"Away from the press conference, the US department of Justice has released a statement to the media saying 14 defendants have been charged with "racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies" over a 24-year period.
Four individual defendants and two corporate defendants have pleaded guilty.
Acting US attorney Kelly T Currie said: "After decades of what the indictment alleges to be brazen corruption, organised international soccer needs a new start.
"It needs a new chance for its governing institutions to provide honest oversight and support of a sport that is beloved across the world, increasingly so here in the United States.
"Let me be clear: this indictment is not the final chapter in our investigation." "
Wiggo should be more like 1-10/1-20 to break the hour record rather than 2-9, that 5-10% being a pulled muscle (rarer on a bike than running) or a mechanical (unlikely in a controlled velodrome enviroment).
If he gets round, he breaks the record. I'm in for a ton.
Will always be a shame that he never did it at the conclusion of the Olympics (and stayed off the drink till then :-)) He would have set a mark no-one would equal for years. Now, he should do it easily but the mark will be beaten sooner rather than later.
Potential ballot options: 1) Retain membership of the EU 2) Leave the EU 3) Invade France
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, did AV have a Yes/No choice, or was it to cross AV or FPTP?
I think it was Yes/No, but can't quite recall.
As someone who's mind is slipping and siding between 1 and 2, option 3 looks the best there.
I think a straight swap would be ideal, rather than an invasion. The French can have the UK, and the British can move to France. It's not patiotic to say so, but France beats seven shades out of the UK as a place to live. No wonder they never go abroad on holiday.
Wiggo should be more like 1-10/1-20 to break the hour record rather than 2-9, that 5-10% being a pulled muscle (rarer on a bike than running) or a mechanical (unlikely in a controlled velodrome enviroment).
If he gets round, he breaks the record. I'm in for a ton.
Will always be a shame that he never did it at the conclusion of the Olympics (and stayed off the drink till then :-)) He would have set a mark no-one would equal for years. Now, he should do it easily but the mark will be beaten sooner rather than later.
Yes, back Tony Martin to break it if it is anything under 55 km and he decides to have a go.
Rubbish, that's not how it works and you know it. The UK's net contribution would be divided proportionately by the other net contributors, so just a few countries would have to make up that number. I don't think the likes of Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands would be happy at having to pay considerably more into the EU budget.
The average not being evenly spread wouldn't really change things either way, because aside from the right-wing sexual fantasy of everyone obediently submitting to every whim of Angela Merkel, each country that cares relatively more would be counter-acted in the voting by another country that relatively totally doesn't give a shit.
But as it happens you're not right. For example, the Cohesion Fund is based on how rich you are relative to average EU GDP, so if a rich country leaves (or a poor one joins) the average GDP drops and a net recipient is going to net receive less.
So all countries lose by us leaving? The recipients gain less (and they can ill afford to gain less) while the contributors pay more (and they're already fed up of paying for Greece etc as the eurozone contributors are having to).
Yup, exactly. They lose a meaningful but not mind-boggling amount. It's about £25 a head, although it'll vary a bit from country to country.
More generally, when you hear a large number from a politician, it's normally best to do what a couple of people up-thread have objected to me doing and divide by the affected population to get it in perspective. This isn't particularly a trick to make it seem smaller - it's just the best way to see what the number means. If it's really a big number, it'll sound big when you imagine yourself paying it.
No I don't think that's at all appropriate.
That way leads to Brownian socialism. We'll increase spending on this, its only £5 a head. We'll increase spending on that, its only £20 a head. We should do that together its only £25 a head.
All those numbers add up. Its totally disingenuous to take a number in isolation on a per head basis.
Good morning everyone. Question for the US experts on here. With the arrest of the FIFA members this morning. Sky news seem to be saying that as Sepp Blatter hasn't been collared, he looks to be ok. Is it the case that the US are using the same tactics as they did with the Mafia and going for the smaller fish first and threaten them with long prison sentences to encourage squealing on the bigger fish.
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
Platitudes at best.
LOL so Nickerless is getting all twisted about plaitiudes ?
#gobshite
No , just that Cameron is a dumpling and he will get run rings round by the smart Europeans and come back waving a sheet of paper saying "Peace in our time". History will just repeat , the Germans will make donkeys of our elite effetes.
