The Green Party are going to the ends of the earth in the pursuit of votes.
The Australian Green party has written to its members in support of its UK counterpart, asking them if they can vote for Natalie Bennett and her colleagues.
Nearly 20,000 Britons emigrate Down Under every year.
On top of that, the 60,000 Australians living in the UK can vote in British elections - as can one million other Commonwealth nationals from India, Canada and South Africa.
They include Natalie Bennett, who moved to Britain from New South Wales.
An email sent by the Australian Greens on Bennett's behalf seen by me reads:
"Greetings from London, where we Greens are in the final weeks of our biggest-ever national election campaign.
"Did you know that all Australian adults currently in the UK are eligible to vote in British elections?
"It’s true. So are most British citizens living in Australia. The UK elections on May 7 are the most important in a generation — and a Green vote has never been more powerful.
"British politics is broken. 3.5 million children live in poverty but the old parties all support huge cuts to public services. The Conservative government here is slashing clean energy and expanding fracking across the country — just like Tony Abbott."
If you see similar attempts from the other parties to mobilise voters overseas, do get in touch.
"Cameron - we will negotiate in 2017 and then offer a referendum on the concessions" "Farage - if UKIP can't win we would prefer you vote Tory to keep out Miliband and get the referendum" "Junker - the EU isn't going to negotiate anyway"
If Cameron's pledge is now null and void there would seem to be less motivation for kippers to vote Tory - which can only help Miliband.
'Sources close to'... Juncker can start his rumours if he wants but he does not have the last say, even if he thinks he does.
I'll be going through each of the parties in turn this week for the final run-up to the election.
As an aside, I see only five certain LibDem -> Lab seats in there: Brent East, Redcar, Burnley, Manchester Withington, and Norwich South.
After that we get Bradford East, Hornsey & Wood Green and Cardiff South. It's possible that the LibDems hold the former two, and I don't know anything about Cardiff South.
Beyond that, it's really tough.
Worth a punt on the Greens in Norwich South, I think they may fall short but they are very strong and the student vote is strongly green. Wright for the Lib Dems is in a fight for 3,4 and 5 with Con and Kip
Perhaps I should have said I saw 5 certain LibDem losses :-)
If you're backing Ward in Bradford East then by the same logic... (I think) Thurso is great value at 15-8 in Caithness.
You're placing a huge emphasis on personal vote.
Would you back Ward or Labour at Evens in a match bet is what I'm interested to know.
I'm on both, actually. But at odds longer than the current ones...
I think Ward is a 50/50 shot in Bradford East.
Thanks,
I'm on the other side in Bradford East. You've got the better value at any rate methinks.
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London.
A UKIP campaign to keep Mad Muammar in command, and prevent African immigrants clogging up Home Counties motorways would have been interesting.
“Are you going to make sure the Sikh vote turns out for us?”
Labour's entitlement summed up in one sentence.
It's actually a very racist statement from Miliband. Assuming that there is a "Sikh vote" whether true or not, expressing it publicly says the wrong thing about Miliband. I would pick him up on that if I were an interviewer.
This is the party that released a manifesto for non-whites different to the proper one. Nothing that this party does surprises me when it comes to race. They want to segregate people by skin colour so they vote Labour. It is a divisive and disgusting thing to do to try and win a few votes.
"Cameron - we will negotiate in 2017 and then offer a referendum on the concessions" "Farage - if UKIP can't win we would prefer you vote Tory to keep out Miliband and get the referendum" "Junker - the EU isn't going to negotiate anyway"
If Cameron's pledge is now null and void there would seem to be less motivation for kippers to vote Tory - which can only help Miliband.
Has Farage said that? I didn't think so.
The way to get a referendum is to vote Tory and not get Miliband but Farage seems to be after votes for UKIP regardless, not a referendum.
"Cameron - we will negotiate in 2017 and then offer a referendum on the concessions" "Farage - if UKIP can't win we would prefer you vote Tory to keep out Miliband and get the referendum" "Junker - the EU isn't going to negotiate anyway"
If Cameron's pledge is now null and void there would seem to be less motivation for kippers to vote Tory - which can only help Miliband.
He is playing politics, but its all hot air, the EU isn't a signatory it just has to implement what the member countries agree in the treaties.
Exactly. Juncker is like an incredibly annoying and officious golf club secretary. But ultimate his power is what the members say it is.
Are you confusing the ECJ with the ECHR? Mr Thompson is fundamentally right. Without Cameron there is no chance of a referendum. With Cameron we get one.
No I am not. The ECHR is nothing currently to do with the EU - although that is changing.
The ECJ has used a series of rulings over the last two decades to extend its competencies into areas it was not previously able to make judgements by extending the definition of things like the single market or by referencing things like the Charter of Fundamental Rights even though the UK has an opt out from that.
Mr. Isam, not sure I agree on military intervention. Eritrea is a military dictatorship and Somalia's a poster boy for failed states. Neither is our fault.
Libya is the victim of our military intervention and that has allowed the rest of Africa a route to Italy via a lawless state
Both Libya and Syria were heading to be failed states. There was only a slim hope of salvaging anything from either. British Foreign and Military involvement was not at fault; a bunch of bearded barbarian loonies are the problem. Peace will only come to the Middle East when its people recognise Islam is the problem not the solution.
Correct Gadaffi was all set to massacre heaven knows how many in Benghazi, that's his own citizens. How anyone can say Gadaffi was 'legal' defeats me.
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London, to clog up the motorways.
