The data are published by EUR lex and the EFTA Secretariat: they show Norway actually adopted only 9.05 per cent of EU directives and regulations.
The reason Norway, unlike Switzerland, has to apply any EU legal acts at all is, frankly, that its pro-EU leaders have never accepted the result of the 1994 referendum, and continue to hanker after membership.
Quite.
The reason they have to adopt EU legislation is that they are in EFTA and it is a condition of that organisation's free access to the Single Market that they adopt the relevant legislation, legislation they have not even had a vote on.
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Has anyone done a proper gap analysis - in a table - of the comparative legislative impact of being members of EFTA, EEA and the EU, respectively?
The data are published by EUR lex and the EFTA Secretariat: they show Norway actually adopted only 9.05 per cent of EU directives and regulations.
The reason Norway, unlike Switzerland, has to apply any EU legal acts at all is, frankly, that its pro-EU leaders have never accepted the result of the 1994 referendum, and continue to hanker after membership.
Quite.
The reason they have to adopt EU legislation is that they are in EFTA and it is a condition of that organisation's free access to the Single Market that they adopt the relevant legislation, legislation they have not even had a vote on.
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Has anyone done a proper gap analysis - in a table - of the comparative legislative impact of being members of EFTA, EEA and the EU, respectively?
It would make interesting reading.I think the IEA Brexit Prize winner did that.
The data are published by EUR lex and the EFTA Secretariat: they show Norway actually adopted only 9.05 per cent of EU directives and regulations.
The reason Norway, unlike Switzerland, has to apply any EU legal acts at all is, frankly, that its pro-EU leaders have never accepted the result of the 1994 referendum, and continue to hanker after membership.
Quite.
The reason they have to adopt EU legislation is that they are in EFTA and it is a condition of that organisation's free access to the Single Market that they adopt the relevant legislation, legislation they have not even had a vote on.
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Has anyone done a proper gap analysis - in a table - of the comparative legislative impact of being members of EFTA, EEA and the EU, respectively?
It would make interesting reading.
I think the IEA Brexit Prize winner might have done that.
Is it time for me to dust down my more efficient vote scenario again? Whilst it may be true that UKIP is currently taking more votes of the Tories than Labour (and the evidence for that seems to be mixed once they get over about 12%) that does not mean that the Tories will be the most damaged in seats.
At the last election the Tory vote of nearly 37% was incredibly inefficient because they built up huge, pointless majorities in most of southern England. If their majority in, say, Kent seats is now halved or more by the UKIP effect but they still manage to win a similar share of the vote nationally then logic indicates that they are winning more votes somewhere else such as the south west, the midlands or even London on recent polling. That effect might well give them seats which were out of reach in 2010, particularly Lib Dem ones.
34% was something of an outlier but if that became a regular thing over this month with UKIP still in the higher teens I would suggest my hypothesis is likely to be tested.
Yes, and recall that the Tories also won a good 15 seats more than they 'should' have done in uniform swing. They were very lucky in grabbing hold of a number of super-marginals partly thanks, IMHO, to Ashcroft's targeting strategy. FPTP was rather kind to them.
Cameron (and his team, to be fair) actually came very close to pissing his chances of becoming PM up the wall. Imagine Labour on 265 seats, the Lib Dems on 61 and the Tories on 290. Enough for a Lib-Lab coalition under David Miliband with a slim overall majority.
Good point Casino and of course the Tories were also helped in the 2010 GE from an overall balance of power sense, if not in relation to the coalition numbers, by the LibDems achieving around 15 seats fewer than their most pessimistic pre-election estimates.
Yes, I was predicting around 75-80 seats IIRC. It does beg the question: if the Lib Dems failed to gain seats, and actually lost them, whilst polling at an all time high, why do so many people think they'll defy gravity now they're polling close to an all time low?
Something doesn't compute.
I refer the Honourable Gentleman to my reply to my Honourable Friend the junior member for Bedford Baldings and South Smithson some time ago, namely as history indicates :
LibDem vote share and seats do not an easy computation make.
If UKIP adopted many Green policies, the breakthrough would happen. Fracking. GMOs. Diesel. Fluoride. Does Farage even know about such politics?
UKIP voters are mostly the dispossessed from the two main parties who left them out in the cold when they moved into the liberal/progressive centre ground. I cant see those white van men and shire Tories/golf-club bores being overjoyed to see their party adopting the same Guardianista policies.
Policies are not fashion statements. There is nothing more centre ground than not wanting to be poisoned, to be able to live a long and healthy life. Glyphosate from Monsanto, fluoride, diesel and fracking pollution will ensure many of us do not enjoy such. Politicians that can articulate the environmental threat to people win votes, which is why Greens are surging.
If UKIP combined its focus on social issues with environmental issues, it would open up the electoral roof. Saying people who drive white vans don't mind dying from poisonous air, water, or food, is to betray ignorance.
Is this really the case? If many UKIP supporters (today) left Labour from 2001-2010 then why did UKIP's ratings languish so low for that period?
Plus, over the last year or two the Conservatives have flatlined, Labour have declined and UKIP increased. Of course, it may be more complex than Conservatives staying where they are and Labour supporters turning purple, but that's the net result.
I suggest you look at the BNP surge in Labour areas during this period. The BES is too coy to mention this, but the two MEPs they got elected in the North are pretty hard to ignore.
Mr. Oz, hmm. Maybe. The BNP did do better during that period but I'm not sure whether it's as straightforward as disaffected WWC shifting to the BNP from Labour, or the BNP actively doing well (they've since disintegrated, of course).
@ Tapper " If UKIP adopted many Green policies, the breakthrough would happen. Fracking. GMOs. Diesel. Fluoride. Does Farage even know about such politics? "
Are you mad.?
UKIP fundementally oppose the whole concept of Green politics, as will most of the new Green supporters when the lights start going out.
We can all play silly b*ggers thinking we can influence the natural cycle of the planet, but when Green policies drag our lifestyles down, in their quest to return us to a pre-industrial society, the doo doo will hit the fan, when tw*ts can't twitter anymore, and Fathi ebook becomes CleftStickBook.
Apart from that I have yet to meet a Greenie who is not a rabid leftie.
The Greens were in a German coalition for years. I don't recall the country being returned to a pre-industrial society.
But German energy policy has been a catastrophe that has their business secretary in open warfare with their energy secretary. They've gone seriously green (with extravagant subsidies), and so when the wind doesn't blow or sun doesn't shine they need to burn alot of coal (imported from USA). Their power is MUCH more expensive than before and their GHG emissions have gone UP! Energy costs are a key item distinguishing international competitiveness (as per tax or wages) and German industry pays an unaffordable price for its energy. And their maunfacturing PMIs now reflect this. They've sacrificed industrial competitiveness on the altar of Gaia.
Most German coal consumption (Probably 75+%) is locally produced lignite.
Thanks for the clarification. I read the other day that their import of (now alot cheaper) US coal has soared and is used to spin turbines on calm dark days (but I accept it is not the majority). I assume you accept the basic premise of my post, though. That they've gone full Ed Davey and it is ruinous to their economic prospects.
I agree that German energy policy has led to electricity prices 60% above UK levels.
I'm not convinced by your increasing ghg theory, given (a) nuclear shutdown has been a bigger impact and (b) ccgts are much more likely to act as backup for wind and solar because they don't take 8 hours to reach capacity.
American coal imports have largely been displacing south African and Latin American coal imports.
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Don't knock it - 40% of my income last year was translating building regulations and the like in my spare time. :-) But other things are similar in spirit to the single market - e.g. the EU has a common policy on animal experiments (my day job) because it's a nuisance for everyone if researchers have different rules to follow when they do a project in one place or another. Most internationally-conducted activities are simpler if the rules are the same wherever you go in Europe. Can you give some examples of type of regulations (we're not talking about big stuff like the Royal family here) for which you feel it would be better if British and Dutch rules were different?
It was mentioned here a while ago that the EU made the law that they had to be all predominantly red. They used to be varying colours and in certain situations (on an oil platform) it was very useful to be able to quickly glance and see an extinguisher was red or green or some other colour, because different fires needed different extinguishers.
Also, VAT. There's no sane reason why VAT on digital content should be charged based on the buyer's location. Yes, you'll scrape some pennies from Amazon. You'll (or the EU'll) also shaft countless SMEs across the EU.
Well, it is a simple matter of fact (within the envelope of lies, damn lies and statistics) that German GHG emissions have been rising. And the universally accepted reason behind this (and the one of the reasons the business secretary is getting so incensed about) is that as more and more of Germany's capacity goes renewable then more and more back-up generation comes from the more polluting and costly alternatives.
It is also a matter of basic physics that 100% of renewable capacity needs to have controllable (fossil or nuclear) back-up for days when nothing blows or shines. So you must invest twice - and both investments must see a return on capital. The higher a country's renewables % the higher its energy prices. So far the Germans keep voting for this! That may change and trigger a brutal unwinding of the green subsidy regime.
If only we could store renewable electricity on an idustrial scale!
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Don't knock it - 40% of my income last year was translating building regulations and the like in my spare time. :-) But other things are similar in spirit to the single market - e.g. the EU has a common policy on animal experiments (my day job) because it's a nuisance for everyone if researchers have different rules to follow when they do a project in one place or another. Most internationally-conducted activities are simpler if the rules are the same wherever you go in Europe. Can you give some examples of type of regulations (we're not talking about big stuff like the Royal family here) for which you feel it would be better if British and Dutch rules were different?