PS , if he [Cameron] had any brains he would let a real politician like Alex lead the discussions.
Remind me: in the Scottish referendum thingy, who got 45% and who got 55%?
Why should I be pleased if and when the elected leader of the country so blatantly and willingly misleads the electorate?
I suppose the only reason I can see for being pleased with that situation is because it conforms what I said would happen all along in spite of the denials and shouts of outrage from the PB Tories.
That is an admission that Out cannot win under any circumstances, even the most favourable. But go ahead, blame Cameron for that if it makes you feel better.
Not at all. It is an admission that Cameron lying about what he has achieved will make it all the more difficult for Out to win. It is not impossible but it will be difficult when so many willing fools in the Tory party are going along with him for the sake of party unity.
It does also have the added effect of meaning that the EU will continue in its unreformed manner with ever closer union and that Cameron's legacy will be to be viewed in the same manner as Heath - who was by far the worst post war PM.
The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.
It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.
I hope that this will be the last referendum, except on issues of statehood (though I guess some BOOers see this referendum in those terms and would like a question of the form "Should Britain become and independent country free of the EU?")
I'd much rather have more frequent general elections with the parties taking clear stands on the big issues of the day. I suppose they look at what Home Rule did to the Liberal Party and decide to punt anything contentious to referenda so they don't have to stand for election on one side or the other.
The Chartists only unmet demand is annual parliaments! I would be happy for 20% of seats to be up each year.
Good morning everyone. Question for the US experts on here. With the arrest of the FIFA members this morning. Sky news seem to be saying that as Sepp Blatter hasn't been collared, he looks to be ok. Is it the case that the US are using the same tactics as they did with the Mafia and going for the smaller fish first and threaten them with long prison sentences to encourage squealing on the bigger fish.
The US authorities have explicitly said that this isn't the end of it. So I very much doubt that the pressure is off Sepp Blatter just yet.
Good morning everyone. Question for the US experts on here. With the arrest of the FIFA members this morning. Sky news seem to be saying that as Sepp Blatter hasn't been collared, he looks to be ok. Is it the case that the US are using the same tactics as they did with the Mafia and going for the smaller fish first and threaten them with long prison sentences to encourage squealing on the bigger fish.
Their supergrass, Charles Blazer, is the long-serving former general secretary of CONCACAF and a former U.S. representative on the FIFA executive committee, so they've started high. But I'm sure efforts will be made over the coming weeks to drag the net upward. That's the way almost every investigation into this type of organisation works.
Wiggo should be more like 1-10/1-20 to break the hour record rather than 2-9, that 5-10% being a pulled muscle (rarer on a bike than running) or a mechanical (unlikely in a controlled velodrome enviroment).
If he gets round, he breaks the record. I'm in for a ton.
Will always be a shame that he never did it at the conclusion of the Olympics (and stayed off the drink till then :-)) He would have set a mark no-one would equal for years. Now, he should do it easily but the mark will be beaten sooner rather than later.
Yes, back Tony Martin to break it if it is anything under 55 km and he decides to have a go.
To give you an idea of how Wiggo would have done in 2012.
In the second (longer) Time Trial of 53.5km he did it in 1h04'13". That's equivalent to a 50.15km Hour on open roads, exposed to the weather and undulating the entire way. I would have expected him to do a 58km Hour in that form. At the time he probably had a blood haemo level of a seriously EPO doped Armstrong after 18 months sleeping in an oxygen tent (which as far as I'm aware he hasn't done since).
Interesting, but that price has to be based almost exclusively on rumour, innuendo and hype.
Yes indeed - if she can actually impress during the campaign period, actual momentum rather than the rumour momentum at present might well emerge. Would be quite remarkable if she manages it, I hadn't realised at first she was one of the 2010 intake, so a veritable newcomer.
FIFA, you got to laugh at today’s events – love the fact that the authorities waited until an important meeting was being held at their swanky Zurich hotel which doubles as their HQ and arrested the lot en masse – heart of stone and all that, and this is just the opening salvo.
Rubbish, that's not how it works and you know it. The UK's net contribution would be divided proportionately by the other net contributors, so just a few countries would have to make up that number. I don't think the likes of Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands would be happy at having to pay considerably more into the EU budget.