Mr. Isam, not sure I agree on military intervention. Eritrea is a military dictatorship and Somalia's a poster boy for failed states. Neither is our fault.
Libya is the victim of our military intervention and that has allowed the rest of Africa a route to Italy via a lawless state
Both Libya and Syria were heading to be failed states. There was only a slim hope of salvaging anything from either. British Foreign and Military involvement was not at fault; a bunch of bearded barbarian loonies are the problem. Peace will only come to the Middle East when its people recognise Islam is the problem not the solution.
Correct Gadaffi was all set to massacre heaven knows how many in Benghazi, that's his own citizens. How anyone can say Gadaffi was 'legal' defeats me.
I think that lawful evil and chaotic evil are alignment terms from role playing games.
The problem is Philip that changes made without treaty reform are basically not worth the paper they are written on. Someone mistakenly claimed yesterday evening that the ECJ only overturns stuff that illegal. That is not the case. The ECJ has a long history of extending its jurisdiction into areas it didn't previously have competence and then making judgements that materially affect agreements that we had thought were watertight. As such we would be mad to accept anything less than a treaty as an assurance that things would not be changed again later to our disadvantage.
Of course for people like me this is moot anyway as we do not believe that Cameron is serious in his attempts (non existent so far) to get meaningful renegotiation nor that he would ever recommend leaving the EU even if it was clear he had achieved nothing.
Since you're set against anyway then the surest path (in my eyes) for you is to want to get Cameron elected, wait til 2017, campaign and vote for Out? That way you get what you want?
However I disagree on your logic. On the topic of the ECJ that's always going to be an on-going issue as long as it exists (which no treaty will ever change) I suspect regardless of any treaties or the lack thereof (see SCOTUS in the USA). I don't see any treaty ever possibly changing that.
The changes that we get could always change back in the future, but that's unlikely - if Merkel etc agree to changes that they want too, why would they reverse it. Plus surely then that's the time to argue for a new referendum.
It is not 'unlikely'. It has already happened with various opt outs we thought we had from the Lisbon Treaty.
Revealing my ignorance now but if billion dollar cities can be built in Las Vegas and Dubai, is there a possibility that in 20 years or so there will be Europeans/Americans doing the same in Central Africa?
The most expensive hotels in Las Vegas cost more than $1bn to build, as did a single Dubai building.
Africa's problems are: (1) education, (2) poor government, and (3) over-dependence on commodity exports.
They won't be rapidly solved. However, the cost of labour is rising rapidly in China (15% annual wage hikes are rapidly eroding competitiveness), and Chinese companies are scouring the world to find the places with the lowest wage rates to build their next factories in. Right now, it's Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam, but as those places become too expensive in turn, there can be no doubt they'll look at parts of Africa.
"Cameron - we will negotiate in 2017 and then offer a referendum on the concessions" "Farage - if UKIP can't win we would prefer you vote Tory to keep out Miliband and get the referendum" "Junker - the EU isn't going to negotiate anyway"
If Cameron's pledge is now null and void there would seem to be less motivation for kippers to vote Tory - which can only help Miliband.
Has Farage said that? I didn't think so.
The way to get a referendum is to vote Tory and not get Miliband but Farage seems to be after votes for UKIP Farage regardless, not a referendum.
Coral are first out of the blocks with challengers debate odds Farage 7/4 Sturgeon 2/1 Miliband 5/2 Wood 10/1 Bennett 12/1
No bet for me. I got badly stung last time trying to be clever.
Do people seriously bet on something so subjective? There is no ballot after a debate. No winning post. How can there be a winner? Who are the electorate?
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London, to clog up the motorways.
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Even Lord Barnett thinks the Barnett formula should be dropped.
Being aware of certain of OGH's sensibilities please be careful about discussing anything about a dropping a barnett formula lest it be misconstrued as a UKIP policy about proscribing hair tonics.
More importantly I've read the smoke signals from Miliband and Clegg that they may be able to tolerate each other.
Like Velma and Roxie, they stop feuding with each other when they both realise that there's more advantage in putting on a show together.
Didn't the Lib Dems demand Brown's resignation as part of any Lib/Lab deal? Assuming Clegg actually survives in Hallam, I think Labour may well demand Clegg stepping down as leader as part of any negotiation from their end.
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London, to clog up the motorways.
How many before and after?
Our siv like borders are a pull factor.
Hey: are you based at 55 Savushkina Street?
Had to look it up - The Russian 'Troll' House. BTW 'sieve'.
Mr. Eagles, you've just spoilt an episode for people who like Game of Thrones but haven't seen the whole first series yet, and who also have some knowledge of classical history.
"Cameron - we will negotiate in 2017 and then offer a referendum on the concessions" "Farage - if UKIP can't win we would prefer you vote Tory to keep out Miliband and get the referendum" "Junker - the EU isn't going to negotiate anyway"
If Cameron's pledge is now null and void there would seem to be less motivation for kippers to vote Tory - which can only help Miliband.
If Cameron cant get negotiation he will recommend withdrawal from EU
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
Full fiscal Autonomy with the risks and rewards of North Sea oil balanced against the 'challenges' of the West of Scotland/Glasgow would be the best thing ever for Scotland and the UK and to my mind is one thing that could save the Union.
More importantly I've read the smoke signals from Miliband and Clegg that they may be able to tolerate each other.
Like Velma and Roxie, they stop feuding with each other when they both realise that there's more advantage in putting on a show together.
