There's no obligation to have a by-election is there if an MP becomes Mayor, its up to them to chose to stand down or not? From the sounds of it, Zac seeking consent seems to mean to me that he might not stand down and would seek to do both jobs.
That seems probable. Maybe he'll have multiple options. 'Yes, I consent', 'No', and 'Yes, but only if you stand down here'.
Exactly.
Without an obligation to stand down (which many other nations have) I personally never understood why they did. Being the Mayor and an MP would surely give you an even greater voice - able to stand up to represent London in the Commons.
The downside is you're not full time representing your own constituents but that's the same for all Ministers. If Cameron is able to stand up for representing the entire UK and Witney, if Hunt can represent the NHS and South West Surrey, why can't Goldsmith represent London and Richmond Park?
The pay, for one thing. The London Mayor gets £143k for what, it is now clear, is very much a part-time job. This is slightly more than the PM gets.
Either the mayoralty is a full-time job worth the money, or it is part-time and should be paid for as such. Even better, look into the post to see whether it's really needed. Both Boris and Ken treated it more as an extension of their personalities than an important job.
What a ridiculous waste of money - Sounds like a good opportunity for making some cuts then.
Zac could run committing to take a ministerial salary (which is what would be appropriate) rather than both salaries in full.
Utterly agree. The London mayoralty is rapidly becoming a laughing stock.
There are far too many highly-paid people in public service. Time to introduce Jessop's fourth law of government: no public servant gets paid more from the state, in total for all jobs, than the PM.
Immigrants all over Europe of UK origin makes sense when it was described as just the UK general election franchise, adding Gibraltar seems completely out of left field.
Gibraltar is a part of the European Union, by virtue of the Crown in right of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. If we leave, Gibraltar leaves. It is absolutely right that those in Gibraltar should have a vote. It is not the slightest bit "left field".
Four London Tory MPs lost their seats at the general election. Maybe they might try to resume their parliamentary careers as MP for Richmond Park if Zac Goldsmith stands down.
Immigrants all over Europe of UK origin makes sense when it was described as just the UK general election franchise, adding Gibraltar seems completely out of left field.
Gibraltar is a part of the European Union, by virtue of the Crown in right of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. If we leave, Gibraltar leaves. It is absolutely right that those in Gibraltar should have a vote. It is not the slightest bit "left field".
What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Will they be voting in the EU referendum?
I really don't know about disability benefits. But I would imagine that if your family gets benefits for having a disabled child aged 17 in school, then there should not be a difference when they reach 18 and leave school. But if they don't then I don't see that reaching 18 should make a difference. I hope that makes sense. But this is not my area of knowledge so perhaps someone else can explain the position.
A friend of mine is from a mining family in South Yorkshire. She was the first from her family to go to university, but whilst there she became ill. She managed to get a reasonable degree, but soon afterwards became incapacitated with ME and another illness, in which state she has remained for well over a decade. Her family are poor, and the state pays for her.
I know her well (and from before she became ill), and it is one hundred percent genuine. At school she was in the RAF junior scheme (whose name I forget). She has had no chance to pay into any contributory scheme.
If she could, she would work. I see her as a classic example of the welfare safety net. Her benefits are expensive to the state, but I see it as vital we as a society continue to pay for people like her.
Others sadly differ.
So what do you think should happen in this situation?
I am not going to comment on an individual case like this without knowing all the facts. As I put it to NPalmer just now, there are always exceptions and a civilized society helps the most vulnerable. But most other civilized societies in Europe have a far greater contributory element and people are not starving to death because they have no money.
I too have a child who for a number of years has been suffering from a serious and likely life-long illness which may make it harder than it is for others for him to work. (I clearly hope not and am doing everything possible to ensure that this is not the outcome.) I am supporting my child (and it costs me a great deal and may well mean that I will work for far longer than in my ideal world I would want to). That is what being a parent means. I simply would not dream of no longer supporting my child simply because he is over the age of 18 and therefore notionally an adult and expecting others to pay for him.
There are plenty of us in this position and plenty who look after partners or parents or others. I am doing nothing special and nothing that would not be seen as entirely normal amongst my Italian family. Indeed they would regard it as bizarre and wrong if I were not to do this, if I were to discharge my family responsibilities onto strangers, regardless of what level of income I have.
I do not think it a bad default assumption to make that (a) families should be responsible for their members and (b) that responsibility lasts a lifetime.
What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Will they be voting in the EU referendum?
They have a different relationship to the EU than Gibraltrar. The treaties apply to Gibraltar (see art. 355(3) TFEU and declaration 55 to the Treaties). In the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, there is a much more limited relationship (see article 355(5)(c) TFEU).