The average not being evenly spread wouldn't really change things either way, because aside from the right-wing sexual fantasy of everyone obediently submitting to every whim of Angela Merkel, each country that cares relatively more would be counter-acted in the voting by another country that relatively totally doesn't give a shit.
But as it happens you're not right. For example, the Cohesion Fund is based on how rich you are relative to average EU GDP, so if a rich country leaves (or a poor one joins) the average GDP drops and a net recipient is going to net receive less.
So all countries lose by us leaving? The recipients gain less (and they can ill afford to gain less) while the contributors pay more (and they're already fed up of paying for Greece etc as the eurozone contributors are having to).
Yup, exactly. They lose a meaningful but not mind-boggling amount. It's about £25 a head, although it'll vary a bit from country to country.
More generally, when you hear a large number from a politician, it's normally best to do what a couple of people up-thread have objected to me doing and divide by the affected population to get it in perspective. This isn't particularly a trick to make it seem smaller - it's just the best way to see what the number means. If it's really a big number, it'll sound big when you imagine yourself paying it.
No I don't think that's at all appropriate.
That way leads to Brownian socialism. We'll increase spending on this, its only £5 a head. We'll increase spending on that, its only £20 a head. We should do that together its only £25 a head.
All those numbers add up. Its totally disingenuous to take a number in isolation on a per head basis.
Well, I don't think everyone has that reaction - the formulation of "This costs x per man, woman and child" (or the technically incorrect version, "this costs x for every man woman and child") is often used to complain about how big a number is.
If you want to spend more when you see what the numbers mean in perspective then maybe you're a Brownian socialist at heart...
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
when it comes to Europe Salmond will simply lift his kilt, expose his round buttocks and point to the sign saying insert here.
It appears that there is some variance in right-wing sexual fantasies.
Righties are always a diverse and interesting group, lefties tend to be a bit more sheep like, herdish, conformist. Since you've always been more of an individual compared to the usual cybernat cannonfodder we get maybe you should get in touch with your inner Tory.
You know you want to :-)
Walking down Whitehall the other day, I finally realised the significance of your moniker.
Yes, I am very slow.
I'm even slower, it seems, as it never occured to me it was a moniker until a google search now. A bit too modern history for me.
I must say, there's no better advert for Out than the postings of EiT on this thread on this issue.
Perhaps he might be persuaded the lead the In campaign.
Thanks but I don't have Eddie Izzard's proven track record.
He's a proven winner:
2010 General Election - lost 2011 AV referendun - lost 2014 Indy Ref - won (but heavily overshadowed by Dan Snow and Bob Geldof) 2015 General Election - lost (very badly in Scotland)
So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?
He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...
That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.
Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.
I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.
Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.
So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.
What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?
Platitudes at best.
Nonsense. He'll get a useless bauble of some kind to base theplatitudes on.
when it comes to Europe Salmond will simply lift his kilt, expose his round buttocks and point to the sign saying insert here.
It appears that there is some variance in right-wing sexual fantasies.
Righties are always a diverse and interesting group, lefties tend to be a bit more sheep like, herdish, conformist. Since you've always been more of an individual compared to the usual cybernat cannonfodder we get maybe you should get in touch with your inner Tory.
You know you want to :-)
Walking down Whitehall the other day, I finally realised the significance of your moniker.
Yes, I am very slow.
I'm even slower, it seems, as it never occured to me it was a moniker until a google search now. A bit too modern history for me.
Sgt. Sunil: All right, sweethearts, you're a team and there's nothin' to worry about. We come here, and we gonna conquer, and we gonna kick some, is that understood? That's what we gonna do, sweethearts, we are going to go and get some. All right, people, on the ready line! Are ya lean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: Are ya mean?
PB Tories: YEAH!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU?
PB Tories: LEAN AND MEAN!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU? Rob D! TSE! Get on the ready line, PB Tories, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badasses! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!
@vivmondo: If the people at Panini have any business sense there'll be a Disgraced FIFA Officials 2015 sticker album released this afternoon.
The Foil cards can be the Russian and Qatari stadia that will no longer be used.....
I was quite looking forward to a Russian road trip in 2018. Visit Russia before it visits you...
Qatar is a joke though. Even the daftest FIFA official should have seen that as a step too far.