Didn't the Lib Dems demand Brown's resignation as part of any Lib/Lab deal? Assuming Clegg actually survives in Hallam, I think Labour may well demand Clegg stepping down as leader as part of any negotiation from their end.
If the Lib Dems refuse, what are Labour going to do? Pout?
Having looked at (sniffed) the Manifestos, there arose the sweet smell of putrifaction coming from dying corpses. This applies not only to the UK but from most of western Europe. All the parties have ignored or evaded the really serious matters for the coming decade.
Empires come and go - we have had the Greeks, the Romans, the Holy Romans, the Caliphate, the Spanish, Dutch, French and British empires and now western Europe is in its death throes and seemingly unable to escape or self-right itself..
1. The UK has a dearth of good leaders, it has one statesman but no leaders - the same for the rest of western Europe but with one stateswoman. You have only to glance to Russia to see Putin (the Russian bear) with about 90% popularity and young people are wearing t-shirts with his face emblazoned on them. Ever seen the same on one t-shirt in the UK? The young support him in his aim to re-establish the former USSR and they have a large sense of pride in their nation - here many politicians deride any sense of national pride for fear of upsetting their failed holy grail of multiculturalism.
2. Some manifestos are delusionary in their promise to eradicate/lessen social division - especially that of wealth. This has never happened in history. Just look at Russia, China, N Korea today - the privileged and wealthy there are set as a race apart. The tax changes in the manifestos are just re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic with some of them encouraging it to sink quicker.
3. No mention is made of the threat of trans-continental fundamental Islam aggression and how to combat it and put it into retreat. No mention is made of how to deal with the Russian bear. Perhaps they think they will just go away - but they will not.
4. Various ploys are given on education, but none tackle the major objective for the UK to have the best education for all its children and their abilities, so that they are equipped to compete in this world. That would require so many radical changes that it would upset the educational theorists and the unions.
5. There is little on the aspiration for excellence in all walks of life and being far more efficient and so be able to do more for the same cost or do the same at a lower cost. A lower cost society is needed to compete globally.
6. There is too little emphasis on improving innovation and technology, rewarding our innovators and enabling them to keep the rewards of that innovation, but plenty about increasing the taxes on those that succeed.
7. The whole potential impact of mass emigration from Africa and parts of the Middle East on Europe and the UK is not really addressed, but it has to be faced up to.
8. Little mention of the effects on the UK of the collapse of the ill-fated Euro. Also on how to attain economic renewable energy and when.
UKIP are completely irrelevant whilst Cameron is in charge of the Conservative party - even if they get 6 seats or so. He'd much sooner do a deal with the Lib Dems again who for all their woes will return over 20 MPs. If that itself falls short I'd imagine he'd get an "understanding" with the DUP. Any less and it's Miliband Gov't anyway.
In an exclusive YouGov poll for Red Box, I asked: "Labour's manifesto says that 'Every policy in this manifesto is paid for. Not one commitment requires additional borrowing.' What do you think about this?"
We offered three options to choose from: 20 per cent chose "Labour means this and in government will keep its promise". Some 47 per cent thought "Labour means this now but would not in practice be able to keep its promise". Just 17 per cent thought "Labour doesn't mean this".
My impression (not having read their manifesto) is that they are implicitly lying by omission, so I'm not sure how I would answer that question. Literally it may be the case that those policies don't require additional borrowing but Labour's enacted policies in (majority) government (including everything which doesn't make it into the manifesto) will. Unfortunately "Labour are wilfully misleading chancers" isn't given as an option.
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
Full fiscal Autonomy with the risks and rewards of North Sea oil balanced against the 'challenges' of the West of Scotland/Glasgow would be the best thing ever for Scotland and the UK and to my mind is one thing that could save the Union.
Sharing the fiscal burden is part of being one country. If you happen to be a richer part of the country, you help out the poorer parts. If Scotland gets fiscal autonomy, it's only a matter of time before London gets it too, and so on down the line. The end result is that the areas facing economic troubles just get worse and worse and end up like Detroit.
Revealing my ignorance now but if billion dollar cities can be built in Las Vegas and Dubai, is there a possibility that in 20 years or so there will be Europeans/Americans doing the same in Central Africa?
The most expensive hotels in Las Vegas cost more than $1bn to build, as did a single Dubai building.
Africa's problems are: (1) education, (2) poor government, and (3) over-dependence on commodity exports.
They won't be rapidly solved. However, the cost of labour is rising rapidly in China (15% annual wage hikes are rapidly eroding competitiveness), and Chinese companies are scouring the world to find the places with the lowest wage rates to build their next factories in. Right now, it's Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam, but as those places become too expensive in turn, there can be no doubt they'll look at parts of Africa.
Is there a reason why Africa can't become the solar power centre of the world? It must have been thought of and must be a reason why not but I don't know, so am asking!
I like these two: "Confirmation hearings: These will require Commons Select Committees to vote to approve the appointment of any new minister, senior civil servant or senior diplomat before they get the job. They will also have the power to veto such appointments. The same rules will apply to senior appointments to quangos and inspection bodies, such as Ofsted
• Expenditure hearings: Until the 1930s, MPs were able to amend public spending plans. Since then they can only can only cheer or boo government spending plans, which are presented to them as a fait accompli. In order to control public spending and reduce taxes over time, UKIP will give the relevant Commons Select Committee the power to veto items of spending, but not increase them."
The EU will exacerbate rather than soften the fall.