Ken Clarke (Con-Rushcliffe) making a passionate speech that the United Kingdom should be governed from Brussels. He also confirms that Treaty change is impossible.
Kate Hoey making an excellent speech, supporting the Bill, opposing special treatment for children at this referendum without changing the parliamentary franchise, and raising the crucial question about whether the European Commission will be subject to the same campaign regulation as every one else.
I am not going to comment on an individual case like this without knowing all the facts. As I put it to NPalmer just now, there are always exceptions and a civilized society helps the most vulnerable. But most other civilized societies in Europe have a far greater contributory element and people are not starving to death because they have no money.
I too have a child who for a number of years has been suffering from a serious and likely life-long illness which may make it harder than it is for others for him to work. (I clearly hope not and am doing everything possible to ensure that this is not the outcome.) I am supporting my child (and it costs me a great deal and may well mean that I will work for far longer than in my ideal world I would want to). That is what being a parent means. I simply would not dream of no longer supporting my child simply because he is over the age of 18 and therefore notionally an adult and expecting others to pay for him.
There are plenty of us in this position and plenty who look after partners or parents or others. I am doing nothing special and nothing that would not be seen as entirely normal amongst my Italian family. Indeed they would regard it as bizarre and wrong if I were not to do this, if I were to discharge my family responsibilities onto strangers, regardless of what level of income I have.
I do not think it a bad default assumption to make that (a) families should be responsible for their members and (b) that responsibility lasts a lifetime.
I agree that is the ideal, and many people do: there are hundreds of thousands of people who act as carers for loved ones, whether disabled, elderly or other. And this happens whether they are Italian, British, or a.n.other. These people save the state countless millions and they deserve more appreciation.
But there are times when that is not possible: the costs of care are too great for a family to withstand (we cannot all be on good salaries), or even the people concerned don't have any family.
Your argument appears to be that (and forgive me if I've got this wrong) we've swung too far in the non-contributory direction. That might be correct. But we have to be very careful that any changes do not swing us too far the other way.
It's far from easy to strike a balance, as there probably is not an ideal position. Someone will always be taking advantage, and someone will always be hurt.
And a final point: you said: "But most other civilized societies in Europe have a far greater contributory element "
I'm thinking of running for mayor with just a single policy: that the Mayor of London be paid three times what the Prime Minister is paid, as running London is so much more important than implementing Brussel's directives.
As a matter of interest; apart from being a posh Tory, is there any reason to believe that Zac Goldsmith will make a decent mayor of London? He always struck me as a young man that has never finished his gap year through inheriting loadsamoney.
Like Nat Rothschild, he's a young man who doesn't look very much like a young man anymore.
Taxi drivers, I would have thought, would be as horrified by Nat as they were by Boris and Ken: he is, after all, yet another car hating greenie...
I'm thinking of running for mayor with just a single policy: that the Mayor of London be paid three times what the Prime Minister is paid, as running London is so much more important than implementing Brussel's directives.
Who'll vote for me?
I'll vote for you to become mayor of the Maunsell Forts. ;-)
Ken Clarke (Con-Rushcliffe) making a passionate speech that the United Kingdom should be governed from Brussels. He also confirms that Treaty change is impossible.
Do you often use the verb 'confirm' to mean 'expresses the opinion that'?
I agree that is the ideal, and many people do: there are hundreds of thousands of people who act as carers for loved ones, whether disabled, elderly or other. And this happens whether they are Italian, British, or a.n.other. These people save the state countless millions and they deserve more appreciation.
But there are times when that is not possible: the costs of care are too great for a family to withstand (we cannot all be on good salaries), or even the people concerned don't have any family.
Your argument appears to be that (and forgive me if I've got this wrong) we've swung too far in the non-contributory direction. That might be correct. But we have to be very careful that any changes do not swing us too far the other way.
It's far from easy to strike a balance, as there probably is not an ideal position. Someone will always be taking advantage, and someone will always be hurt.
And a final point: you said: "But most other civilized societies in Europe have a far greater contributory element "
Do you have links for that?
I do not disagree with any of that, save perhaps that I do not think that I deserve any sort of appreciation from the state because I do not think I am saving the state money. I do not think the state should be the primary carer. I am. The state spends money when this is not possible. And caring for your family is not dependant on having a good salary either. Plenty of - most - people do it because that is what families are for.
It is a difficult balance. I think we need to have a better realisation that the welfare pot needs to be paid for by all of us and we all need to put in before (ideally) we take out, if we take out at all. Only in this way can we really help those who like your friend need help - and do so generously. People have become too willing to demand entitlement purely because they can rather than because they really need the help: "I want" disguised as "I need" or "I am entitled to". See the ludicrous wailing of those on 3 or 4 times the average income at the loss of child benefit, for instance.