And yet we regularly deal with those differences in rules when we trade with the US, Canada, China, Brazil, India and all the other profitable expanding markets of the world.
All parties will be saying they have no plans to increase taxes on hard-working average taxpayers. However if you believe them you will be as deluded as they are.
Is there anywhere you can get a bet for example if the Conservatives are in government that VAT will increase to 25% ? As I think it will be a certainty.
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Don't knock it - 40% of my income last year was translating building regulations and the like in my spare time. :-) But other things are similar in spirit to the single market - e.g. the EU has a common policy on animal experiments (my day job) because it's a nuisance for everyone if researchers have different rules to follow when they do a project in one place or another. Most internationally-conducted activities are simpler if the rules are the same wherever you go in Europe. Can you give some examples of type of regulations (we're not talking about big stuff like the Royal family here) for which you feel it would be better if British and Dutch rules were different?
And yet we regularly deal with those differences in rules when we trade with the US, Canada, China, Brazil, India and all the other profitable expanding markets of the world.
A lot of EU rules are just rebadged WTO/UN rules.
"What so very few understand about this process is that the game changed substantially in 1994. It was then that the EU adopted the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement.11 This incredibly important instrument requires the participating parties (including the EU) to adopt international standards in preference to their own. Thus, if any other international body, adopts standards which impinge on the EU’s laws, it is obliged to scrap them and implement the new standards.
This provision is not optional. The Agreement uses the word “shall”, which is why the EU has no choice but to progressively replace its laws with international rules."
"Why any woman would go anywhere near UKIP beats me."
They interviewed a doyen of jounalism now into her 80's and asked her what she thought of todays newspapers. She said the most mysogynistic is The Daily Mail which is also the one most read by women. Her theory was that women have been downtrodden for so long that's now how they saw themselves.
Mr. City, hmm. The Conservatives are currently being criticised for wanting 100% of the deficit-closing measures to be spending cuts. The Lib Dems and Labour are openly advocating tax rises.
Odd to attack the Conservatives over a potential future tax hike. Not saying it's impossible, just that if 2/3 parties are advocating higher taxes accusing the only party that isn't of plotting a future tax rise is perhaps unfair.
On the other hand, your suggestion is more realistic than the BBC approach of claiming the whole country will fall into the sea (and a refusal to acknowledge the deficit must come to an end).
I'm on my phone, and your post deserves a proper response. However, I think it's important to remember there is a difference between capital cost and marginal cost. At one end of the spectrum you have open cycle gas turbines which cost very little to build, but which use a lot of gas to produce a megawatt of energy. At the other, you have solar, which costs a lot to install, but when the sun shines, electrons flow.
"Why any woman would go anywhere near UKIP beats me."
They interviewed a doyen of jounalism now into her 80's and asked her what she thought of todays newspapers. She said the most mysogynistic is The Daily Mail which is also the one most read by women. Her theory was that women have been downtrodden for so long that's now how they saw themselves.
Did she not entertain the notion that she was just wrong?
All parties will be saying they have no plans to increase taxes on hard-working average taxpayers. However if you believe them you will be as deluded as they are.
Is there anywhere you can get a bet for example if the Conservatives are in government that VAT will increase to 25% ? As I think it will be a certainty.
You will be burning your money. People like Mandelson are hoping that bscare stories promoted by the BBC and the IFS and Vince Cable will ensurenthe btories never get na chance anyway. He may have a point. The reality is that cutting expenditure (and not raising tax) is doable. http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002066.html#more ''So a better measure of the squeeze on day-to-day spending is public sector current expenditure, which is mainly the spending on public services. This also needs to come down, to 32.7% of GDP to eliminate the deficit and 31.9% to achieve a 1% surplus. You also have to go back into history for times when this measure of spending was this low. It was 32.4% in 1973-4 and 31.1% in 1972-3. The economy, by the way, is roughly 2.5 times the size it was then.''
Osborne wants a 1% surplus - and we should too - but if that achievement is delayed then the world will continue to spin on its axis. But as OGH regularly points out its likely thanks to the nutjobs of UKIP tht we will get a eurosceptic labour govt, brought into power by hysteria and lies.
"What so very few understand about this process is that the game changed substantially in 1994. It was then that the EU adopted the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement.11 This incredibly important instrument requires the participating parties (including the EU) to adopt international standards in preference to their own. Thus, if any other international body, adopts standards which impinge on the EU’s laws, it is obliged to scrap them and implement the new standards."
Yes, that's a very important point. Inasmuch as it is the case, leaving the EU would make no difference at all. (I don't think even the littlest of Little Englanders is advocating the UK withdrawing from the WTO).
If we are soon to see a positive shift in the Tories GE prospects (probably too early to say as yet), then the value betting-wise is surely in the range of their say 30th - 60th most vulnerable seats, which have long been considered hopelessly lost to Labour and therefore where some decent odds-against opportunities are available for Tory holds. Some degree of care is required in terms demographic and geographic selection, taking account also of the UKIP factor. If our in-house expert antifrank has time on his hands then his assistance would be very welcome in picking out the "best buys".The bookies may be relied upon to close down such opportunities very quickly were the Tories to demonstrate any sort of sustained lead in the polls.
I'll see what I can do (not that I'm an expert). It will probably be at the weekend, given current workloads.
I'll try to do something broader, looking at various electoral outcomes and seeking to identify best buys based on various different approaches.
But as OGH regularly points out its likely thanks to the nutjobs of UKIP tht we will get a eurosceptic labour govt, brought into power by hysteria and lies.
And yet many Tories here wax lyrical about how relieved they are that these nutjobs have left and are detoxifying the party. Can't have it both ways, if you relish people leaving the party, you have to accept their their votes and the votes of their supporters are going elsewhere. Not to mention that half of UKIP is blue labour and would never vote for the current Tory party anyway.
Yes, I was predicting around 75-80 seats IIRC. It does beg the question: if the Lib Dems failed to gain seats, and actually lost them, whilst polling at an all time high, why do so many people think they'll defy gravity now they're polling close to an all time low?
Something doesn't compute.
Surely something does compute? The extra vote share they got didn't bring them extra seats, so you'd expect that they can lose vote share without necessarily losing many seats.
To an extent, anyway. It all depends where the vote loss happens.
"What so very few understand about this process is that the game changed substantially in 1994. It was then that the EU adopted the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement.11 This incredibly important instrument requires the participating parties (including the EU) to adopt international standards in preference to their own. Thus, if any other international body, adopts standards which impinge on the EU’s laws, it is obliged to scrap them and implement the new standards."
Yes, that's a very important point. Inasmuch as it is the case, leaving the EU would make no difference at all. (I don't think even the littlest of Little Englanders is advocating the UK withdrawing from the WTO).
Not true. We would be able to shape those rules rather than just implement them.
"I was particularly struck on a visit to New Zealand 18 months ago how my counterparts saw how vital it was to build alliances and work with like-minded nations to promote legislation or amend other countries’ proposals. At that time they were particularly exercised about a specific proposal on the OIE affecting the sheep industry crucial to NZ farmers. They were particularly pleased to have got the Australians on side and believed that gaining the support of Canada and the US would see a key amendment through.
When I asked why they had not asked for the UK’s influence on this matter, they said that the UK’s position was entirely represented by the EU: even though we have one of the largest sheep flocks in the world. I left feeling stung by these comments and totally disheartened by our lack of influence but also galvanised by the belief that we could serve our own industries so much better if we, as a sovereign nation, retook our rightful place on these various global regulatory bodies."
Yes, that's a very important point. Inasmuch as it is the case, leaving the EU would make no difference at all. (I don't think even the littlest of Little Englanders is advocating the UK withdrawing from the WTO).
What are the WTO policies on agriculture and fisheries, foreign policy, defence, immigration, criminal justice, regional policy or human rights ?
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Don't knock it - 40% of my income last year was translating building regulations and the like in my spare time. :-) But other things are similar in spirit to the single market - e.g. the EU has a common policy on animal experiments (my day job) because it's a nuisance for everyone if researchers have different rules to follow when they do a project in one place or another. Most internationally-conducted activities are simpler if the rules are the same wherever you go in Europe. Can you give some examples of type of regulations (we're not talking about big stuff like the Royal family here) for which you feel it would be better if British and Dutch rules were different?
I think it might be worth asking the Norwegians that since they seem to think it is better to fix their own regulations about 90% of the time!
But to answer as seriously as I can at this time in the morning I accept that there are advantages in having standards to which manufacturers can produce goods on a larger scale confident that they are compliant with all the countries in a market. That is the logic of the single market which made Maggie such a fan and it remains valid today.
But if we were not in the CAP would we really want to spend any subsidies that we thought appropriate in the way it stipulates? Absolutely no chance. It is a system designed to fund small, inefficient French farmers of a type that barely exist in Britain.
I don't agree that having a European Standard for animal experimentation is particularly useful. I think we should decide ourselves where the boundaries are.
I don't agree with us being (broadly) signed up the Social Chapter. Again these are issues which our UK politicians should make decisions on.
I have found the increasing intervention of the EU in the City quite infuriating because it seems designed (probably by pure incompetence rather than malice) to damage an industry that is absolutely key to our tax base and public spending.