Its not just the World Cup venues though, South Africa lost out big time to line FIFAs pockets: FIFA exported the profits and left a £2 billion pound bill. All that corporate sponsorship went to FIFA rather than SA.
@vivmondo: If the people at Panini have any business sense there'll be a Disgraced FIFA Officials 2015 sticker album released this afternoon.
The Foil cards can be the Russian and Qatari stadia that will no longer be used.....
I was quite looking forward to a Russian road trip in 2018. Visit Russia before it visits you...
Qatar is a joke though. Even the daftest FIFA official should have seen that as a step too far.
Its not just the World Cup venues though, South Africa lost out big time to line FIFAs pockets: FIFA exported the profits and left a £2 billion pound bill. All that corporate sponsorship went to FIFA rather than SA.
I must say, there's no better advert for Out than the postings of EiT on this thread on this issue.
Perhaps he might be persuaded the lead the In campaign.
Thanks but I don't have Eddie Izzard's proven track record.
He's a proven winner:
2010 General Election - lost 2011 AV referendun - lost 2014 Indy Ref - won (but heavily overshadowed by Dan Snow and Bob Geldof) 2015 General Election - lost (very badly in Scotland)
2012: Eddie Izzard backs Ken Livingstone for mayor - and the EURO in 2001.
Interesting, but that price has to be based almost exclusively on rumour, innuendo and hype.
Yes indeed - if she can actually impress during the campaign period, actual momentum rather than the rumour momentum at present might well emerge. Would be quite remarkable if she manages it, I hadn't realised at first she was one of the 2010 intake, so a veritable newcomer.
On current trends she will be favourite on Betfair by the weekend.
I must say, there's no better advert for Out than the postings of EiT on this thread on this issue.
Perhaps he might be persuaded the lead the In campaign.
Thanks but I don't have Eddie Izzard's proven track record.
He's a proven winner:
2010 General Election - lost 2011 AV referendun - lost 2014 Indy Ref - won (but heavily overshadowed by Dan Snow and Bob Geldof) 2015 General Election - lost (very badly in Scotland)
2012: Eddie Izzard backs Ken Livingstone for mayor - and the EURO in 2001.
Ah, of course. Thank you. A man you definitely want on your side!
@vivmondo: If the people at Panini have any business sense there'll be a Disgraced FIFA Officials 2015 sticker album released this afternoon.
The Foil cards can be the Russian and Qatari stadia that will no longer be used.....
I was quite looking forward to a Russian road trip in 2018. Visit Russia before it visits you...
Qatar is a joke though. Even the daftest FIFA official should have seen that as a step too far.
Its not just the World Cup venues though, South Africa lost out big time to line FIFAs pockets: FIFA exported the profits and left a £2 billion pound bill. All that corporate sponsorship went to FIFA rather than SA.
Qatar and the world cup is one of those situations where it was either corruption, gross incompetence, or both (perhaps gross incompetence in not realising people would realise it to be corrupt).
Whichever it is, it is clear that the people making the decisions should not be in position. Such costly incompetence or corruption should cost them their jobs.
Interesting, but that price has to be based almost exclusively on rumour, innuendo and hype.
Yes indeed - if she can actually impress during the campaign period, actual momentum rather than the rumour momentum at present might well emerge. Would be quite remarkable if she manages it, I hadn't realised at first she was one of the 2010 intake, so a veritable newcomer.
On current trends she will be favourite on Betfair by the weekend.
Laying Liz has never been more tempting...
I don't understand the prices for next Labour leader at all. At the moment we are at the stage of finding out who the runners and riders are. We have no solid information yet as to which candidates are going to be well-placed in the election itself.
The price on Yvette Cooper in particular looks ludicrously long.
@vivmondo: If the people at Panini have any business sense there'll be a Disgraced FIFA Officials 2015 sticker album released this afternoon.
The Foil cards can be the Russian and Qatari stadia that will no longer be used.....
I was quite looking forward to a Russian road trip in 2018. Visit Russia before it visits you...
Qatar is a joke though. Even the daftest FIFA official should have seen that as a step too far.
Its not just the World Cup venues though, South Africa lost out big time to line FIFAs pockets: FIFA exported the profits and left a £2 billion pound bill. All that corporate sponsorship went to FIFA rather than SA.
