)
or
(b) the media and the opposition are idiots and/or liars
On topic, I have still yet to have received a sensible answer from anyone to the question that I have posed twice: what should Britain have paid?
Looking at the question in the abstract and stripped of the emotion and spin on both sides, what is happening seems reasonable enough to me.
The answer is, probably, £850m comprising a £1.7bn payment followed, at some point, by a £850m rebate.
What George Osborne has achieved is (a) correcting the EU's error in not including the rebate in the initial calculation, (b) deferring payments by up to 9 months on an interest free basis and (c) changing the rules in future
It's probably the best he could have realistically achieved.
But it's Jena not Austerlitz
Lying about a) has undermined the credit he gets for achieving b) and c).
Achieving b) and c) is in my view worth some credit and the best outcome he could have hoped for.
As for this halving the bill bollox. Well lets see what the voters think.
I'm not sure that "lying" is fair, because he has achieved something. "Exaggerating" I'll grant you.
But, yes, his opponents are trying to use it to undermine the credit that he gets.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:
Lt Saavik: "You lied!" Mr Spock: "I exaggerated!"
That's Undiscovered Country, I think Or is there just similar dialogue in both films??
No, Saavik didn't appear in Undiscovered Country (Star Trek VI). She remained on Vulcan at the start of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
I bow to your superior knowledge
This is I think is the Star Trek VI convo you're thinking of
Mr Spock: "Names, Lieutenant!" Lt Valeris: "I do not remember!" Mr Spock: "A lie?" Lt Valeris: "A choice!"
There's also the one where he tells Scotty to tell Starfleet their engines are bust.. "a lie?", "no, an error!"
The crew does seems very lacking in trust if they accuse each other of lying very other episode!
That would be true, but fortunately these were the movies we're talking about, which at that time were released every couple of years (as opposed to weekly TV series episodes!).
To be honest I think most of the country is more interested in the Remembrance Plot, followed by the Cannibal, Strictly and X-factor. For those paying much attention to the EU budget, it will look like a good deal. For those in the know, many will think, like David, that it shows a good negotiating hand. We need to get along and this is the way forward.
Only for the miseries in Ukip will this be something else for them to moan about.
Re. the much more interesting Miliband, you don't think, then, that Cameron and Osborne did this deliberately …?
Yesterday you were saying how brilliant this negotiation was - today, it's nothing to see.
mhhhh - Are you now admitting that this wasn't such a triumph as you were claiming yesterday?
This sort of spin really puts off us floating voters you know.
@audreyanne is one of those tories that feed directly from the CGHQ tit. No mind of it's own, [I say it's, because we don't know whether audreyanne is male female or hermaphrodite] and a constant yammering of Tory propaganda.
Given that if Farage decreed that all UKIP supporters should act like seals, you'd be the first balancing a ball on your nose, you'd recognise that behaviour.
Good afternoon. I hope we are all looking forward to the rugby. I cannot see an English victory, but who knows?
Re: the EU discount - I note that all but the ultra loyal Conservatives now concede the preposterousness of George's position.
There has been no discount - quite rightly in my view. One cannot refuse to pay ones fees and expect to remain part of the club.
So something for both europhiles and eurosceptics to savour: George has united the groups in poking fun at the government. He would be wise to avoid such silly gimmicks in future.
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
Suffice to say that I side with the Bakery in this. The Cake was a propaganda piece and an affront to the Christian beliefs of the family. It is my personal belief that a shop has the right to refuse service tocustomers if it wants. The shop is a business and if it wants to lose custom at times, well so be it.
The cake was ordered from Asher's Belfast shop in May, by a gay rights activist who wanted it to feature the logo of a campaign group called 'Queerspace'.
Queerspace? I would have called it "The Spirit of Bumcree"
"His spinning the rebate is inexcusable. You don’t need to be an expert on EU law to know the difference between an automatic discount and a negotiated discount. Would anyone step out of a Next sale and claim to have negotiated a 50pc discount on a suit? It’s the same principle.
Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?
It appears the only people to forget anything were Osborne and HM Treasury... forgot to inform the public so we could have a full and frank discussion on the issues. Instead, he withheld information to ambush his opponents. If a QC did the same stunt he would be disbarred.