Broadly the EU seeks to do far too much. It should do a lot less better. The arguments for me as to whether or not we gain or lose are quite finely balanced and would be more so if a credible, worked through alternative was developed. Only the complete little England fantasy that is projected by so many in UKIP (with some honourable exceptions on this board) would have me voting to stay at the moment.
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Don't knock it - 40% of my income last year was translating building regulations and the like in my spare time. :-) But other things are similar in spirit to the single market - e.g. the EU has a common policy on animal experiments (my day job) because it's a nuisance for everyone if researchers have different rules to follow when they do a project in one place or another. Most internationally-conducted activities are simpler if the rules are the same wherever you go in Europe. Can you give some examples of type of regulations (we're not talking about big stuff like the Royal family here) for which you feel it would be better if British and Dutch rules were different?
And yet we regularly deal with those differences in rules when we trade with the US, Canada, China, Brazil, India and all the other profitable expanding markets of the world.
So you haven't answered his question. USA China India are huge continental sized countries in their own right. They have internal markets which give them economies of scale. We do not get many American Chinese or Indian cars exported to us. Japan builds factories here to sell in Europe. As it happens 'here' really does mean here, the UK. How long will that last? We do not need a European Parliament and currency and government to set common trading rules etc, but the point is even if we were not in the EU we would be adopting its rules with no say and we would be paying to its regional funds to qualify for access to its single market. In terms of the reality of life there would be no difference. You might think it worth it but what is not worth it is splitting the right wing vote based on a chimera and letting in a europhile Labour govt.
I'm usually happy to point and laugh at UKIP. However, in this case I have a teeny-weeny speck of sympathy for the party.
Any organisation of size will have to deal with issues of harrassment, and it's easy - but not very reasonable - to say "typical" or "what a surprise!". At least they've acted swiftly in suspending Bird, and I'm sure he'll be given the heave-ho unless something striking happens to prove his innocence. As Socrates (I think) said last night, they've already handled this much, much, much better than the LibDems did over Rennard (or Hancock, for that matter).
Mr. Nabavi, are you really implying those who wish to leave the EU are 'Little Englanders'? It's a small step away from suggesting the UK would be a pygmy without the EU.
Yes, I was predicting around 75-80 seats IIRC. It does beg the question: if the Lib Dems failed to gain seats, and actually lost them, whilst polling at an all time high, why do so many people think they'll defy gravity now they're polling close to an all time low?
Something doesn't compute.
Surely something does compute? The extra vote share they got didn't bring them extra seats, so you'd expect that they can lose vote share without necessarily losing many seats.
To an extent, anyway. It all depends where the vote loss happens.
The Lib Dems have much more cause to hope that they may retain seats on a low vote share next year in England & Wales (where they piled up votes uselessly in 2010 in many constituencies) than in Scotland, where their vote share actually declined in 2010 but was much more efficiently distributed.
If the Lib Dems had been as efficient in the distribution of their vote share across England & Wales as they were in Scotland, they would have had won 147 seats nationally.
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Don't knock it - 40% of my income last year was translating building regulations and the like in my spare time. :-) But other things are similar in spirit to the single market - e.g. the EU has a common policy on animal experiments (my day job) because it's a nuisance for everyone if researchers have different rules to follow when they do a project in one place or another. Most internationally-conducted activities are simpler if the rules are the same wherever you go in Europe. Can you give some examples of type of regulations (we're not talking about big stuff like the Royal family here) for which you feel it would be better if British and Dutch rules were different?
And yet we regularly deal with those differences in rules when we trade with the US, Canada, China, Brazil, India and all the other profitable expanding markets of the world.
So you haven't answered his question. USA China India are huge continental sized countries in their own right. They have internal markets which give them economies of scale. We do not get many American Chinese or Indian cars exported to us. Japan builds factories here to sell in Europe. As it happens 'here' really does mean here, the UK. How long will that last? We do not need a European Parliament and currency and government to set common trading rules etc, but the point is even if we were not in the EU we would be adopting its rules with no say and we would be paying to its regional funds to qualify for access to its single market. In terms of the reality of life there would be no difference. You might think it worth it but what is not worth it is splitting the right wing vote based on a chimera and letting in a europhile Labour govt.
You are completely not listening are you, there are vast areas of policy that the EU dictates to the UK on that have nothing to do with manufacturing or market access. CAP, Social Chapter, EU defense policy, EU foreign policy, EU trade sanctions, ECJ, EAW, ECHR, immigration etc etc etc Norway and Switzerland, for example are involved in none of those. If you answer is to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la-la-la-miliband-la-la-la europhile-government" I dont see much point in continuing the debate.
What are the WTO policies on agriculture and fisheries, foreign policy, defence, immigration, criminal justice, regional policy or human rights ?
None, but other international treaties will cover some of them, and if we were to leave the EU we would certainly enter into a treaty with the EU which would cover much of the rest.
Anyway, you seem to have missed my point. It is not the case, as UKIP and the BOOers pretend, that leaving the EU will mean parliament suddenly becomes sovereign (except in the formal sense in which it is sovereign today) over a whole range of areas. It's a much more nuanced position than that, and they are not being straight about how little difference it would make in practice. Actually, maybe it's not so much that they are not being straight, as that they haven't actually done any serious thinking at all on the matter.
That's why I was so impressed by Owen Paterson's speech. He does seem to be taking a serious look at what Brexit might actually mean. If we can get more of a handle on that, we can assess the pros and cons of leaving, but UKIP don't seem interested in that; in fact they don't even seem to understand the question.
. CAP, Social Chapter, EU defense policy, EU foreign policy, EU trade sanctions, ECJ, EAW, ECHR etc etc etc Norway and Switzerland, for example are involved in none of those.
What are the WTO policies on agriculture and fisheries, foreign policy, defence, immigration, criminal justice, regional policy or human rights ?
None, but other international treaties will cover some of them, and if we were to leave the EU we would certainly enter into a treaty with the EU which would cover much of the rest.
Anyway, you seem to have missed my point. It is not the case, as UKIP and the BOOers pretend, that leaving the EU will mean parliament suddenly becomes sovereign (except in the formal sense in which it is sovereign today) over a whole range of areas. It's a much more nuanced position than that, and they are not being straight about how little difference it would make in practice. Actually, maybe it's not so much that they are not being straight, as that they haven't actually done any serious thinking at all on the matter.
That's why I was so impressed by Owen Paterson's speech. He does seem to be taking a serious look at what Brexit might actually mean. If we can get more of a handle on that, we can assess the pros and cons of leaving, but UKIP don't seem interested in that; in fact they don't even seem to understand the question.
It's the pro-EU side that don't want to consider the cost/benefit of EU membership.
What are the WTO policies on agriculture and fisheries, foreign policy, defence, immigration, criminal justice, regional policy or human rights ?
None, but other international treaties will cover some of them, and if we were to leave the EU we would certainly enter into a treaty with the EU which would cover much of the rest.
Anyway, you seem to have missed my point. It is not the case, as UKIP and the BOOers pretend, that leaving the EU will mean parliament suddenly becomes sovereign (except in the formal sense in which it is sovereign today) over a whole range of areas. It's a much more nuanced position than that, and they are not being straight about how little difference it would make in practice. Actually, maybe it's not so much that they are not being straight, as that they haven't actually done any serious thinking at all on the matter.
That's why I was so impressed by Owen Paterson's speech. He does seem to be taking a serious look at what Brexit might actually mean. If we can get more of a handle on that, we can assess the pros and cons of leaving, but UKIP don't seem interested in that; in fact they don't even seem to understand the question.
As I might back mentioned, I am not a kipper, I am a BOO Hannanite Tory. Why would we have to enter into a treaty with the EU for most of those other items, Norway has not. More to the point why would the EU want someone not in the EU involved in say EU defense policy? Why would we sign up to the idiocy that is CAP or anything like it ?
What are the WTO policies on agriculture and fisheries, foreign policy, defence, immigration, criminal justice, regional policy or human rights ?
None, but other international treaties will cover some of them, and if we were to leave the EU we would certainly enter into a treaty with the EU which would cover much of the rest.
Anyway, you seem to have missed my point. It is not the case, as UKIP and the BOOers pretend, that leaving the EU will mean parliament suddenly becomes sovereign (except in the formal sense in which it is sovereign today) over a whole range of areas. It's a much more nuanced position than that, and they are not being straight about how little difference it would make in practice. Actually, maybe it's not so much that they are not being straight, as that they haven't actually done any serious thinking at all on the matter.
That's why I was so impressed by Owen Paterson's speech. He does seem to be taking a serious look at what Brexit might actually mean. If we can get more of a handle on that, we can assess the pros and cons of leaving, but UKIP don't seem interested in that; in fact they don't even seem to understand the question.
I hadn't seen your post when replying to Nick but we seem to be in almost complete agreement!
Mr. City, hmm. The Conservatives are currently being criticised for wanting 100% of the deficit-closing measures to be spending cuts. The Lib Dems and Labour are openly advocating tax rises.
Odd to attack the Conservatives over a potential future tax hike. Not saying it's impossible, just that if 2/3 parties are advocating higher taxes accusing the only party that isn't of plotting a future tax rise is perhaps unfair.