Qatar and the world cup is one of those situations where it was either corruption, gross incompetence, or both (perhaps gross incompetence in not realising people would realise it to be corrupt).
Whichever it is, it is clear that the people making the decisions should not be in position. Such costly incompetence or corruption should cost them their jobs.
If Qatar WC goes ahead it will be the killing of the Golden Goose for FIFA. No one will want to go, not players or fans.
RT..I will look at the deal Cameron brings back and make my choice based on the details in the small print....Camerons personal opinion will not play any part in my deliberations..It is truly moronic to think an entire nation would be fobbed off..
Why? They were in 1975.
Not really fair. You certainly can't compare the 1975 referendum to the picture today as since then Parliament has passed many new treaties that had nothing to do with the 75 referendum. The issue with that isn't that they weren't discussed in 75 as they weren't agreed then. The issue is that there was no new referendum each time a new treaty was passed. It's the Parliaments that passed those further treaties from Thatcher on that carry responsibility for that not Heath.
Not so. If you look at the documents released since 1975 including the advise given by the FCO to both Heath and Wilson they make clear there is a significant loss of sovereignty in the accession to the EEC. Not of course that they told the public that.
The legal advice was that:
"Community law is required to take precedence over domestic law: i.e. if a Community law conflicts with a statute, it is the statute which has to give way. This is something not implied in other commitments which we have entered into in the past. Previous treaties have imposed on us obligations which have requiredus to legislate in order to fulfil the international obligations set out in the treaty, but any discrepancy between our legislation and the treaty obligations has been solely a question of a possible breach of those international obligations the conflicting statute has still undoubtedly been the law to be applied in this country. But the community system requires that such Community Law as applies directly as law in this country should by virtue of its own legal force as law in this country prevail over conflicting national legislation."
Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.
The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.
Alex Salmond has been accused of “hypocrisy of the highest order” after admitting he would campaign alongside the Tories to keep the United Kingdom in Europe.
An article in the Telegraph currently has the status of "opposite to the truth". I can't be bothered sitting through the Newsnight interview but the lack of a direct quote is pretty telling.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
I thought Fifa concluded that there was evidence of payments from a lead Qatari for the purposes of gaining Qatar votes,but that because that was not officially sanctioned or fromthe lead official it did not matter , but my that might have just been my faulty memory and I apologise unreservedly for slandering their good name if my meory of the report is faulty.
@vivmondo: If the people at Panini have any business sense there'll be a Disgraced FIFA Officials 2015 sticker album released this afternoon.
The Foil cards can be the Russian and Qatari stadia that will no longer be used.....
I was quite looking forward to a Russian road trip in 2018. Visit Russia before it visits you...
Qatar is a joke though. Even the daftest FIFA official should have seen that as a step too far.
Its not just the World Cup venues though, South Africa lost out big time to line FIFAs pockets: FIFA exported the profits and left a £2 billion pound bill. All that corporate sponsorship went to FIFA rather than SA.
Not really any surprises in the Queen's Speech, but I was pleased to see this bit; "My government will undertake a full strategic defence and security review".
I find one Ulsterman more than enough to deal with. Having to contend with nearly two million northern Irish is just too horrifying to contemplate.
I was born there and even I could not stand it.
On topic: Initially I really disliked the undemocratic setup of the EU with the Parliament rubberstamping dictats from the bureaucrats and ministers so I was glad to see the EU Parliament asserting itself more a few years back. If the Parliament was the governing body and the bureaucrats and ministers playing second fiddle then I would be happier.
By inclination I am a BOO voter, but pragmatically I can appreciate the advantages of EU membership although I still think that the Euro is a total fudge and best avoided. Unless someone comes up with something spectacular I shall be voting to stay in and holding my nose whilst I do so
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
Good Queen's speech overall, yet first time no quip from Dennis Skinner!
Probably concentrating on defending his seat from Jacobite SNP MPs....
11.15 SNP MPs in fit of symbolism SNP MPs will wear a white rose in their lapels today. In the seventeenth century, the Jacobites took up the White Rose of York as their symbol, marking the birth of King James III and VIII. The SNP press office says the symbol is an acknowledgement of the poem by Hugh MacDiarmid, the Scottish nationalist poet, the Little White Rose of Scotland.