Reminiscent of Brown at his worst.
Osbrowne indeed.
Do you mind if I ask what you do for a living?
If you were regularly involved in negotiations you'd realise you never tip your hand in advance (unless there is something that can be gained from it)
Courts of law apply a different standard precisely because they are intended to be a search for truth not a negotition
Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?
I think the public has a right to expect that any figures they are given will be complete, after any adjustments, rebates or whatever, it isn't their job to keep track of thousands of pages of EU legislation and know what the country should be paying. Its just like when you go into the supermarket for a bottle of wine, or fill up with petrol, you expect the price you are given to be what you pay, not for the sales assistant to come up to you and tell you that you need to add more for this duty or that tax.
Did you think that the actual bill was £3.4bn, and the rebate had been applied to it?
I expected the net difference to the exchequer with what ever adjustments from whatever sources was 1.7bn, its not my business to work out the minutia of European payments, that's why we employ HM Treasury. If GO has stood up and told us we had a bill the net effect of which would be 850m then I would expect the exchequer to pay 850m. There are six other adjustments still on the table which we haven't see yet, which might make the bill better or worse, we shouldn't need to know or care about the detail, we should be told how much the EU is costing us, and in the case of exceptional payments, how much extra it is costing us.
Who announced the £1.7bn figure? Was it Cameron/Osborne? Or the EU?
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
It should not be necessary on a sophisiticated site like PB.com explain to the tories why the promise that 'only dave will give you the referendum you claim to want' doesn't attract UKIP supporters. "If you don't vote tory, you must be frit of losing it".
Of course we're frightened of losing it. If we weren't, we'd be daft. We'll get one, and only one, vote. Why wouldn't we want to get our ducks in a row?
A win for out in referendum organised by Cameron, recommending we stay in, would be very unlikely.
Do we think socialism and Miliband is the answer? Of course not. But a weak Miliband govt (both in number and capability) is not unimaginable. There will be a referendum, at some stage. What we need is different circumstances, when campaigning for 'out' is separately led by a resurgent tory party. They would be explaining in their words why quitting the EU is right and different reasons, but the same answer from UKIP---then we'd be on our way out.
I'd vote for a party that just took us out of Europe. We're currently debating what variety of chains we'd prefer in attaching ourselves to the corpse that is the EU.
If you want to leave the EU---vote UKIP. Will we be able to take the UK out of the EU?. No. Will we be the catalyst for us leaving the EU?. Yes.
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
Quite. That's something Guardianistas have real trouble getting into their thick skulls.
Money raised from everybody belongs to everybody.
Therefore Faith Schools should be funded as well as community schools.
If you do not wish to fund such institutions they should return their taxes - with interest.
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
I'm not sure the difference between Tories and UKIP would be statistically significant, but there's a clear difference between Tories/UKIP and Lab/LD
"Let me point out in this respect that the UK will benefit from the UK rebate for the additional payments in 2014. This will be budgeted in May 2015 when the UK rebate is recalculated."
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
Does you think it would be acceptable for a vegetarian restaurant worker to refuse to serve meat-eaters because it was "at odds" with his/her beliefs?
They were prepared to make them an alternative cake, just not the bespoke design that he wanted. Based on this principle, you are saying that any one can order any design they want no matter how offensive it may be.
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern Ireland declined a request to make a cake which said “support gay marriage” on it because it was “at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54 Tory +41 Lab +8 LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
So basically everyone thought it was acceptable, even the left.
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
Rubbish. And today's article was a bit lightweight.
Not being able to have a cake to your personal design cannot be described as excessive in any known universe.
Many services are offered publicly and are discriminatory:
Public toilets Hospital wards Single-sex schools Sports teams Hairdressers Hostels All-women shortlists Etc.
What is so disappointing is that you seem to have missed this argument being laughed out of court when there was a kerfuffle at UCL a few months ago.
On topic. If Osborne can claim victory for the rebate being payed upfront, then why not cash in the rebate for the next 100 years in order to claim a budget surplus just for this year.
As an american TV show said "if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing".
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
Rubbish. And today's article was a bit lightweight.
Not being able to have a cake to your personal design cannot be described as excessive in any known universe.