When the eurozone comes apart the EU itself may not last much longer. Then we'll have civil strife at best, with a realistic prospect of another (hopefully minor) war in Europe.
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
Full fiscal Autonomy with the risks and rewards of North Sea oil balanced against the 'challenges' of the West of Scotland/Glasgow would be the best thing ever for Scotland and the UK and to my mind is one thing that could save the Union.
Sharing the fiscal burden is part of being one country. If you happen to be a richer part of the country, you help out the poorer parts. If Scotland gets fiscal autonomy, it's only a matter of time before London gets it too, and so on down the line. The end result is that the areas facing economic troubles just get worse and worse and end up like Detroit.
I'm not advocating the regionalisation of England here, the English flags are up in my village ahead of St George's day and the English identity is very strong here. But we have to accept that a political earthquake has happened in Scotland and FFA/Devomax as soon as possible, even if it is faster than the SNP want it! would be good for everyone.
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London.
A UKIP campaign to keep Mad Muammar in command, and prevent African immigrants clogging up Home Counties motorways would have been interesting.
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London.
A UKIP campaign to keep Mad Muammar in command, and prevent African immigrants clogging up Home Counties motorways would have been interesting.
Who said anything about the uk or London?
Sticking to the dogma rather than reading or thinking I see
Revealing my ignorance now but if billion dollar cities can be built in Las Vegas and Dubai, is there a possibility that in 20 years or so there will be Europeans/Americans doing the same in Central Africa?
The most expensive hotels in Las Vegas cost more than $1bn to build, as did a single Dubai building.
Africa's problems are: (1) education, (2) poor government, and (3) over-dependence on commodity exports.
They won't be rapidly solved. However, the cost of labour is rising rapidly in China (15% annual wage hikes are rapidly eroding competitiveness), and Chinese companies are scouring the world to find the places with the lowest wage rates to build their next factories in. Right now, it's Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam, but as those places become too expensive in turn, there can be no doubt they'll look at parts of Africa.
Is there a reason why Africa can't become the solar power centre of the world? It must have been thought of and must be a reason why not but I don't know, so am asking!
There was to be a project called the Mediterranean ring with an objective of linking power sources - problem is you require political stability in each country.
Revealing my ignorance now but if billion dollar cities can be built in Las Vegas and Dubai, is there a possibility that in 20 years or so there will be Europeans/Americans doing the same in Central Africa?
The most expensive hotels in Las Vegas cost more than $1bn to build, as did a single Dubai building.
Africa's problems are: (1) education, (2) poor government, and (3) over-dependence on commodity exports.
They won't be rapidly solved. However, the cost of labour is rising rapidly in China (15% annual wage hikes are rapidly eroding competitiveness), and Chinese companies are scouring the world to find the places with the lowest wage rates to build their next factories in. Right now, it's Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam, but as those places become too expensive in turn, there can be no doubt they'll look at parts of Africa.
Is there a reason why Africa can't become the solar power centre of the world? It must have been thought of and must be a reason why not but I don't know, so am asking!
It has been thought of, and there are a number of North Africa plans that have been proposed. The issues are: (1) cost, as it's still not (quite) economic enough (although solar costs continue to fall and therefore that will be less of an issue in five years time), (2) the difficulty of building an HVDC line under the Mediterranean, and the issue that the electricity wouldn't be near where the demand was, and (3) a concern that - just with large oil projects - the local government changed the rules after the billions have been spent.
If solar continues to get cheaper at a rate of 5-7% per year, then the possibility of large scale African solar becomes real.
Thank you. It's good to see we're keeping our tens of thousand pledge. What happened on non-EU migration though? It says a 13% cut, but I'm sure I heard we'd cut it by a third.
Mr. Pulpstar, beg to differ. Full fiscal autonomy is practically independence. But with a currency union.
And it would be good for Scotland and good for the UK.
Good for Scotland, it's de facto independence, but they retain the pound and have the bank of england as a lender of last resort for their banking system. Pretty much everything "Yes" wanted last year but were told they couldn't have.
Not quite sure why it's good for the UK. What happens when Scotland doesn't pony up the cash for it's share of the military and other shared costs?
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
Full fiscal Autonomy with the risks and rewards of North Sea oil balanced against the 'challenges' of the West of Scotland/Glasgow would be the best thing ever for Scotland and the UK and to my mind is one thing that could save the Union.
Sharing the fiscal burden is part of being one country. If you happen to be a richer part of the country, you help out the poorer parts. If Scotland gets fiscal autonomy, it's only a matter of time before London gets it too, and so on down the line. The end result is that the areas facing economic troubles just get worse and worse and end up like Detroit.
The Westminster government has guaranteed the level of Spending in Scotland.
Removal of that, cutting it by a single penny (beyond the Barnett consequentials of Westminster cuts to English budgets) will result in an immediate Referendum and a Yes landslide.
Scotland is not part of a country. It is a country in its own right, in political union with another country (England and Wales).
"Once the UK leaves the EU, we, as a country, regain our ability to take back our vacant seat at the WTO and represent ourselves, negotiating our own trade agreements and advancing our own national trade interests. A first step would be to broker a bespoke UK-EU trade agreement, which we believe is desirable. This is what we will seek and without doubt achieve, possibly within a very short period of time.
The UK has been a leader in international trade for centuries, long before the European Union. We will continue to trade internationally after Brexit, enjoying the rights inherent in the WTO’s ‘Most Favoured Nation’ principle.