On the other hand, your suggestion is more realistic than the BBC approach of claiming the whole country will fall into the sea (and a refusal to acknowledge the deficit must come to an end).
Morris I am attacking all of them. As I do not believe any of the parties , what they are espousing now.
I believe they treat the deficit like a home-buyer with an interest only mortgage, so after 20-25 years the original debt will have been eroded due to house price inflation. So then they can downsize or alternately keep paying the interest. The five year time scale is only for public rhetoric.
It's the pro-EU side that don't want to consider the cost/benefit of EU membership.
You might be right, but the side advocating the status quo always has an easier task.
Look, I have an open mind. I'm one of the voters the BOOers might be able to persuade. But I won't be persuaded by Alex Salmond-style fantasies where the rest of the world, and in particular our EU friends, give us everything we want for nothing in return, and where we get all the advantages of international treaties without any corresponding obligations.
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Don't knock it - 40% of my income last year was translating building regulations and the like in my spare time. :-) But other things are similar in spirit to the single market - e.g. the EU has a common policy on animal experiments (my day job) because it's a nuisance for everyone if researchers have different rules to follow when they do a project in one place or another. Most internationally-conducted activities are simpler if the rules are the same wherever you go in Europe. Can you give some examples of type of regulations (we're not talking about big stuff like the Royal family here) for which you feel it would be better if British and Dutch rules were different?
And yet we regularly deal with those differences in rules when we trade with the US, Canada, China, Brazil, India and all the other profitable expanding markets of the world.
So you haven't answered his question. USA China India are huge continental sized countries in their own right. They have internal markets which give them economies of scale. We do not get many American Chinese or Indian cars exported to us. Japan builds factories here to sell in Europe. As it happens 'here' really does mean here, the UK. How long will that last? We do not need a European Parliament and currency and government to set common trading rules etc, but the point is even if we were not in the EU we would be adopting its rules with no say and we would be paying to its regional funds to qualify for access to its single market. In terms of the reality of life there would be no difference. You might think it worth it but what is not worth it is splitting the right wing vote based on a chimera and letting in a europhile Labour govt.
You are completely not listening are you, there are vast areas of policy that the EU dictates to the UK on that have nothing to do with manufacturing or market access. CAP, Social Chapter, EU defense policy, EU foreign policy, EU trade sanctions, ECJ, EAW, ECHR, immigration etc etc etc Norway and Switzerland, for example are involved in none of those. If you answer is to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la-la-la-miliband-la-la-la europhile-government" I dont see much point in continuing the debate.
That is not completely true. They are bound by the interpretations of the ECJ on the legislation which relates to the Single Market and their courts are obliged to apply that domestically.
"Speaking to the BBC, Mr Bird said they had a sexual relationship. But in her comments to the Times, Ms Bolter denies this."
An everyday story of UKIP folk.
Well one of them is telling whoppers, I dont think we are in position to know who yet, but it will be interesting to see how the story progresses.
Bird's been very, very stupid. Having a relationship with someone you professionally have power over - even after selection, as he claims, leaves yourself open to all sorts of problems. If you do have such a relationship, let people know so it is not a secret.
Frankly, he should not be let back into such a role again.
BTW, so far UKIP appear to have dealt with this (potentially much more serious) situation far better than the Lib Dems did.
It would be hard to handle that sort of situation worse than the Lib Dems.
And yet we regularly deal with those differences in rules when we trade with the US, Canada, China, Brazil, India and all the other profitable expanding markets of the world.
So you haven't answered his question. USA China India are huge continental sized countries in their own right. They have internal markets which give them economies of scale. We do not get many American Chinese or Indian cars exported to us. Japan builds factories here to sell in Europe. As it happens 'here' really does mean here, the UK. How long will that last? We do not need a European Parliament and currency and government to set common trading rules etc, but the point is even if we were not in the EU we would be adopting its rules with no say and we would be paying to its regional funds to qualify for access to its single market. In terms of the reality of life there would be no difference. You might think it worth it but what is not worth it is splitting the right wing vote based on a chimera and letting in a europhile Labour govt.
You are completely not listening are you, there are vast areas of policy that the EU dictates to the UK on that have nothing to do with manufacturing or market access. CAP, Social Chapter, EU defense policy, EU foreign policy, EU trade sanctions, ECJ, EAW, ECHR, immigration etc etc etc Norway and Switzerland, for example are involved in none of those. If you answer is to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la-la-la-miliband-la-la-la europhile-government" I dont see much point in continuing the debate.
That is not completely true. They are bound by the interpretations of the ECJ on the legislation which relates to the Single Market and their courts are obliged to apply that domestically.
But only with respect to trades with the Single Market, when they trade with India or Brazil they negotiate their own arrangements, the idiocy of the position we are in now is we have to apply all the EU Single Market regulations even when manufacturing goods for sale outside the Single Market.
As I might back mentioned, I am not a kipper, I am a BOO Hannanite Tory. Why would we have to enter into a treaty with the EU for most of those other items, Norway has not. More to the point why would the EU want someone not in the EU involved in say EU defense policy? Why would we sign up to the idiocy that is CAP or anything like it ?
CAP is an interesting one. We of course had subsidies to farmers long before we joined the EEC. The US has massive agricultural subsidies. It's not an open international market. We want our countryside to be looked after. So it's highly unlikely, verging on inconceivable, that in practice we would do away completely with some kind of agricultural subsidy scheme.
Of course it may well be the case that we could design a better scheme than the EU scheme we currently have. What would such a scheme look like? Dunno, and none of the BOOers seems to care, or even realise it's a question.
All parties will be saying they have no plans to increase taxes on hard-working average taxpayers. However if you believe them you will be as deluded as they are.
Is there anywhere you can get a bet for example if the Conservatives are in government that VAT will increase to 25% ? As I think it will be a certainty.
And also see an explosion of the black economy, I would think.
Harming VAT and Income Tax revenue for the govt. It would also push many people to the temptation of cash transactions or barter. This leaves more people on ostensibly lower incomes and therefore eligible for benefits.
25% sales tax would be too high in UK, in my opinion.
All parties will be saying they have no plans to increase taxes on hard-working average taxpayers. However if you believe them you will be as deluded as they are.
Is there anywhere you can get a bet for example if the Conservatives are in government that VAT will increase to 25% ? As I think it will be a certainty.
And also see an explosion of the black economy, I would think.
Harming VAT and Income Tax revenue for the govt. It would also push many people to the temptation of cash transactions or barter. This leaves more people on ostensibly lower incomes and therefore eligible for benefits.
25% sales tax would be too high in UK, in my opinion.
Insurance premium tax is 6% and is higher in much of Europe, it hasn't been touched for a long time so expect it to soon.
As I might back mentioned, I am not a kipper, I am a BOO Hannanite Tory. Why would we have to enter into a treaty with the EU for most of those other items, Norway has not. More to the point why would the EU want someone not in the EU involved in say EU defense policy? Why would we sign up to the idiocy that is CAP or anything like it ?
CAP is an interesting one. We of course had subsidies to farmers long before we joined the EEC. The US has massive agricultural subsidies. It's not an open international market. We want our countryside to be looked after. So it's highly unlikely, verging on inconceivable, that in practice we would do away completely with some kind of agricultural subsidy scheme.
Of course it may well be the case that we could design a better scheme than the EU scheme we currently have. What would such a scheme look like? Dunno, and none of the BOOers seems to care, or even realise it's a question.
You are wrong to say that if you are referring to Ukip as they have thought about it, do realise it's a problem and would maintain agricultural subsidies. You are making statements based on no evidence
CAP is an interesting one. We of course had subsidies to farmers long before we joined the EEC. The US has massive agricultural subsidies. It's not an open international market. We want our countryside to be looked after. So it's highly unlikely, verging on inconceivable, that in practice we would do away completely with some kind of agricultural subsidy scheme.
Of course it may well be the case that we could design a better scheme than the EU scheme we currently have. What would such a scheme look like? Dunno, and none of the BOOers seems to care, or even realise it's a question.
Well we would only be subsidising our own farmers for a start.
Also we would not be involved in the sort of idiocy where we are currently subsidising Greek and Bulgarian tobacco farmers, and at the same time paying into EU funds to campaign to reduce the levels of smoking in the EU. Not only that but those products are pretty rough and have next to no export market, so we are in effect handing that money straight to those countries to poison themselves.
All parties will be saying they have no plans to increase taxes on hard-working average taxpayers. However if you believe them you will be as deluded as they are.
Is there anywhere you can get a bet for example if the Conservatives are in government that VAT will increase to 25% ? As I think it will be a certainty.
And also see an explosion of the black economy, I would think.
Harming VAT and Income Tax revenue for the govt. It would also push many people to the temptation of cash transactions or barter. This leaves more people on ostensibly lower incomes and therefore eligible for benefits.
25% sales tax would be too high in UK, in my opinion.
I think you are correct philliph 25% would be to high even 22.5%. However even at 20% the black economy is growing. Especially on house repairs or extension is 20% but new house builds are zero rated.
In my opinion some thought could go into reversing VAT on extensions/repairs to the existing housing stock and putting some on in certain areas for New Builds.
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
Remember the days when this headline was the equivalent of 'southampton will struggle to make it out if the Champions League group stages'?