Many services are offered publicly and are discriminatory:
Public toilets Hospital wards Single-sex schools Sports teams Hairdressers Hostels All-women shortlists Etc.
What is so disappointing is that you seem to have missed this argument being laughed out of court when there was a kerfuffle at UCL a few months ago.
Do pay attention, Mr. Herdson.
I wonder if I could go into the Tottenham club shop and get a No 61 spurs shirt with "When THFC weren't crap" printed above it
Its lucky the Treasury only watch the videos then and don't read the press releases or we might have thought they had known before and were trying to claim credit for something they didn't do.
Who's prepared to put heir hand up and say that they had already factored in the rebate when the £1.7bn wa announced, so have always been thinking that only £850m would be paid, but didn't bother to mention it because they thought it was so obvious that every sensible person would have already done the same mental calculation and discounted it?
Or are any of his critics prepared to be honest and say that they also forgot the rebate until Osborne's announcement?
It appears the only people to forget anything were Osborne and HM Treasury... forgot to inform the public so we could have a full and frank discussion on the issues. Instead, he withheld information to ambush his opponents. If a QC did the same stunt he would be disbarred.
Reminiscent of Brown at his worst.
Osbrowne indeed.
Do you mind if I ask what you do for a living?
If you were regularly involved in negotiations you'd realise you never tip your hand in advance (unless there is something that can be gained from it)
Courts of law apply a different standard precisely because they are intended to be a search for truth not a negotition
Well, perhaps.
As a negotiating tactic, perhaps it would be necessary to deceive the counterparty, but deceive the British people publicly as well.
After the negotiation? Completely unacceptable and that's what Osbrowne tried, and failed, to do.
Its lucky the Treasury only watch the videos then and don't read the press releases or we might have thought they had known before and were trying to claim credit for something they didn't do.
This is one of those stories that leads to death by ennui.
My prediction on this from a few weeks ago turned out right.
No matter what happened, Labour and their BFFs in UKIP would say Dave and George had been defeated.
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
Rubbish. And today's article was a bit lightweight.
Not being able to have a cake to your personal design cannot be described as excessive in any known universe.
Many services are offered publicly and are discriminatory:
Public toilets Hospital wards Single-sex schools Sports teams Hairdressers Hostels All-women shortlists Etc.
What is so disappointing is that you seem to have missed this argument being laughed out of court when there was a kerfuffle at UCL a few months ago.
Do pay attention, Mr. Herdson.
You seem to have missed that I was responding to Indigo's extremist position that "It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want", which is rather different from "it should be permissible for any business to refuse business on an equal and justifiable basis"; the latter assertion being one I'd support.
With respect to your list, I don't accept that genuinely equal but separate provision is discriminatory (e.g. male and female toilets located side-by-side and costing the same), which rules several out. I don't support all-women shortlists and don't believe any political party should be allowed to use them, any more than all-white or all-heterosexual shortlists. Nor should hairdressers be allowed to charge £20 to cut ladies' hair but £5 for men (though they should be allowed to charge different amounts based on the amount of work being done, which may result in men paying on average less if they have, on average, less time-consuming and/or costly cuts).
As for what has been supported or dismissed by the courts, that is of absolutely no consequence as to what I believe *should* be the case.
Its lucky the Treasury only watch the videos then and don't read the press releases or we might have thought they had known before and were trying to claim credit for something they didn't do.
This is one of those stories that leads to death by ennui.
My prediction on this from a few weeks ago turned out right.
No matter what happened, Labour and their BFFs in UKIP would say Dave and George had been defeated.
You're embarrassing yourself. When only the praetorian guard is left to defend the leader you know he's lost.
Its lucky the Treasury only watch the videos then and don't read the press releases or we might have thought they had known before and were trying to claim credit for something they didn't do.
This is one of those stories that leads to death by ennui.
My prediction on this from a few weeks ago turned out right.
No matter what happened, Labour and their BFFs in UKIP would say Dave and George had been defeated.
You're embarrassing yourself. When only the praetorian guard is left to defend the leader you know he's lost.
You mean you Kippers are so bloody predictable.
I'm right, just like why you lot are so scared of Dave's referendum.