We will regain full autonomy at the World Customs Organisation, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and several of the UN’s constituent bodies - all of which have seen a steady erosion of our voting powers, as the EU has assumed primacy. With over 100 other international organisations counting the UK as a full member, we will be in a very strong negotiating position when we leave the EU.
Suggestions that the EU would refuse to negotiate a trade deal with Britain if we left the Union are nothing more than scaremongering. Britain is the Eurozone’s biggest export market worldwide, the Eurozone’s biggest supplier worldwide, and the country with which the Eurozone has the biggest trade surplus worldwide. The truth is, the EU cannot afford to snub us: the EU actually needs us far more than we need the EU.
It is time to free Britain from the shackles of the EU. We have a choice between a dying Europe and a vibrant, growing world; a choice between staying buried in the bureaucratic nightmare of Brussels, and resuming our proper place in the rest of the world. The common sense answer is to leave."
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
Full fiscal Autonomy with the risks and rewards of North Sea oil balanced against the 'challenges' of the West of Scotland/Glasgow would be the best thing ever for Scotland and the UK and to my mind is one thing that could save the Union.
Sharing the fiscal burden is part of being one country. If you happen to be a richer part of the country, you help out the poorer parts. If Scotland gets fiscal autonomy, it's only a matter of time before London gets it too, and so on down the line. The end result is that the areas facing economic troubles just get worse and worse and end up like Detroit.
The Westminster government has guaranteed the level of Spending in Scotland.
Removal of that, cutting it by a single penny (beyond the Barnett consequentials of Westminster cuts to English budgets) will result in an immediate Referendum and a Yes landslide.
Scotland is not part of a country. It is a country in its own right, in political union with another country (England and Wales).
Is that level of spending currently higher than what FFA would give ?
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London.
A UKIP campaign to keep Mad Muammar in command, and prevent African immigrants clogging up Home Counties motorways would have been interesting.
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London.
A UKIP campaign to keep Mad Muammar in command, and prevent African immigrants clogging up Home Counties motorways would have been interesting.
Who said anything about the uk or London?
Sticking to the dogma rather than reading or thinking I see
Erm, you mentioned 'uncontrolled immigration' initially. Where then were you suggesting that they were heading, and if it wasn't the UK what business is it of ours?
More importantly I've read the smoke signals from Miliband and Clegg that they may be able to tolerate each other.
Like Velma and Roxie, they stop feuding with each other when they both realise that there's more advantage in putting on a show together.
Didn't the Lib Dems demand Brown's resignation as part of any Lib/Lab deal?
No.
Brown resigned to enable the negotiations. Also the drama on Channel 4 about the events seems to suggest that's hat happened.
Don't confuse a drama with reality even if the reality was a drama.
Brown did not resign to accommodate the negotiations as they were dead in the water and that led him to resign.
Well the Maths made the negotiations pretty pointless, I'd agree on that. But from my understanding Brown had lost sight of that and was doing everything he could to keep the Tories out. What other reason would he have announced his resignation for?
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
Full fiscal Autonomy with the risks and rewards of North Sea oil balanced against the 'challenges' of the West of Scotland/Glasgow would be the best thing ever for Scotland and the UK and to my mind is one thing that could save the Union.
Sharing the fiscal burden is part of being one country. If you happen to be a richer part of the country, you help out the poorer parts. If Scotland gets fiscal autonomy, it's only a matter of time before London gets it too, and so on down the line. The end result is that the areas facing economic troubles just get worse and worse and end up like Detroit.
The Westminster government has guaranteed the level of Spending in Scotland.
Removal of that, cutting it by a single penny (beyond the Barnett consequentials of Westminster cuts to English budgets) will result in an immediate Referendum and a Yes landslide.
Scotland is not part of a country. It is a country in its own right, in political union with another country (England and Wales).
No parliament can bind its successor. If the Scots are the progressive nation that so many Scottish nationalists insist, they would be very happy to help subsidize poorer parts of the UK, particularly their Celtic cousins.
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
Full fiscal Autonomy with the risks and rewards of North Sea oil balanced against the 'challenges' of the West of Scotland/Glasgow would be the best thing ever for Scotland and the UK and to my mind is one thing that could save the Union.
Sharing the fiscal burden is part of being one country. If you happen to be a richer part of the country, you help out the poorer parts. If Scotland gets fiscal autonomy, it's only a matter of time before London gets it too, and so on down the line. The end result is that the areas facing economic troubles just get worse and worse and end up like Detroit.
The Westminster government has guaranteed the level of Spending in Scotland.
Removal of that, cutting it by a single penny (beyond the Barnett consequentials of Westminster cuts to English budgets) will result in an immediate Referendum and a Yes landslide.
Scotland is not part of a country. It is a country in its own right, in political union with another country (England and Wales).
And that will result in Scotland having significantly less income. So it won't happen.
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London, to clog up the motorways.
"Once the UK leaves the EU, we, as a country, regain our ability to take back our vacant seat at the WTO and represent ourselves, negotiating our own trade agreements and advancing our own national trade interests. A first step would be to broker a bespoke UK-EU trade agreement, which we believe is desirable. This is what we will seek and without doubt achieve, possibly within a very short period of time.
The UK has been a leader in international trade for centuries, long before the European Union. We will continue to trade internationally after Brexit, enjoying the rights inherent in the WTO’s ‘Most Favoured Nation’ principle.