Revolt on the Right (@RevoltonRight) 09/12/2014 10:45 Ukip will "struggle to get more than a dozen seats" in 2015 argues @StephenDFisher drawing on @BESResearch britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/…
Neil Hamilton is the UKIP candidate in South Basildon.
" the party has chosen none other Neil Hamilton, the disgraced Conservative and now deputy chairman of Ukip, to contest South Basildon after Bolter refused to take part "
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Yes dragging this out for weeks resulting the ultimate degeneration of the woman involved by the relentless attacks from the party machinery is a masterstroke .
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Wouldn't surprise me if the next PB collective outrage against Ukip was for its hasty suspension of an innocent ex Tory councillor to curry favour with the leftys & get Ed in no 10
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Yes dragging this out for weeks resulting the ultimate degeneration of the woman involved by the relentless attacks from the party machinery is a masterstroke .
Thats one interpretation, and of course the one you prefer, the alternative is she is lying, since she denied such a relationship existed. Lets see what happens before we jump to conclusions, tough for you I know.
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Wouldn't surprise me if the next PB collective outrage against Ukip was for its hasty suspension of an innocent ex Tory councillor to curry favour with the leftys & get Ed in no 10
it was "swiftly and decisively" done - so I'd imagine these texts don't amount to a hill of beans as they will have been thoroughly checked out ?
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Yes dragging this out for weeks resulting the ultimate degeneration of the woman involved by the relentless attacks from the party machinery is a masterstroke .
With your record of making wrong calls it is now almost certain that nothing untoward has gone on here and Bird is innocent
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Wouldn't surprise me if the next PB collective outrage against Ukip was for its hasty suspension of an innocent ex Tory councillor to curry favour with the leftys & get Ed in no 10
it was "swiftly and decisively" done - so I'd imagine these texts don't amount to a hill of beans as they will have been thoroughly checked out ?
You are always wrong so I'm thinking he is probably telling the truth
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Yes dragging this out for weeks resulting the ultimate degeneration of the woman involved by the relentless attacks from the party machinery is a masterstroke .
Thats one interpretation, and of course the one you prefer, the alternative is she is lying, since she denied such a relationship existed. Lets see what happens before we jump to conclusions, tough for you I know.
I thought a professional HR consultancy had checked it all out ?
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Wouldn't surprise me if the next PB collective outrage against Ukip was for its hasty suspension of an innocent ex Tory councillor to curry favour with the leftys & get Ed in no 10
it was "swiftly and decisively" done - so I'd imagine these texts don't amount to a hill of beans as they will have been thoroughly checked out ?
You are always wrong so I'm thinking he is probably telling the truth
A yes it's my fault. I am an immigrant after all so that is consistent.
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Yes dragging this out for weeks resulting the ultimate degeneration of the woman involved by the relentless attacks from the party machinery is a masterstroke .
Thats one interpretation, and of course the one you prefer, the alternative is she is lying, since she denied such a relationship existed. Lets see what happens before we jump to conclusions, tough for you I know.
I thought a professional HR consultancy had checked it all out ?
This is what Natasha Bolter haas been retweeting this week
_ (@Sumi_hasan) 06/12/2014 23:55 Your life will get 10x better once you realise it's better to be alone than to chase after people who don't really care about you.
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Wouldn't surprise me if the next PB collective outrage against Ukip was for its hasty suspension of an innocent ex Tory councillor to curry favour with the leftys & get Ed in no 10
it was "swiftly and decisively" done - so I'd imagine these texts don't amount to a hill of beans as they will have been thoroughly checked out ? It was swiftly done to neuter the story being broken in today's Times newspaper.
Is it time for me to dust down my more efficient vote scenario again? Whilst it may be true that UKIP is currently taking more votes of the Tories than Labour (and the evidence for that seems to be mixed once they get over about 12%) that does not mean that the Tories will be the most damaged in seats.
At the last election the Tory vote of nearly 37% was incredibly inefficient because they built up huge, pointless majorities in most of southern England. If their majority in, say, Kent seats is now halved or more by the UKIP effect but they still manage to win a similar share of the vote nationally then logic indicates that they are winning more votes somewhere else such as the south west, the midlands or even London on recent polling. That effect might well give them seats which were out of reach in 2010, particularly Lib Dem ones.
34% was something of an outlier but if that became a regular thing over this month with UKIP still in the higher teens I would suggest my hypothesis is likely to be tested.
No report on your lunch David, did you get to genuflect at the feet of your revered leader of the sub regional puppet division.
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Wouldn't surprise me if the next PB collective outrage against Ukip was for its hasty suspension of an innocent ex Tory councillor to curry favour with the leftys & get Ed in no 10
it was "swiftly and decisively" done - so I'd imagine these texts don't amount to a hill of beans as they will have been thoroughly checked out ?
You are always wrong so I'm thinking he is probably telling the truth
A yes it's my fault. I am an immigrant after all so that is consistent.
Wouldn't know about the immigrant bit, although that wouldnt make any difference. But you are consistently wrong when making calls on here.
Remember the days when this headline was the equivalent of 'southampton will struggle to make it out if the Champions League group stages'?
Revolt on the Right (@RevoltonRight) 09/12/2014 10:45 Ukip will "struggle to get more than a dozen seats" in 2015 argues @StephenDFisher drawing on @BESResearch britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/…
I much prefer the 'UKIP to win 100+ seats in southern England' scenario, but a dozen would be nice! :-)
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Yes dragging this out for weeks resulting the ultimate degeneration of the woman involved by the relentless attacks from the party machinery is a masterstroke .
Thats one interpretation, and of course the one you prefer, the alternative is she is lying, since she denied such a relationship existed. Lets see what happens before we jump to conclusions, tough for you I know.
I thought a professional HR consultancy had checked it all out ?
Even you're not that naive. They might have checked his office cellphone and his work email. How the hell would a HR consultancy have access to any of this private accounts or phones unless he told them about them.
Incidentally I'm blocked from comments in my former identity. Just add -stry to my new name for improved continuity. I wonder what offended the monitors.
Alex Salmond has refused to hand back a £65,000 ‘golden goodbye’ he claimed from the taxpayer when he stood down as an MP despite confirming he wants to return to Westminster.
Resettlement grants are supposed to provide financial assistance to MPs leaving politics but Mr Salmond controversially accepted the money from the Commons authorities when he gave up his Banff and Buchan seat at the 2010 general election.
The decision provoked widespread criticism because at the time he was also earning around £57,000 per year as an MSP at the Scottish Parliament and a further £80,000 as Scotland’s First Minister.
Opposition parties last night urged him repay the cash after he confirmed at the weekend that he intends to contest the Gordon seat at Westminster in next May’s general election.
The SNP issued a statement saying Mr Salmond donated half the £50,000 he received after tax to a charity he set up in his mother’s name. A party spokesman said that if elected next year he would also donate either his MP or MSP salary to the Mary Salmond Trust. Related Articles
Alex Salmond has pocketed £25,000 of a pay-off he received after standing down as an MP However, there was no mention of the remaining £25,000 or what he did with the money given he has remained in front-line politics ever since.
It was mentioned here a while ago that the EU made the law that they had to be all predominantly red. They used to be varying colours and in certain situations (on an oil platform) it was very useful to be able to quickly glance and see an extinguisher was red or green or some other colour, because different fires needed different extinguishers.
Also, VAT. There's no sane reason why VAT on digital content should be charged based on the buyer's location. Yes, you'll scrape some pennies from Amazon. You'll (or the EU'll) also shaft countless SMEs across the EU.
95% of extinguishers must be red with 5% zones of colour. Since 1997. I can see arguments for or against. But big deal. We have had it for a long time. I do not see the VAT regulations shafting anybody. It is now clear that SMEs will not have to charge VAT locally if they use the MOSS system. If it means the proper tax is paid and ends unfair off shore practices then it seems fair enough
Is it time for me to dust down my more efficient vote scenario again? Whilst it may be true that UKIP is currently taking more votes of the Tories than Labour (and the evidence for that seems to be mixed once they get over about 12%) that does not mean that the Tories will be the most damaged in seats.
At the last election the Tory vote of nearly 37% was incredibly inefficient because they built up huge, pointless majorities in most of southern England. If their majority in, say, Kent seats is now halved or more by the UKIP effect but they still manage to win a similar share of the vote nationally then logic indicates that they are winning more votes somewhere else such as the south west, the midlands or even London on recent polling. That effect might well give them seats which were out of reach in 2010, particularly Lib Dem ones.
34% was something of an outlier but if that became a regular thing over this month with UKIP still in the higher teens I would suggest my hypothesis is likely to be tested.
No report on your lunch David, did you get to genuflect at the feet of your revered leader of the sub regional puppet division.
The turkey was excellent thanks Malcolm, even although it did remind one of Nicola Sturgeon in some metaphysical way.
Ruth Davidson was in good form explaining that there is no nativity scene at the Parliament building this year because Nicola just couldn't find 3 wise men anywhere.
Attendance was apparently at a record high although it was my first visit so I could not comment.
Mr. Isam, a dozen seats (or even something like eight) would be a serious breakthrough.
By-elections are one thing (especially sort-of holds), but a dozen wins in a General Election would be another bag of monkeys entirely.
With Farage presently in a dogfight in Thanet South, according to Lord A's poll, and a likely fall in kipper polling at the general election, a dozen Faragist MP's in on the far side of most unlikely.