The rose of all the world is not for me I want for my part Only the little white rose of Scotland That smells sharp and sweet - and breaks the heart.
That way leads to Brownian socialism. We'll increase spending on this, its only £5 a head. We'll increase spending on that, its only £20 a head. We should do that together its only £25 a head.
All those numbers add up. Its totally disingenuous to take a number in isolation on a per head basis.
Well, I don't think everyone has that reaction - the formulation of "This costs x per man, woman and child" (or the technically incorrect version, "this costs x for every man woman and child") is often used to complain about how big a number is.
If you want to spend more when you see what the numbers mean in perspective then maybe you're a Brownian socialist at heart...
Except you're the one doing precisely that, diminishing €16 billion as "only £25". This tactic is used to diminish tax cuts and spending increases as insignificant which is why this is a tactic much beloved of the left; even worse is dividing it per day or week. "Only £2 a week per person" makes something sound like loose change lost behind the sofa rather than over £7 billion.
The budget and all other expenditure is reported in millions or billions per annum, not per capita. Its disingenuous to refer to only one issue you care about in a non-standard method in order to spin its costs as being insignificant. You need to be consistent with everything if that's how you want to do it. Present the budget on a per capita rather than national per annum basis.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
That way leads to Brownian socialism. We'll increase spending on this, its only £5 a head. We'll increase spending on that, its only £20 a head. We should do that together its only £25 a head.
All those numbers add up. Its totally disingenuous to take a number in isolation on a per head basis.
Well, I don't think everyone has that reaction - the formulation of "This costs x per man, woman and child" (or the technically incorrect version, "this costs x for every man woman and child") is often used to complain about how big a number is.
If you want to spend more when you see what the numbers mean in perspective then maybe you're a Brownian socialist at heart...
Except you're the one doing precisely that, diminishing €16 billion as "only £25". This tactic is used to diminish tax cuts and spending increases as insignificant which is why this is a tactic much beloved of the left; even worse is dividing it per day or week. "Only £2 a week per person" makes something sound like loose change lost behind the sofa rather than over £7 billion.
The budget and all other expenditure is reported in millions or billions per annum, not per capita. Its disingenuous to refer to only one issue you care about in a non-standard method in order to spin its costs as being insignificant. You need to be consistent with everything if that's how you want to do it. Present the budget on a per capita rather than national per annum basis.
That's what I'm saying, if you hear a budget number you should do a quick mental conversion to per capita to work out what it means.
@michaelsavage: Amazingly brazen raid on Labour union funding in Queen's Speech. But if you get a majority, you can do this stuff. How will Labour respond?
What happens if the UK votes to stay in the EU but Scotland or Wales votes to come out?
As currently formulated, nothing. Works both ways.
It wouldn't surprise me if the anti-EU vote in Wales turns out to be higher than in England. Not sure about Scotland. Just noticed that UKIP got 13.6% in Wales, only slightly less than the 14.1% they polled in England.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
From the point of view of Out, it would be good if this got a lot of publicity.
Not sure why a "mandatory system" to which the UK not only has an opt-out but is also using its opt-out is good for Out?
If anything it shows the EU wants to do something unpopular but the government is blocking it, which is precisely what Cameron is supposed to be negotiating for.
@michaelsavage: Amazingly brazen raid on Labour union funding in Queen's Speech. But if you get a majority, you can do this stuff. How will Labour respond?
@patrickwintour: New to me: Govt to require union members to contract in to pay political levy - will cut income to union political funds, and so to Labour
What happens if the UK votes to stay in the EU but Scotland or Wales votes to come out?
As currently formulated, nothing. Works both ways.
It wouldn't surprise me if the anti-EU vote in Wales turns out to be higher than in England. Not sure about Scotland.
I certainly think it's a lazy assumption that the Scots or Welsh are ideologically committed to the EU. The remaining 1975 "no" adherents on the left must be somewhere - worried about pressure on wages, etc.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
@patrickwintour: New to me: Govt to require union members to contract in to pay political levy - will cut income to union political funds, and so to Labour
@patrickwintour: New to me: Govt to require union members to contract in to pay political levy - will cut income to union political funds, and so to Labour
Weren't we already on a opt-in system?