We will regain full autonomy at the World Customs Organisation, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and several of the UN’s constituent bodies - all of which have seen a steady erosion of our voting powers, as the EU has assumed primacy. With over 100 other international organisations counting the UK as a full member, we will be in a very strong negotiating position when we leave the EU.
Suggestions that the EU would refuse to negotiate a trade deal with Britain if we left the Union are nothing more than scaremongering. Britain is the Eurozone’s biggest export market worldwide, the Eurozone’s biggest supplier worldwide, and the country with which the Eurozone has the biggest trade surplus worldwide. The truth is, the EU cannot afford to snub us: the EU actually needs us far more than we need the EU.
It is time to free Britain from the shackles of the EU. We have a choice between a dying Europe and a vibrant, growing world; a choice between staying buried in the bureaucratic nightmare of Brussels, and resuming our proper place in the rest of the world. The common sense answer is to leave."
Good theory but to export you need to be price and technology competitive and in too many areas we are not.
Revealing my ignorance now but if billion dollar cities can be built in Las Vegas and Dubai, is there a possibility that in 20 years or so there will be Europeans/Americans doing the same in Central Africa?
The most expensive hotels in Las Vegas cost more than $1bn to build, as did a single Dubai building.
Africa's problems are: (1) education, (2) poor government, and (3) over-dependence on commodity exports.
They won't be rapidly solved. However, the cost of labour is rising rapidly in China (15% annual wage hikes are rapidly eroding competitiveness), and Chinese companies are scouring the world to find the places with the lowest wage rates to build their next factories in. Right now, it's Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam, but as those places become too expensive in turn, there can be no doubt they'll look at parts of Africa.
Is there a reason why Africa can't become the solar power centre of the world? It must have been thought of and must be a reason why not but I don't know, so am asking!
It has been thought of, and there are a number of North Africa plans that have been proposed. The issues are: (1) cost, as it's still not (quite) economic enough (although solar costs continue to fall and therefore that will be less of an issue in five years time), (2) the difficulty of building an HVDC line under the Mediterranean, and the issue that the electricity wouldn't be near where the demand was, and (3) a concern that - just with large oil projects - the local government changed the rules after the billions have been spent.
If solar continues to get cheaper at a rate of 5-7% per year, then the possibility of large scale African solar becomes real.
If there was joined up thinking with regards to energy supply, vast tracts of Africa would already be cracking Hydrogen out of sea water and supplying it to the Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars which would be 90%+ of vehicles on the roads of the world.
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
Mike, why do you think your MPs weren't at the launch?
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
Mike, why do you think your MPs weren't at the launch?
Busy working their constituencies, presumably. MPs don't usually all turn up to things like this, do they?
Mr. Pulpstar, beg to differ. Full fiscal autonomy is practically independence. But with a currency union.
And it would be good for Scotland and good for the UK.
Good for Scotland, it's de facto independence, but they retain the pound and have the bank of england as a lender of last resort for their banking system. Pretty much everything "Yes" wanted last year but were told they couldn't have.
Not quite sure why it's good for the UK. What happens when Scotland doesn't pony up the cash for it's share of the military and other shared costs?
Yep as usual the patriarchal English mentality falls back to "what happens when the most resource rich and export heavy part of the country doesn't pay its way".
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
Mike, why do you think your MPs weren't at the launch?
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
Mike, why do you think your MPs weren't at the launch?
Busy working their constituencies, presumably. MPs don't usually all turn up to things like this, do they?
Not all of them. But you'd see most of the Cabinet / Shadow Cabinet at the Tory/Labour ones.
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
Mike, why do you think your MPs weren't at the launch?
Reckless had problems with the barriers at the Dartford Toll, and Carswell's stuck behind a tractor on the A12.
Revealing my ignorance now but if billion dollar cities can be built in Las Vegas and Dubai, is there a possibility that in 20 years or so there will be Europeans/Americans doing the same in Central Africa?
The most expensive hotels in Las Vegas cost more than $1bn to build, as did a single Dubai building.
Africa's problems are: (1) education, (2) poor government, and (3) over-dependence on commodity exports.
They won't be rapidly solved. However, the cost of labour is rising rapidly in China (15% annual wage hikes are rapidly eroding competitiveness), and Chinese companies are scouring the world to find the places with the lowest wage rates to build their next factories in. Right now, it's Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam, but as those places become too expensive in turn, there can be no doubt they'll look at parts of Africa.
Is there a reason why Africa can't become the solar power centre of the world? It must have been thought of and must be a reason why not but I don't know, so am asking!
It has been thought of, and there are a number of North Africa plans that have been proposed. The issues are: (1) cost, as it's still not (quite) economic enough (although solar costs continue to fall and therefore that will be less of an issue in five years time), (2) the difficulty of building an HVDC line under the Mediterranean, and the issue that the electricity wouldn't be near where the demand was, and (3) a concern that - just with large oil projects - the local government changed the rules after the billions have been spent.
If solar continues to get cheaper at a rate of 5-7% per year, then the possibility of large scale African solar becomes real.
If there was joined up thinking with regards to energy supply, vast tracts of Africa would already be cracking Hydrogen out of sea water and supplying it to the Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars which would be 90%+ of vehicles on the roads of the world.
UKIP's decision to cut money for scotland is interesting.
Taking the UK out of UKIP?
Scotland is one of the wealthiest parts of the UK. It is only reasonable that some of the money gets taken from the Barnett block grant and provided to more struggling areas, like Wales, the North East and Cornwall. I have to say UKIP's manifesto looks like a hard one to argue against: the NATO defence target, a well-funded NHS, controlled immigration. Is immigration even in the Conservative manifesto?