However I do expect Nige will prevail alongside Carswell and probably A N Other.
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Wouldn't surprise me if the next PB collective outrage against Ukip was for its hasty suspension of an innocent ex Tory councillor to curry favour with the leftys & get Ed in no 10
it was "swiftly and decisively" done - so I'd imagine these texts don't amount to a hill of beans as they will have been thoroughly checked out ?
You are always wrong so I'm thinking he is probably telling the truth
A yes it's my fault. I am an immigrant after all so that is consistent.
But you are consistently wrong when making calls on here.
What ever happened to that "PB Tories always wrong " chap ?
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Wouldn't surprise me if the next PB collective outrage against Ukip was for its hasty suspension of an innocent ex Tory councillor to curry favour with the leftys & get Ed in no 10
it was "swiftly and decisively" done - so I'd imagine these texts don't amount to a hill of beans as they will have been thoroughly checked out ?
You are always wrong so I'm thinking he is probably telling the truth
A yes it's my fault. I am an immigrant after all so that is consistent.
Wouldn't know about the immigrant bit, although that wouldnt make any difference. But you are consistently wrong when making calls on here.
By definition ISAM is always right, so admit it you must be wrong.
Mr. Isam, a dozen seats (or even something like eight) would be a serious breakthrough.
By-elections are one thing (especially sort-of holds), but a dozen wins in a General Election would be another bag of monkeys entirely.
With Farage presently in a dogfight in Thanet South, according to Lord A's poll, and a likely fall in kipper polling at the general election, a dozen Faragist MP's in on the far side of most unlikely.
However I do expect Nige will prevail alongside Carswell and probably A N Other.
The origin of 'humble pie' is apparantly offal pie, so I think you can meet the requirements by laying in a haggis for the day after the election.
Mr. Isam, a dozen seats (or even something like eight) would be a serious breakthrough.
By-elections are one thing (especially sort-of holds), but a dozen wins in a General Election would be another bag of monkeys entirely.
With Farage presently in a dogfight in Thanet South, according to Lord A's poll, and a likely fall in kipper polling at the general election, a dozen Faragist MP's in on the far side of most unlikely.
However I do expect Nige will prevail alongside Carswell and probably A N Other.
You dont see any Heywood and Middletons where UKIP manage to find another 700 votes ?
Is it time for me to dust down my more efficient vote scenario again? Whilst it may be true that UKIP is currently taking more votes of the Tories than Labour (and the evidence for that seems to be mixed once they get over about 12%) that does not mean that the Tories will be the most damaged in seats.
At the last election the Tory vote of nearly 37% was incredibly inefficient because they built up huge, pointless majorities in most of southern England. If their majority in, say, Kent seats is now halved or more by the UKIP effect but they still manage to win a similar share of the vote nationally then logic indicates that they are winning more votes somewhere else such as the south west, the midlands or even London on recent polling. That effect might well give them seats which were out of reach in 2010, particularly Lib Dem ones.
34% was something of an outlier but if that became a regular thing over this month with UKIP still in the higher teens I would suggest my hypothesis is likely to be tested.
No report on your lunch David, did you get to genuflect at the feet of your revered leader of the sub regional puppet division.
The turkey was excellent thanks Malcolm, even although it did remind one of Nicola Sturgeon in some metaphysical way.
Nicola Sturgeon as the parsons nose .... quite some image !!
Roger Bird, Ukip's General Secretary, tells The Telegraph he has emails and texts to prove his innocence and that he had a 'consensual' relationship with star Ukip candidate
The plot thickens
Yes dragging this out for weeks resulting the ultimate degeneration of the woman involved by the relentless attacks from the party machinery is a masterstroke .
Thats one interpretation, and of course the one you prefer, the alternative is she is lying, since she denied such a relationship existed. Lets see what happens before we jump to conclusions, tough for you I know.
I thought a professional HR consultancy had checked it all out ?
Even you're not that naive. They might have checked his office cellphone and his work email. How the hell would a HR consultancy have access to any of this private accounts or phones unless he told them about them.
Roger Bird is a senior employee of UKIP. As such, the party has to follow its own procedures, and comply with employment law, when deciding whether, and how, to discipline him. As a result of its preliminary investigation, the party has concluded that he has a case to answer, and, quite rightly, have suspended him on full pay. There will now have to be a hearing to determine whether the allegations against him have been proven.
The popular view that an employer can just summarily dismiss someone without repercussions is not correct.
I can't believe anyone in the real world is going to care about the general secretary of UKIP's love life.
I can't either, except maybe Tory obsessives that are panicking because UKIP are stealing "their" votes, rather than say the Tory party is failing to make a sufficiently attractive proposition as to earn back those votes.
Mr. Financier, one more reason, not that it were needed, to dislike Salmond.
Mr. Flightpath, UK VAT has a threshold of £81,000. The new EU insanity has a threshold of £0. There are already stories of people trying to pre-emptively register for VAT in the UK (for the VATMOSS scheme) and finding it less than easy. And there are (apparently) quarterly VAT reports to file.
All if you sell a single $0.99 e-book, for example, directly to someone outside the UK but in the EU. It's bloody ridiculous.
There is very significant anger about this. Sole traders and small companies didn't realise this was coming in until a couple of months ago. Communication from the Government (both of them, Cable claims this was agreed in 2008) has been utterly lacking.
The whole point was to cut Amazon et al. down to size, and the impact is to entrench the position of internet portals/marketplaces (like, er, Amazon) which can afford to handle the tax nonsense.
Politically, the problem for the Government will be this: those unaffected entirely will be vaguely in favour, at best. Those nearly affected (like me, hopefully) will be very worried this'll be extended or new insanity *will* affect them in the future. Those who are affected will be very, very unhappy indeed.
To be honest as much as I don't like them and find much of their anti-establishment shtick phoney, I'm getting quite annoyed by all the Ukip bashing, certainly from non-Tories. I can understand why the blues are so worried about them. I can only repeat what I said yesterday. The left should be far more worried about its real enemy. Ukip bashing seems most prevalant amongst the sort of middle class yuppies who enjoy living in post-Thatcher Britain, think Nick Clegg has been unfairly maligned and reckon that abusing Farage demonstrates to everyone what a social conscience they have.
It was mentioned here a while ago that the EU made the law that they had to be all predominantly red. They used to be varying colours and in certain situations (on an oil platform) it was very useful to be able to quickly glance and see an extinguisher was red or green or some other colour, because different fires needed different extinguishers.
Also, VAT. There's no sane reason why VAT on digital content should be charged based on the buyer's location. Yes, you'll scrape some pennies from Amazon. You'll (or the EU'll) also shaft countless SMEs across the EU.
95% of extinguishers must be red with 5% zones of colour. Since 1997. I can see arguments for or against. But big deal. We have had it for a long time. I do not see the VAT regulations shafting anybody. It is now clear that SMEs will not have to charge VAT locally if they use the MOSS system. If it means the proper tax is paid and ends unfair off shore practices then it seems fair enough
It is a big deal as far as those who have to operate in environments that need them are concerned. Our resident representative of the FIre Service on PB made clear how idiotic it is.
Mr. Isam, a dozen seats (or even something like eight) would be a serious breakthrough.
By-elections are one thing (especially sort-of holds), but a dozen wins in a General Election would be another bag of monkeys entirely.
With Farage presently in a dogfight in Thanet South, according to Lord A's poll, and a likely fall in kipper polling at the general election, a dozen Faragist MP's in on the far side of most unlikely.
However I do expect Nige will prevail alongside Carswell and probably A N Other.
You dont see any Heywood and Middletons where UKIP manage to find another 700 votes ?
I think Labour will hold that one fairly easily. Any of Dudley North, Walsall North, Grimsby, Rother Valley, Rotherham, and Plymout Moor View *might* fall to UKIP, but certainly not all of them.
You are wrong to say that if you are referring to Ukip as they would maintain agricultural subsidies. You are making statements based in no evidence
I'm agreeing with that point. Those who think we'd do away with CAP and therefore save huge amounts of money are not being realistic.
The main point about it is that the consumers are the ones that save money. The most destructive thing about CAP is the price-fixing rather than subsidies. Subsidies should be making food cheaper.
Anyway, I believe UKIP would phase out CAP subsidies over a period, but happy to be corrected. I'm sure that would happen anyway - in a time of extended austerity, we can't justify handing out millions to agribusiness. And places like New Zealand have shown that subsidies actually limit growth. Their agriculture sector boomed after they got rid of them.
You are wrong to say that if you are referring to Ukip as they would maintain agricultural subsidies. You are making statements based in no evidence
I'm agreeing with that point. Those who think we'd do away with CAP and therefore save huge amounts of money are not being realistic.
Between 2007 and 2013 the net UK contribution to the CAP was £7.1bn. That is due to rise substantially due to changes that will see our gross contribution fall by 5% but our receipts fall by 20%.
What are the WTO policies on agriculture and fisheries, foreign policy, defence, immigration, criminal justice, regional policy or human rights ?
None, but other international treaties will cover some of them, and if we were to leave the EU we would certainly enter into a treaty with the EU which would cover much of the rest.