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
Rubbish. And today's article was a bit lightweight.
Not being able to have a cake to your personal design cannot be described as excessive in any known universe.
Many services are offered publicly and are discriminatory:
Public toilets Hospital wards Single-sex schools Sports teams Hairdressers Hostels All-women shortlists Etc.
What is so disappointing is that you seem to have missed this argument being laughed out of court when there was a kerfuffle at UCL a few months ago.
Do pay attention, Mr. Herdson.
I wonder if I could go into the Tottenham club shop and get a No 61 spurs shirt with "When THFC weren't crap" printed above it
Or order pork sausages from a Kosher or Halal butchers, then claim anti-Christian discrimination. Don't laugh; many Christians in Israel farm pigs to distinguish themselves from their Jewish and Muslim neighbours.
I recall many years ago Manchester City fans being refused the name 'Swalesout' on new shirts at the Maine Road club shop.
EU Press release 27/10/14 Let me point out in this respect that the UK will benefit from the UK rebate for the additional payments in 2014. This will be budgeted in May 2015 when the UK rebate is recalculated.
Charles/RN and other vocal PB Tories how do you read that other than Osbourne knew or was lying about halving the bill.
Would it be acceptable for a Europhile restaurant worker to refuse to serve Kipper (as in UKIP, not the fish!) customers because it was "At odds" with his/her beliefs?
It should be allowable for any private business to refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want, there are always alternatives, and if the business wants to shoot themselves in the foot by turning away paying customers that's their own look out. In a free society people should have the right to be stupid. When there is only once source of provision, such as a government service, clearly things are different and all comers should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, even UKIP voters that want to be foster parents.
That argument holds only as far as small numbers take that attitude. When there is a cultural antipathy to equal treatment of, say, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the consequence is that there are not always alternatives. Nor will there necessarily be in small communities which may have only one store, hairdressers, takeaway etc.
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
The cake thing is trivial and best dealt with by humour, but the principle is important and is of special interest to those of us here who like a bet.
We are regularly turned away without explanation by bookmakers who do not want our bets. When challenged they trot out the line that they are not obliged to take bets from anybody. They may even add that the same is true of the butcher and baker in the High street, and of course they are right.
They overlook however the crucial point that if we are refused service by the butcher and baker we can easily obtain our bread and meat elsewhere. But the bookmaker is operating a cartel, so that punters like you and I cannot possibly get on except under terms which are unfavorable or by the use of devious and tiresome means (such as beards.)
You are right. Where there is an ample supply, there is no problem. The market can be left to operate in the usual way and silly suppliers like these cake-makers will be hit in the pocket. Who cares? But where there is a real dearth of alternatives those offering services ought not to be allowed to discriminate without good reason - and the fact your clients are either too shrewd, or too gay, is not a good reason.
Jacek Dominik's is crap he forgot what was in his press release.
Some people eh?
Taking the lead from Ed Miliband, who you know, in his speech forgot one or two things.
This is becoming desperate to defend TSE, you are only hurting your own credibility.
The only upside to this is that if you ever criticize Cameron this side of the election, then Cameron would need to count his hours. When even the praetorian guard abandons it's leader then that leader has hours or minutes left to his end.
"Courts of law apply a different standard precisely because they are intended to be a search for truth not a negotition"
If you are talking about the courts in England and Wales then you are being very cruel in not making your jest more obvious - some people might actually believe you were being serious.
As anyone who has been in and around the legal system will know what goes on the in Courts, civil or criminal, has only a passing reference to justice and the truth, whilst it is welcome when it appears, is a definite optional extra. Far from being a search for the truth our courts are about the application of the law, the adversarial system means that it cannot be anything else.
Its lucky the Treasury only watch the videos then and don't read the press releases or we might have thought they had known before and were trying to claim credit for something they didn't do.
This is one of those stories that leads to death by ennui.
My prediction on this from a few weeks ago turned out right.
No matter what happened, Labour and their BFFs in UKIP would say Dave and George had been defeated.
You're embarrassing yourself. When only the praetorian guard is left to defend the leader you know he's lost.
You mean you Kippers are so bloody predictable.
I'm right, just like why you lot are so scared of Dave's referendum.