Definitely should be. Unions are supposed to represent people's interests at work, people should be free to get that representation without getting party politics that they don't necessarily believe in.
@patrickwintour: New to me: Govt to require union members to contract in to pay political levy - will cut income to union political funds, and so to Labour
Seems very sensible to hold the vote as soon as possible. Whatever anyone says, uncertainty cannot be a good thing so the decision needs to be made. It will be interesting what the No campaign says about support for agriculture and rural areas which have received European aid. At present, I will be voting aye and it will take a very strong argument for me to vote nay.
@patrickwintour: New to me: Govt to require union members to contract in to pay political levy - will cut income to union political funds, and so to Labour
If the unions were sensible they'd have a system where the members who pay into the levy would also vote for which parties the money was to go to, and the money was split in those proportions - for instance it might be 60% Labour, 25% Conservatives, 15% others.
Parties other than Labour would get a reason to take the unions' views more seriously, the unions would get more influence, and it would be a genuinely more democratic process. It would also be hard for parties other than Labour to complain about it.
However, as it would mean breaking the utterly destructive link between the unions and Labour, it won't happen.
What happens if the UK votes to stay in the EU but Scotland or Wales votes to come out?
As currently formulated, nothing. Works both ways.
It's more likely to be the other way round. Scotland likely to want to stay in even if England/Wales/NI vote to leave and that would be a good reason to demand IndyRef 2. Gibraltar also likely to want to stay in, causing some headaches.
I wonder how Ed Miliband feels as he watches the Queen's Speech: by all rights it should have been his programme being announced.
How quickly we forget...
EMWNBPM
By all rights Ed's programme was NEVER going to be announced
And there was much rejoicing
I was talking from his perspective. I have little doubt he believed he should, and would, be PM.
Besides, there was always a chance that he would be PM, either in his own right or as part of a coalition. There were many open goals in the previous government's programme, and Ed and his team missed most of them.
I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!
I'm not in favour of abolishing it. I see no good reason for ring-fencing it.
Comments
Top table Con, Lab, SNP.
Lib Dems lining up with the Greens and UKIP for a brief "go to" piece.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/32698190
"Away from the press conference, the US department of Justice has released a statement to the media saying 14 defendants have been charged with "racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies" over a 24-year period.
Four individual defendants and two corporate defendants have pleaded guilty.
Acting US attorney Kelly T Currie said: "After decades of what the indictment alleges to be brazen corruption, organised international soccer needs a new start.
"It needs a new chance for its governing institutions to provide honest oversight and support of a sport that is beloved across the world, increasingly so here in the United States.
"Let me be clear: this indictment is not the final chapter in our investigation." "
That way leads to Brownian socialism. We'll increase spending on this, its only £5 a head. We'll increase spending on that, its only £20 a head. We should do that together its only £25 a head.
All those numbers add up. Its totally disingenuous to take a number in isolation on a per head basis.
Question for the US experts on here.
With the arrest of the FIFA members this morning. Sky news seem to be saying that as Sepp Blatter hasn't been collared, he looks to be ok.
Is it the case that the US are using the same tactics as they did with the Mafia and going for the smaller fish first and threaten them with long prison sentences to encourage squealing on the bigger fish.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/7-monster-raving-loony-party-5644717
In the second (longer) Time Trial of 53.5km he did it in 1h04'13". That's equivalent to a 50.15km Hour on open roads, exposed to the weather and undulating the entire way. I would have expected him to do a 58km Hour in that form. At the time he probably had a blood haemo level of a seriously EPO doped Armstrong after 18 months sleeping in an oxygen tent (which as far as I'm aware he hasn't done since).
4) Seek reparations from France for the Norman Conquest.#
With compound interest it will solve our debt problem..
# following the example of the Greeks...
Edited extra bit: although it's worth remembering that modern history isn't my strong point.
If you want to spend more when you see what the numbers mean in perspective then maybe you're a Brownian socialist at heart...
"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32894624
2010 General Election - lost
2011 AV referendun - lost
2014 Indy Ref - won (but heavily overshadowed by Dan Snow and Bob Geldof)
2015 General Election - lost (very badly in Scotland)
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: Are ya mean?
PB Tories: YEAH!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU?