Anyway, you seem to have missed my point. It is not the case, as UKIP and the BOOers pretend, that leaving the EU will mean parliament suddenly becomes sovereign (except in the formal sense in which it is sovereign today) over a whole range of areas. It's a much more nuanced position than that, and they are not being straight about how little difference it would make in practice. Actually, maybe it's not so much that they are not being straight, as that they haven't actually done any serious thinking at all on the matter.
That's why I was so impressed by Owen Paterson's speech. He does seem to be taking a serious look at what Brexit might actually mean. If we can get more of a handle on that, we can assess the pros and cons of leaving, but UKIP don't seem interested in that; in fact they don't even seem to understand the question.
Richard, there are several posters on this board that get into the policy detail of what we could and couldn't do if we left the EU, what various treaties require etc. To your credit, you are one of them, but all the rest are UKIP supporters.
Groping is wrong, but to my mind is not as serious as something involving sexual activity.
One party claims it was consensual, the other denies it happened at all. At worst its a party ethics issue, there is nothing unlawful there. The facts of the matter such as have been disclosed at the moment seem to be he made a couple of rather tasteless passes at her and she turned him down.
Tough choices for the kippers. Who do they believe? The black woman socialist who has accused them of being mysogenistic racists or their highest paid official who just happens to be a posh member of an elite metropolitan club who has nothing more than a PPE from Cambridge?
UKIP apparently tried desperatley to stop the lady from resigning before suspending Bird, which lookes pretty reynardesque to me.
Mr. Isam, a dozen seats (or even something like eight) would be a serious breakthrough.
By-elections are one thing (especially sort-of holds), but a dozen wins in a General Election would be another bag of monkeys entirely.
With Farage presently in a dogfight in Thanet South, according to Lord A's poll, and a likely fall in kipper polling at the general election, a dozen Faragist MP's in on the far side of most unlikely.
However I do expect Nige will prevail alongside Carswell and probably A N Other.
The origin of 'humble pie' is apparantly offal pie, so I think you can meet the requirements by laying in a haggis for the day after the election.
Come that time and as a purveyor of fine pies to the nobility and cognoscenti since 1745 I intend to demolish a Auchentennach Celebration Pie with a wee few drams of single malt as hope fades of a traffic jam free M4 and lactating mothers nationwide descend on Claridges and occupy every corner to feed their nippers desperate for bitty.
Comments
A rather better point is that if the figure is true it does demonstrate how much of the EU's prodigious legal output is not related to the single market. In my opinion that is the real problem.
Has anyone done a proper gap analysis - in a table - of the comparative legislative impact of being members of EFTA, EEA and the EU, respectively?
It would make interesting reading.
It would make interesting reading.I think the IEA Brexit Prize winner did that.
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-iea-brexit-prize-a-blueprint-for-britain-openness-not-isolation
Thanks.
LibDem vote share and seats do not an easy computation make.
If UKIP combined its focus on social issues with environmental issues, it would open up the electoral roof. Saying people who drive white vans don't mind dying from poisonous air, water, or food, is to betray ignorance.
I'm not convinced by your increasing ghg theory, given (a) nuclear shutdown has been a bigger impact and (b) ccgts are much more likely to act as backup for wind and solar because they don't take 8 hours to reach capacity.
American coal imports have largely been displacing south African and Latin American coal imports.
It was mentioned here a while ago that the EU made the law that they had to be all predominantly red. They used to be varying colours and in certain situations (on an oil platform) it was very useful to be able to quickly glance and see an extinguisher was red or green or some other colour, because different fires needed different extinguishers.
Also, VAT. There's no sane reason why VAT on digital content should be charged based on the buyer's location. Yes, you'll scrape some pennies from Amazon. You'll (or the EU'll) also shaft countless SMEs across the EU.
Well, it is a simple matter of fact (within the envelope of lies, damn lies and statistics) that German GHG emissions have been rising. And the universally accepted reason behind this (and the one of the reasons the business secretary is getting so incensed about) is that as more and more of Germany's capacity goes renewable then more and more back-up generation comes from the more polluting and costly alternatives.
It is also a matter of basic physics that 100% of renewable capacity needs to have controllable (fossil or nuclear) back-up for days when nothing blows or shines. So you must invest twice - and both investments must see a return on capital. The higher a country's renewables % the higher its energy prices. So far the Germans keep voting for this! That may change and trigger a brutal unwinding of the green subsidy regime.
If only we could store renewable electricity on an idustrial scale!
taxpayers.
However if you believe them you will be as deluded as they are.
Is there anywhere you can get a bet for example if the Conservatives are in government
that VAT will increase to 25% ?
As I think it will be a certainty.
"What so very few understand about this process is that the game changed substantially in 1994. It was then that the EU adopted the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement.11 This incredibly important instrument requires the participating parties (including the EU) to adopt international standards in preference to their own. Thus, if any other international body, adopts standards which impinge on the EU’s laws, it is obliged to scrap them and implement the new standards.
This provision is not optional. The Agreement uses the word “shall”, which is why the EU has no choice but to progressively replace its laws with international rules."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/is-owen-paterson-hoping-to-become-leader-of-the-out-camp-in-the-2017-referendum/
"Why any woman would go anywhere near UKIP beats me."
They interviewed a doyen of jounalism now into her 80's and asked her what she thought of todays newspapers. She said the most mysogynistic is The Daily Mail which is also the one most read by women. Her theory was that women have been downtrodden for so long that's now how they saw themselves.
Odd to attack the Conservatives over a potential future tax hike. Not saying it's impossible, just that if 2/3 parties are advocating higher taxes accusing the only party that isn't of plotting a future tax rise is perhaps unfair.
On the other hand, your suggestion is more realistic than the BBC approach of claiming the whole country will fall into the sea (and a refusal to acknowledge the deficit must come to an end).
I'm on my phone, and your post deserves a proper response. However, I think it's important to remember there is a difference between capital cost and marginal cost. At one end of the spectrum you have open cycle gas turbines which cost very little to build, but which use a lot of gas to produce a megawatt of energy. At the other, you have solar, which costs a lot to install, but when the sun shines, electrons flow.
Was it for use of non management approved sub samples, or pointing out the Libdems are really, really crap?
People like Mandelson are hoping that bscare stories promoted by the BBC and the IFS and Vince Cable will ensurenthe btories never get na chance anyway. He may have a point.
The reality is that cutting expenditure (and not raising tax) is doable.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002066.html#more
''So a better measure of the squeeze on day-to-day spending is public sector current expenditure, which is mainly the spending on public services. This also needs to come down, to 32.7% of GDP to eliminate the deficit and 31.9% to achieve a 1% surplus. You also have to go back into history for times when this measure of spending was this low. It was 32.4% in 1973-4 and 31.1% in 1972-3. The economy, by the way, is roughly 2.5 times the size it was then.''
Osborne wants a 1% surplus - and we should too - but if that achievement is delayed then the world will continue to spin on its axis. But as OGH regularly points out its likely thanks to the nutjobs of UKIP tht we will get a eurosceptic labour govt, brought into power by hysteria and lies.
Basically very little change apart from small ongoing drift away from Welsh Labour but without any one party benefitting.
I'll try to do something broader, looking at various electoral outcomes and seeking to identify best buys based on various different approaches.
To an extent, anyway. It all depends where the vote loss happens.
"I was particularly struck on a visit to New Zealand 18 months ago how my counterparts saw how vital it was to build alliances and work with like-minded nations to promote legislation or amend other countries’ proposals. At that time they were particularly exercised about a specific proposal on the OIE affecting the sheep industry crucial to NZ farmers. They were particularly pleased to have got the Australians on side and believed that gaining the support of Canada and the US would see a key amendment through.
When I asked why they had not asked for the UK’s influence on this matter, they said that the UK’s position was entirely represented by the EU: even though we have one of the largest sheep flocks in the world. I left feeling stung by these comments and totally disheartened by our lack of influence but also galvanised by the belief that we could serve our own industries so much better if we, as a sovereign nation, retook our rightful place on these various global regulatory bodies."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/is-owen-paterson-hoping-to-become-leader-of-the-out-camp-in-the-2017-referendum/
"Tiny flags or a large semi?"
Talking of which poor old Roger Bird. He thought he was giving her one but she but she didn't notice
You couldn't make it up
But to answer as seriously as I can at this time in the morning I accept that there are advantages in having standards to which manufacturers can produce goods on a larger scale confident that they are compliant with all the countries in a market. That is the logic of the single market which made Maggie such a fan and it remains valid today.
But if we were not in the CAP would we really want to spend any subsidies that we thought appropriate in the way it stipulates? Absolutely no chance. It is a system designed to fund small, inefficient French farmers of a type that barely exist in Britain.
I don't agree that having a European Standard for animal experimentation is particularly useful. I think we should decide ourselves where the boundaries are.
I don't agree with us being (broadly) signed up the Social Chapter. Again these are issues which our UK politicians should make decisions on.
I have found the increasing intervention of the EU in the City quite infuriating because it seems designed (probably by pure incompetence rather than malice) to damage an industry that is absolutely key to our tax base and public spending.
Broadly the EU seeks to do far too much. It should do a lot less better. The arguments for me as to whether or not we gain or lose are quite finely balanced and would be more so if a credible, worked through alternative was developed. Only the complete little England fantasy that is projected by so many in UKIP (with some honourable exceptions on this board) would have me voting to stay at the moment.