Cluck, Cluck.
Are you and Nabavi the same person?
As I wrote yesterday Someone: "I disagree with Cameron" Nabavi: "You're a kipper"
If this goes on then UKIP would seem to be the main opposition party and enemy of the Tories not Labour.
Jacek Dominik's is crap he forgot what was in his press release.
Some people eh?
Taking the lead from Ed Miliband, who you know, in his speech forgot one or two things.
This is becoming desperate to defend TSE, you are only hurting your own credibility.
The only upside to this is that if you ever criticize Cameron this side of the election, then Cameron would need to count his hours. When even the praetorian guard abandons it's leader then that leader has hours or minutes left to his end.
I've happily criticised Dave many times, once it really annoyed him.
Comments
Pete Wishart @PeteWishart 3 mins3 minutes ago
Today I can exclusively reveal who is taking on Danny Alexander. http://tinyurl.com/83vae9r
The issue needs to be settled. Either we leave and accept the consequences of that - including a hefty price tag to opt back in in the future if it turns out we made a mistake, if they let us back in at all - or we vote to stay in and thus don't grumble as much because we made our choice. Perhaps that runs the risk of bringing us closer to to adopting bits of the project we don't like, but that isn't a certainty, we could still work for a two speed Europe, and perhaps do better as we aren't threatening to leave at any moment, and our people cannot claim they want to leave either.
Do nothing, like Portillo says, and our bitterness and the resentment it engenders from the Europcrats will fester and make things worse for us and them.
It seems to me that the SNP gaining +10 seats would be bearable (even if undesirable) from Lab/Lib/Tory view.
As most of those would be Lab/Lib loses, the Tories would see a silver lining.
But, if Alex looks as though he might cause the kind of damage that he did at the Scottish elections in 2011, with swathes of seats falling, then that will probably force his opponents to cooperate.
Some people on the net have been asking ironically when SLAB and the Scottish Tories might merge - not entirely seriously, but all the same one wonders ...
http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/2d981f12-5adc-11e4-8625-00144feab7de.pdf
...which was picked up and reported by the FT:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/81f4a330-5aa2-11e4-8625-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3IThBhQIh
The UK government had presumably been hoping nobody would notice.
Looking at the EU doc the €2.1bn number seems to be a figure for the amount that was supposed to be settled in December, so it wouldn't cover what might then happen in the next rebate calculation.
http://tapnewswire.com/2014/11/owen-paterson-launches-bid-for-conservative-party-leadership-promising-exit-from-the-eu/
'Ygritte says: You know nothing!'
So that's the best you can come up with, no answer,nothing to say,zilch ,i obviously hit the nail on the head.
mhhhh - Are you now admitting that this wasn't such a triumph as you were claiming yesterday?
This sort of spin really puts off us floating voters you know.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/why-did-george-osborne-spoil-a-genuine-victory-with-spin/
Yet again we have an unnecessary own goal by Osborne trying to be too clever with tactics without thinking through the overall strategy. Osborne should have draped himself in the acts of Thatcher and praised the terms of that rebate for why the £1.7bn is halved.
He could then have pointed out what Blair gave away for an empty pocket full of EC promises...
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ex7ykytmu1/InternalResults_141107_cultural_beliefs_Website.pdf
A bakery run by a Christian family in Northern
Ireland declined a request to make a cake which
said “support gay marriage” on it because it was
“at odds” with their beliefs. Do you think it was
acceptable or unacceptable for them to do this?
Net acceptable-
Ukip +54
Tory +41
Lab +8
LD +7
There's also a large difference between men and women
Not to mention that Maria Miller said : ‘The Government is clear that the Bill does not prevent people, whether at work or outside, from expressing their belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. In no way will the measure undermine those who believe, for whatever reason, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is their right.’
pic.twitter.com/xsOjbdQkPl
Also your instance is to do with individual employee not the firm as a whole, which the NI case is.
[Edit} The other thing that I notice is that providing a service t a person is not the same thing as being asked to provide a service to a political activity (which I assume the cake is). It's one thing to refuse to do a cake for a gay couple (which is rightly illegal, prima facie, though I don't know the law in NI), but another to refuse to do a political activist cake. This would be the case for other forms of activity - for instance one should not refuse to serve someone because they are Tories, or LDs, but one needn;t accept a request to [edit] cater for a Tory election rally if it is against one's views.