Full fiscal Autonomy with the risks and rewards of North Sea oil balanced against the 'challenges' of the West of Scotland/Glasgow would be the best thing ever for Scotland and the UK and to my mind is one thing that could save the Union.
Sharing the fiscal burden is part of being one country. If you happen to be a richer part of the country, you help out the poorer parts. If Scotland gets fiscal autonomy, it's only a matter of time before London gets it too, and so on down the line. The end result is that the areas facing economic troubles just get worse and worse and end up like Detroit.
The Westminster government has guaranteed the level of Spending in Scotland.
Removal of that, cutting it by a single penny (beyond the Barnett consequentials of Westminster cuts to English budgets) will result in an immediate Referendum and a Yes landslide.
Scotland is not part of a country. It is a country in its own right, in political union with another country (England and Wales).
Is that level of spending currently higher than what FFA would give ?
This year - probably not. Most years - definitely not.
Making the case for another coalition, Mr Clegg said a vote for his party would stop the Tories or Labour governing on their own, arguing the Lib Dems would "add a heart to a Conservative government and add a brain to a Labour one
Does that make Nick, Oz the Great and Powerful, The Cowardly Lion or Dorothy?
Brilliant Manifesto launch by UKIP this morning. Hoping it will make a big impact, though the MSM are already attacking it as too detailed.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London.
A UKIP campaign to keep Mad Muammar in command, and prevent African immigrants clogging up Home Counties motorways would have been interesting.
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London.
A UKIP campaign to keep Mad Muammar in command, and prevent African immigrants clogging up Home Counties motorways would have been interesting.
Who said anything about the uk or London?
Sticking to the dogma rather than reading or thinking I see
Erm, you mentioned 'uncontrolled immigration' initially. Where then were you suggesting that they were heading, and if it wasn't the UK what business is it of ours?
Erm yes I did
I think it's bad in principle not just when it affects the uk...are we only allowed to comment on uk matters?
But anyone who can get into an EU country is more than halfway to becoming an eu citizen and can come here as easily as anywhere else
Just keep trying to make silly partisan points/unfunny jokes linked to something Farage said to divert, it's standard practice for the guardianistas/Cameroons
You'll be setting up fake accounts to smear me next!
Are these people really acting surprised that MPs running for re-election in an election campaign would be too busy to stand in as room meat at somebody else's PR event?
Mr. Isam, ah, I thought you were referring to the two east African nations.
Libya's in a terrible state. It's debatable as to whether it'd be better or worse off had we not intervened.
A ship sinks in the Mediterranean a thousand miles away, and 'uncontrolled immigration' in the UK is somehow to blame. Laughable.
Shows how little you understand
I understand that desperate people were fleeing across the Med, long before Gaddafi was turfed out of power, and that they weren't all necessarily heading for London, to clog up the motorways.
Comments
Juncker can start his rumours if he wants but he does not have the last say, even if he thinks he does.
I'm on the other side in Bradford East. You've got the better value at any rate methinks.
A UKIP campaign to keep Mad Muammar in command, and prevent African immigrants clogging up Home Counties motorways would have been interesting.
The way to get a referendum is to vote Tory and not get Miliband but Farage seems to be after votes for UKIP regardless, not a referendum.
The ECJ has used a series of rulings over the last two decades to extend its competencies into areas it was not previously able to make judgements by extending the definition of things like the single market or by referencing things like the Charter of Fundamental Rights even though the UK has an opt out from that.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/02/01/hillarys-war/
Wrong.
Kiev has killed far more in the Donbass. Armed and supported by us.
I've bet on South Swindon Lab win at 6/4 with Ladbrokes. Ashcroft shows a tie. My model shows a 2% Lab lead.
I've also bet on Halesowen Lab win at evens with Ladbrokes. Ashcroft shows a 2% Lab lead. My model shows a 4% Lab lead.
Our siv like borders are a pull factor.
Africa's problems are: (1) education, (2) poor government, and (3) over-dependence on commodity exports.
They won't be rapidly solved. However, the cost of labour is rising rapidly in China (15% annual wage hikes are rapidly eroding competitiveness), and Chinese companies are scouring the world to find the places with the lowest wage rates to build their next factories in. Right now, it's Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam, but as those places become too expensive in turn, there can be no doubt they'll look at parts of Africa.
BTW 'sieve'.
You cad.
Quit Mr Cameron or I won't let Carswell support you!
Empires come and go - we have had the Greeks, the Romans, the Holy Romans, the Caliphate, the Spanish, Dutch, French and British empires and now western Europe is in its death throes and seemingly unable to escape or self-right itself..
1. The UK has a dearth of good leaders, it has one statesman but no leaders - the same for the rest of western Europe but with one stateswoman. You have only to glance to Russia to see Putin (the Russian bear) with about 90% popularity and young people are wearing t-shirts with his face emblazoned on them. Ever seen the same on one t-shirt in the UK? The young support him in his aim to re-establish the former USSR and they have a large sense of pride in their nation - here many politicians deride any sense of national pride for fear of upsetting their failed holy grail of multiculturalism.
2. Some manifestos are delusionary in their promise to eradicate/lessen social division - especially that of wealth. This has never happened in history. Just look at Russia, China, N Korea today - the privileged and wealthy there are set as a race apart. The tax changes in the manifestos are just re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic with some of them encouraging it to sink quicker.