USA China India are huge continental sized countries in their own right. They have internal markets which give them economies of scale. We do not get many American Chinese or Indian cars exported to us. Japan builds factories here to sell in Europe. As it happens 'here' really does mean here, the UK. How long will that last?
We do not need a European Parliament and currency and government to set common trading rules etc, but the point is even if we were not in the EU we would be adopting its rules with no say and we would be paying to its regional funds to qualify for access to its single market.
In terms of the reality of life there would be no difference. You might think it worth it but what is not worth it is splitting the right wing vote based on a chimera and letting in a europhile Labour govt.
Any organisation of size will have to deal with issues of harrassment, and it's easy - but not very reasonable - to say "typical" or "what a surprise!". At least they've acted swiftly in suspending Bird, and I'm sure he'll be given the heave-ho unless something striking happens to prove his innocence. As Socrates (I think) said last night, they've already handled this much, much, much better than the LibDems did over Rennard (or Hancock, for that matter).
Normal kipper-baiting will resume shortly.
If the Lib Dems had been as efficient in the distribution of their vote share across England & Wales as they were in Scotland, they would have had won 147 seats nationally.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/545174/Myth-importance-EU-trade-blown-apart-not-vital-to-Britain-economy
Anyway, you seem to have missed my point. It is not the case, as UKIP and the BOOers pretend, that leaving the EU will mean parliament suddenly becomes sovereign (except in the formal sense in which it is sovereign today) over a whole range of areas. It's a much more nuanced position than that, and they are not being straight about how little difference it would make in practice. Actually, maybe it's not so much that they are not being straight, as that they haven't actually done any serious thinking at all on the matter.
That's why I was so impressed by Owen Paterson's speech. He does seem to be taking a serious look at what Brexit might actually mean. If we can get more of a handle on that, we can assess the pros and cons of leaving, but UKIP don't seem interested in that; in fact they don't even seem to understand the question.
As I do not believe any of the parties , what they are espousing now.
I believe they treat the deficit like a home-buyer with an interest only mortgage, so after 20-25 years the original debt will have been eroded due to house price inflation.
So then they can downsize or alternately keep paying the interest.
The five year time scale is only for public rhetoric.
Look, I have an open mind. I'm one of the voters the BOOers might be able to persuade. But I won't be persuaded by Alex Salmond-style fantasies where the rest of the world, and in particular our EU friends, give us everything we want for nothing in return, and where we get all the advantages of international treaties without any corresponding obligations.
Of course it may well be the case that we could design a better scheme than the EU scheme we currently have. What would such a scheme look like? Dunno, and none of the BOOers seems to care, or even realise it's a question.
Harming VAT and Income Tax revenue for the govt. It would also push many people to the temptation of cash transactions or barter. This leaves more people on ostensibly lower incomes and therefore eligible for benefits.
25% sales tax would be too high in UK, in my opinion.
Slap and tickle in Roger Bird's office, whilst Forage wants breastfeeding ladies chucked out of the golf club bar.
Also we would not be involved in the sort of idiocy where we are currently subsidising Greek and Bulgarian tobacco farmers, and at the same time paying into EU funds to campaign to reduce the levels of smoking in the EU. Not only that but those products are pretty rough and have next to no export market, so we are in effect handing that money straight to those countries to poison themselves.
However even at 20% the black economy is growing.
Especially on house repairs or extension is 20% but new house builds are zero rated.
In my opinion some thought could go into reversing VAT on extensions/repairs to the existing housing stock and putting some on in certain areas for New Builds.
Revolt on the Right (@RevoltonRight)
09/12/2014 10:45
Ukip will "struggle to get more than a dozen seats" in 2015 argues @StephenDFisher drawing on @BESResearch britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/…
Has anyone seen this session from the HOC select committee about tax avoidance via Luxemborg. What a farce ?
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/main/Player.aspx?meetingId=16733
" the party has chosen none other Neil Hamilton, the disgraced Conservative and now deputy chairman of Ukip, to contest South Basildon after Bolter refused to take part "
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/ukips-roger-bird-suspended-over-sexual-misconduct-allegations/
OMG.
EDIT
Perhaps not. Indy says selection is wednesday. Mr Hamilton is just on the short list.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disgraced-extory-mp-neil-hamilton-in-line-to-make-stunning-commons-comeback-for-ukip-9911421.html
Yes dragging this out for weeks resulting the ultimate degeneration of the woman involved by the relentless attacks from the party machinery is a masterstroke .
Wouldn't surprise me if the next PB collective outrage against Ukip was for its hasty suspension of an innocent ex Tory councillor to curry favour with the leftys & get Ed in no 10
By-elections are one thing (especially sort-of holds), but a dozen wins in a General Election would be another bag of monkeys entirely.
Thats one interpretation, and of course the one you prefer, the alternative is she is lying, since she denied such a relationship existed. Lets see what happens before we jump to conclusions, tough for you I know.
it was "swiftly and decisively" done - so I'd imagine these texts don't amount to a hill of beans as they will have been thoroughly checked out ?
With your record of making wrong calls it is now almost certain that nothing untoward has gone on here and Bird is innocent
You are always wrong so I'm thinking he is probably telling the truth
I thought a professional HR consultancy had checked it all out ?
A yes it's my fault. I am an immigrant after all so that is consistent.
This is what Natasha Bolter haas been retweeting this week
_ (@Sumi_hasan)
06/12/2014 23:55
Your life will get 10x better once you realise it's better to be alone than to chase after people who don't really care about you.
Maybe advice for RB?
Wouldn't know about the immigrant bit, although that wouldnt make any difference. But you are consistently wrong when making calls on here.
Even you're not that naive. They might have checked his office cellphone and his work email. How the hell would a HR consultancy have access to any of this private accounts or phones unless he told them about them.
Resettlement grants are supposed to provide financial assistance to MPs leaving politics but Mr Salmond controversially accepted the money from the Commons authorities when he gave up his Banff and Buchan seat at the 2010 general election.
The decision provoked widespread criticism because at the time he was also earning around £57,000 per year as an MSP at the Scottish Parliament and a further £80,000 as Scotland’s First Minister.
Opposition parties last night urged him repay the cash after he confirmed at the weekend that he intends to contest the Gordon seat at Westminster in next May’s general election.
The SNP issued a statement saying Mr Salmond donated half the £50,000 he received after tax to a charity he set up in his mother’s name. A party spokesman said that if elected next year he would also donate either his MP or MSP salary to the Mary Salmond Trust.
Related Articles
Alex Salmond has pocketed £25,000 of a pay-off he received after standing down as an MP However, there was no mention of the remaining £25,000 or what he did with the money given he has remained in front-line politics ever since.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11281111/Alex-Salmond-refuses-to-repay-65000-golden-goodbye.html
I do not see the VAT regulations shafting anybody. It is now clear that SMEs will not have to charge VAT locally if they use the MOSS system. If it means the proper tax is paid and ends unfair off shore practices then it seems fair enough
Ruth Davidson was in good form explaining that there is no nativity scene at the Parliament building this year because Nicola just couldn't find 3 wise men anywhere.
Attendance was apparently at a record high although it was my first visit so I could not comment.
However I do expect Nige will prevail alongside Carswell and probably A N Other.
What ever happened to that "PB Tories always wrong " chap ?
1970s yearning, 2009 trolling.
By definition ISAM is always right, so admit it you must be wrong.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/eat-humble-pie.html
Roger Bird is a senior employee of UKIP. As such, the party has to follow its own procedures, and comply with employment law, when deciding whether, and how, to discipline him. As a result of its preliminary investigation, the party has concluded that he has a case to answer, and, quite rightly, have suspended him on full pay. There will now have to be a hearing to determine whether the allegations against him have been proven.
The popular view that an employer can just summarily dismiss someone without repercussions is not correct.
Mr. Flightpath, UK VAT has a threshold of £81,000. The new EU insanity has a threshold of £0. There are already stories of people trying to pre-emptively register for VAT in the UK (for the VATMOSS scheme) and finding it less than easy. And there are (apparently) quarterly VAT reports to file.
All if you sell a single $0.99 e-book, for example, directly to someone outside the UK but in the EU. It's bloody ridiculous.
There is very significant anger about this. Sole traders and small companies didn't realise this was coming in until a couple of months ago. Communication from the Government (both of them, Cable claims this was agreed in 2008) has been utterly lacking.
The whole point was to cut Amazon et al. down to size, and the impact is to entrench the position of internet portals/marketplaces (like, er, Amazon) which can afford to handle the tax nonsense.
Politically, the problem for the Government will be this: those unaffected entirely will be vaguely in favour, at best. Those nearly affected (like me, hopefully) will be very worried this'll be extended or new insanity *will* affect them in the future. Those who are affected will be very, very unhappy indeed.
Anyway, I believe UKIP would phase out CAP subsidies over a period, but happy to be corrected. I'm sure that would happen anyway - in a time of extended austerity, we can't justify handing out millions to agribusiness. And places like New Zealand have shown that subsidies actually limit growth. Their agriculture sector boomed after they got rid of them.
£7.1bn is not a small amount of money.
The black woman socialist who has accused them of being mysogenistic racists or their highest paid official who just happens to be a posh member of an elite metropolitan club who has nothing more than a PPE from Cambridge?
UKIP apparently tried desperatley to stop the lady from resigning before suspending Bird, which lookes pretty reynardesque to me.