PB Tories: LEAN AND MEAN!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU? Rob D! TSE! Get on the ready line, PB Tories, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badasses! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!
Qatar is a joke though. Even the daftest FIFA official should have seen that as a step too far.
Its not just the World Cup venues though, South Africa lost out big time to line FIFAs pockets: FIFA exported the profits and left a £2 billion pound bill. All that corporate sponsorship went to FIFA rather than SA.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/jan/18/south-africa-africa-cup-of-nation
Would you be happy with David Cameron appointing you as the new English Viceroy of Northern Ireland?
The natives aren't civilised enough to govern themselves
Laying Liz has never been more tempting...
Whichever it is, it is clear that the people making the decisions should not be in position. Such costly incompetence or corruption should cost them their jobs.
The price on Yvette Cooper in particular looks ludicrously long.
I hope you know who Maurice, Flavius Phocas and Heraclius are.
And that is even before IS bids for control...
The legal advice was that:
"Community law is required to take precedence over domestic law: i.e. if a Community law conflicts with a statute, it is the statute which has to give way. This is something not implied in other commitments which we have entered into in the past. Previous treaties have imposed on us obligations which have requiredus to legislate in order to fulfil the international obligations set out in the treaty, but any discrepancy between our legislation and the treaty obligations has been solely a question of a possible breach of those international obligations the conflicting statute has still undoubtedly been the law to be applied in this country. But the community system requires that such Community Law as applies directly as law in this country should by virtue of its own legal force as law in this country prevail over conflicting national legislation."
FCO file 30/1048
Scotland voted to stay part of the UK and the Tories won a majority at the GE.
How has your last 9 months been?
I'd be concerned if he wasn't.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/maps/map12.htm
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2bw9Vz2-cs
Hopefully they'll do it properly this time.
On topic: Initially I really disliked the undemocratic setup of the EU with the Parliament rubberstamping dictats from the bureaucrats and ministers so I was glad to see the EU Parliament asserting itself more a few years back. If the Parliament was the governing body and the bureaucrats and ministers playing second fiddle then I would be happier.
By inclination I am a BOO voter, but pragmatically I can appreciate the advantages of EU membership although I still think that the Euro is a total fudge and best avoided. Unless someone comes up with something spectacular I shall be voting to stay in and holding my nose whilst I do so
It must hurt him.
11.15 SNP MPs in fit of symbolism
SNP MPs will wear a white rose in their lapels today. In the seventeenth century, the Jacobites took up the White Rose of York as their symbol, marking the birth of King James III and VIII.
The SNP press office says the symbol is an acknowledgement of the poem by Hugh MacDiarmid, the Scottish nationalist poet, the Little White Rose of Scotland.
The rose of all the world is not for me
I want for my part
Only the little white rose of Scotland
That smells sharp and sweet - and breaks the heart.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/queens-speech/11632050/Queens-Speech-2015-Live.html
The budget and all other expenditure is reported in millions or billions per annum, not per capita. Its disingenuous to refer to only one issue you care about in a non-standard method in order to spin its costs as being insignificant. You need to be consistent with everything if that's how you want to do it. Present the budget on a per capita rather than national per annum basis.
EMWNBPM
By all rights Ed's programme was NEVER going to be announced
And there was much rejoicing
Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.
They look like they're off to a wedding
If anything it shows the EU wants to do something unpopular but the government is blocking it, which is precisely what Cameron is supposed to be negotiating for.
Why not go the whole hog and have a farting contest too.
England: 68.7%
Wales: 64.8%
Scotland: 58.4%
NI: 52.1%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975#National_.26_regional_results
*snigger*
Parties other than Labour would get a reason to take the unions' views more seriously, the unions would get more influence, and it would be a genuinely more democratic process. It would also be hard for parties other than Labour to complain about it.
However, as it would mean breaking the utterly destructive link between the unions and Labour, it won't happen.
Gibraltar also likely to want to stay in, causing some headaches.
How long before Nige publicly contradicts him?
So another legacy of the 5 year failed Miliband experiment is a cut in party funding for Labour.
Will this encourage the men in grey suits to actually wield the knife in future?
Besides, there was always a chance that he would be PM, either in his own right or as part of a coalition. There were many open goals in the previous government's programme, and Ed and his team missed most of them.