In the book, Ygritte is a rebel from the frozen North and the insult is aimed at the ambitious John Snow, who despite being an outcast, is still an establishment figure with an establishment outlook.
But I expect you knew that anyway.
@MSmithsonPB Don't suppose papers like the Express will find space for that. After all "Hob Nobs may cure dementia" is far more important.
As an example of (c) my father is very pro staying in, my mother has moved from being "in" in 1975 to "regretfully out" while I am very much on the fence, but leaning out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11209109/Teachers-told-sex-at-13-is-normal-part-of-growing-up.html
as endorsed by some Tory and LD MPs (including Mr Clegg) despite the fact that it appears to be official policy condoning unlawful behaviour,
If so, I suspect the Tories would deliberately target him, and vice-versa.
The cake was ordered from Asher's Belfast shop in May, by a gay rights activist who wanted it to feature the logo of a campaign group called 'Queerspace'.
I've never looked at the legal wording, but it's quite possible the rebate is defined as the surplus of annual contributions vs. annual receipts.
If so, then special payments may well not have been caught.
Self-identified religions get privilege due to tax breaks.
Mind you, we had Joyce Thacker taking foster children from a good couple because they supported UKIP.
Mr. CD13, shade unfair on Mr. Zims. Snow's a mopey bugger.
The crew does seems very lacking in trust if they accuse each other of lying very other episode!
"Snow's a mopey bugger."
True. Though I prefer mardy arse.
But Ygritte ends up .... edited.
Have done.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2824510/The-real-victims-bigotry-family-bakers-dragged-court-opponents-gay-marriage-persecuted-Tories-vowed-protect-them.html
The net cost is £850m.
Whether this was "always" going to be applied or not is clear as mud.
Basically what we know is:
(a) the original bill did not mention the rebate
(b) none of the opposition or the media mentioned the rebate ahead of the event
(c) George announced the application of the rebate and spun it as a triumph
(d) The opposition and the media says "well of course it was always going to apply"
Conclusion is either:
(a) Osborne achieved something (probably only clarification of a grey area)
or
(b) the media and the opposition are idiots and/or liars
or
(c) both
Re: the EU discount - I note that all but the ultra loyal Conservatives now concede the preposterousness of George's position.
There has been no discount - quite rightly in my view. One cannot refuse to pay ones fees and expect to remain part of the club.
So something for both europhiles and eurosceptics to savour: George has united the groups in poking fun at the government. He would be wise to avoid such silly gimmicks in future.
"His spinning the rebate is inexcusable. You don’t need to be an expert on EU law to know the difference between an automatic discount and a negotiated discount. Would anyone step out of a Next sale and claim to have negotiated a 50pc discount on a suit? It’s the same principle.
The Commission mention that the rebate would give some of it back in this statement on October 27th:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-723_en.htm
If you were regularly involved in negotiations you'd realise you never tip your hand in advance (unless there is something that can be gained from it)
Courts of law apply a different standard precisely because they are intended to be a search for truth not a negotition
People have a right to bigotry and intolerance in their private lives, providing it doesn't adversely affect third parties excessively. That doesn't extend to services that they are offering publicly.
Money raised from everybody belongs to everybody.
Therefore Faith Schools should be funded as well as community schools.
If you do not wish to fund such institutions they should return their taxes - with interest.
"Let me point out in this respect that the UK will benefit from the UK rebate for the additional payments in 2014. This will be budgeted in May 2015 when the UK rebate is recalculated."
How difficult would it have been for Queerspace to order a plain cake and ice their own slogan on?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9049
looking at how votes have shifted over the last two years, which broadly backs up what I wrote on PB last week
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/11/01/labours-melting-firewall-almost-a-third-of-ld-switchers-have-since-left-since-2012/
but does so having analysed the Don't Knows as well, which I didn't, though I don't think they make any material difference, as it happens.
I retract my previous crap defending Osborne on this, he is being a tit trying to make it seem like he's "won" anything by getting the amount reduced.