3. No mention is made of the threat of trans-continental fundamental Islam aggression and how to combat it and put it into retreat. No mention is made of how to deal with the Russian bear. Perhaps they think they will just go away - but they will not.
4. Various ploys are given on education, but none tackle the major objective for the UK to have the best education for all its children and their abilities, so that they are equipped to compete in this world. That would require so many radical changes that it would upset the educational theorists and the unions.
5. There is little on the aspiration for excellence in all walks of life and being far more efficient and so be able to do more for the same cost or do the same at a lower cost. A lower cost society is needed to compete globally.
6. There is too little emphasis on improving innovation and technology, rewarding our innovators and enabling them to keep the rewards of that innovation, but plenty about increasing the taxes on those that succeed.
7. The whole potential impact of mass emigration from Africa and parts of the Middle East on Europe and the UK is not really addressed, but it has to be faced up to.
8. Little mention of the effects on the UK of the collapse of the ill-fated Euro. Also on how to attain economic renewable energy and when.
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf
Or New York. I shall keep an eye out in Atlantia today.
I like these two:
"Confirmation hearings: These will require Commons Select Committees to vote to approve the appointment of any new minister, senior civil servant or senior diplomat before they get the job. They will also have the power to veto such appointments. The same rules will apply to senior appointments to quangos and inspection bodies, such as Ofsted
• Expenditure hearings: Until the 1930s, MPs were able to amend public spending plans. Since then they can only can only cheer or boo government spending plans, which are presented to them as a fait accompli. In order to control public spending and reduce taxes over time, UKIP will give the relevant Commons Select Committee the power to veto items of spending, but not increase them."
http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015
I think the confirmation hearings was in The Plan by Carswell/Hannan. The spending veto is a new one to me.
The EU will exacerbate rather than soften the fall.
When the eurozone comes apart the EU itself may not last much longer. Then we'll have civil strife at best, with a realistic prospect of another (hopefully minor) war in Europe.
And on that cheery note, I'm off.
https://twitter.com/SarahVine/status/588113051733381121
Sticking to the dogma rather than reading or thinking I see
The first one isn't a surprise, but the TPD is.
I can't stand that sort of crap.
If solar continues to get cheaper at a rate of 5-7% per year, then the possibility of large scale African solar becomes real.
(See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29551063)
Not quite sure why it's good for the UK. What happens when Scotland doesn't pony up the cash for it's share of the military and other shared costs?
Removal of that, cutting it by a single penny (beyond the Barnett consequentials of Westminster cuts to English budgets) will result in an immediate Referendum and a Yes landslide.
Scotland is not part of a country. It is a country in its own right, in political union with another country (England and Wales).
Brown did not resign to accommodate the negotiations as they were dead in the water and that led him to resign.
No mention of EFTA / EEA.
"Once the UK leaves the EU, we, as a country, regain our ability to take back our vacant seat at the WTO and represent ourselves, negotiating our own trade agreements and advancing our own national trade interests. A first step would be to broker a bespoke UK-EU trade agreement, which we believe is desirable. This is what we will seek and without doubt achieve, possibly within a very short period of time.
The UK has been a leader in international trade for centuries, long before the European Union. We will continue to trade internationally after Brexit, enjoying the rights inherent in the WTO’s ‘Most Favoured Nation’ principle.
We will regain full autonomy at the World Customs Organisation, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and several of the UN’s constituent bodies - all of which have seen a steady erosion of our voting powers, as the EU has assumed primacy. With over 100 other international organisations counting the UK as a full member, we will be in a very strong negotiating position when we leave the EU.
Suggestions that the EU would refuse to negotiate a trade deal with Britain if we left the Union are nothing more than scaremongering. Britain is the Eurozone’s biggest export market worldwide, the Eurozone’s biggest supplier worldwide, and the country with which the
Eurozone has the biggest trade surplus worldwide. The truth is, the EU cannot afford to snub us: the EU actually needs us far more than we need the EU.
It is time to free Britain from the shackles of the EU. We have a choice between a dying Europe and a vibrant, growing world; a choice between staying buried in the bureaucratic nightmare of Brussels, and resuming our proper place in the rest of the world. The common sense answer is to leave."
Thanks chaps
Perhaps Detroit failed because it deserved to?
Should we keep endlessly subsidising welfare dormitories like the Welsh Valleys or Merseyside?
These are like the gardens of humans in the Matrix. Their only purpose being to vote labour.
I ask you, the present political class and their hacks cannot make enough attacks and smears, so they will be forced to increase the the lies and smears, till even the most naive will see them for what they are: complete frauds.
How's the weather in Langley? Nice in London.
Still lacking the knowledge and intelligence to respond to the points raised.
But it hasn't happened because people.
As always, you're asking the wrong question.
https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/588300034761981954
On the subject of campaign posters.
On my commute between Hertsmere and Broxbourne I have seen zero so far.
Those private polls really were bad!
I think it's bad in principle not just when it affects the uk...are we only allowed to comment on uk matters?
But anyone who can get into an EU country is more than halfway to becoming an eu citizen and can come here as easily as anywhere else
Just keep trying to make silly partisan points/unfunny jokes linked to something Farage said to divert, it's standard practice for the guardianistas/Cameroons
You'll be setting up fake accounts to smear me next!
But I wasn't aware you'd raised any points beyond "Putin is awesome, yeah!"
"Both Boston and New York could of course be in either country."
An old workmate of mine is buried in New York and I expect both to have a Ukip MP in three weeks or so.