He would have been far wiser to focus on the interest free delay in payment, and how much this is saving us.
Not being able to have a cake to your personal design cannot be described as excessive in any known universe.
Many services are offered publicly and are discriminatory:
Public toilets
Hospital wards
Single-sex schools
Sports teams
Hairdressers
Hostels
All-women shortlists
Etc.
What is so disappointing is that you seem to have missed this argument being laughed out of court when there was a kerfuffle at UCL a few months ago.
Do pay attention, Mr. Herdson.
Well done Tokyo
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-723_en.htm
If Osborne can claim victory for the rebate being payed upfront, then why not cash in the rebate for the next 100 years in order to claim a budget surplus just for this year.
As an american TV show said "if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing".
James Mates @jamesmatesitv
@traynorbrussels @SpiegelPeter @tom_nuttall In video of presser, he didn't actually say it (even if supposed to)
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?sitelang=en&ref=I094616 …
As a negotiating tactic, perhaps it would be necessary to deceive the counterparty, but deceive the British people publicly as well.
After the negotiation? Completely unacceptable and that's what Osbrowne tried, and failed, to do.
My prediction on this from a few weeks ago turned out right.
No matter what happened, Labour and their BFFs in UKIP would say Dave and George had been defeated.
With respect to your list, I don't accept that genuinely equal but separate provision is discriminatory (e.g. male and female toilets located side-by-side and costing the same), which rules several out. I don't support all-women shortlists and don't believe any political party should be allowed to use them, any more than all-white or all-heterosexual shortlists. Nor should hairdressers be allowed to charge £20 to cut ladies' hair but £5 for men (though they should be allowed to charge different amounts based on the amount of work being done, which may result in men paying on average less if they have, on average, less time-consuming and/or costly cuts).
As for what has been supported or dismissed by the courts, that is of absolutely no consequence as to what I believe *should* be the case.
Some people eh?
When only the praetorian guard is left to defend the leader you know he's lost.
I'm right, just like why you lot are so scared of Dave's referendum.
Cluck, Cluck.
I recall many years ago Manchester City fans being refused the name 'Swalesout' on new shirts at the Maine Road club shop.
Charles/RN and other vocal PB Tories how do you read that other than Osbourne knew or was lying about halving the bill.
We are regularly turned away without explanation by bookmakers who do not want our bets. When challenged they trot out the line that they are not obliged to take bets from anybody. They may even add that the same is true of the butcher and baker in the High street, and of course they are right.
They overlook however the crucial point that if we are refused service by the butcher and baker we can easily obtain our bread and meat elsewhere. But the bookmaker is operating a cartel, so that punters like you and I cannot possibly get on except under terms which are unfavorable or by the use of devious and tiresome means (such as beards.)
You are right. Where there is an ample supply, there is no problem. The market can be left to operate in the usual way and silly suppliers like these cake-makers will be hit in the pocket. Who cares? But where there is a real dearth of alternatives those offering services ought not to be allowed to discriminate without good reason - and the fact your clients are either too shrewd, or too gay, is not a good reason.
The only upside to this is that if you ever criticize Cameron this side of the election, then Cameron would need to count his hours.
When even the praetorian guard abandons it's leader then that leader has hours or minutes left to his end.
"Courts of law apply a different standard precisely because they are intended to be a search for truth not a negotition"
If you are talking about the courts in England and Wales then you are being very cruel in not making your jest more obvious - some people might actually believe you were being serious.
As anyone who has been in and around the legal system will know what goes on the in Courts, civil or criminal, has only a passing reference to justice and the truth, whilst it is welcome when it appears, is a definite optional extra. Far from being a search for the truth our courts are about the application of the law, the adversarial system means that it cannot be anything else.
As I wrote yesterday
Someone: "I disagree with Cameron"
Nabavi: "You're a kipper"
If this goes on then UKIP would seem to be the main opposition party and enemy of the Tories not Labour.
It was this one
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/02/28/are-we-entering-the-twilight-of-the-leadership-of-dave/
Poor Kippers, have no experience of reality, living in your fantasy world.
You really are embarrassing yourself.
When it comes to a Praetorian Guard, I'm more Sejanus.