Re your last question, I'm sorry - I don't have links to hand. Someone on here (can't remember who) pointed out that in Germany if you hadn't contributed you only got a very basic benefit when unemployed.
Ken Clarke (Con-Rushcliffe) making a passionate speech that the United Kingdom should be governed from Brussels. He also confirms that Treaty change is impossible.
Do you often use the verb 'confirm' to mean 'expresses the opinion that'?
It's a classic irregular verb, Richard, you should know that.
Ken Clarke (Con-Rushcliffe) making a passionate speech that the United Kingdom should be governed from Brussels. He also confirms that Treaty change is impossible.
Do you often use the verb 'confirm' to mean 'expresses the opinion that'?
It's a classic irregular verb, Richard, you should know that.
Given how many times Treaty changes have been made, it's also untrue.
What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Will they be voting in the EU referendum?
They have a different relationship to the EU than Gibraltrar. The treaties apply to Gibraltar (see art. 355(3) TFEU and declaration 55 to the Treaties). In the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, there is a much more limited relationship (see article 355(5)(c) TFEU).
Why are the Tories obsessing about EU migrants and benefits? This is a non-issue or rather an issue which can easily be solved now by saying that no-one should get benefits until they have made 4 years worth of contributions. So long as the rule applies to the British as well there is no EU issue at all as there is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
Cameron should be concentrating on more important issues we have with the EU than this.
Does that include being a student/at school? Just asking.
There is an argument for saying that no-one should get anything out of the welfare system unless they have put something in. You could extend that to say that if your parents have contributed that should benefit the child. Equally, if a school leaver has parents, then many would argue that the obligation to support the child should rest with them and not the rest of us.
But the EU point is that this is something for us. If we had such a "contribute to get benefits" rule then there would be no problem with applying it to Poles as much as the British. I do not see it as a vital British interest to argue for the right to discriminate against Poles working here and it is pathetic if this is what the argument with the EU resolves itself into.
Much of the anti-Europe feeling is about immigration. UKIP amongst other bangs on on this point voiciferously. (Worth noting that remaining in the EEA continues freedom of movement).
So I see why that is the hot topic. Few other issues about Europe crop up in conversation apart from with committed europhobes.
I think immigration is a local issue, like bypasses etc,. Those affected (and those who sympathise) are very troubled by it, those unnaffected (or indeed advantaged) aren't bothered.
What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Will they be voting in the EU referendum?
They have a different relationship to the EU than Gibraltrar. The treaties apply to Gibraltar (see art. 355(3) TFEU and declaration 55 to the Treaties). In the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, there is a much more limited relationship (see article 355(5)(c) TFEU).
It seems that the Channel Islands are part of the EU for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes.
Perhaps UKIP could form a shell company based in Jersey that owns the UK, so that we become a dependency of them for legal purposes!
Well, in the first place the Channel Islands were part of the UK for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes - so not much has changed. To repeat once again as far as EU referendums go, it might make sense for outers to agree amongst themselves on what they mean by OUT and how they think they can achieve it and how much better it will be than the revised position of being IN.
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
Hmmm. On the other hand, a valid anti-EU argument is that they keep on asking questions until they get the right answer. Such a message might give the same impression: we'll keep on having referenda until the 'right' answer is reached.
Then again, there's no perfect soundbite message. ;-)
Not really sure why MPs seem (if reports of comments are accurate) to feel the need to have a practise run of the referendum arguments now, they'll have plenty of time for that later. As it is, even when I was in favour of In I wanted there to be a vote on the matter, that's all that matters right now.
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
Maybe. Not convinced. "NO" needs to have a convincing answer to "I work for Nissan. What does this mean for my job?" Or even "I work in a US bank. Will I lose my job if they move their EU headquarters to Paris?" Or "I sell my product to customers in Germany. Will I have to pay customs charges?" Or even "Can I go on holiday to Spain or will I need a visa?"
Interesting show from HSBC today. A bank ruthlessly seeking dividend or in trouble ?
Not sure you are off topic considering that they are head-quartered in London. If you look at the BBC story and their assets and their staff numbers only Chinese banks seem to have bigger numbers, significantly bigger for lower assets. As its CEO claims, global banking is extremely competitive. HSBC was a bank that escaped the fall out from the crash in 2008, but it has still clearly got problems. It also wants to change its name in the UK which suggests its brand is not shining with virtue. I think what this also points out is that the UK economy after the crash (with its especial effects on banking) is not as big as was thought pre crash. The banking profits and the resulting taxes are not going to return as otherwise they might have been expected to after a 'normal' recession. I am sure others can comment better, but when we look at the LIBOR fixing that went on under Ed Balls' nose and which gave nice bonuses and taxes then I do not think we should be surprised that the banking sector has turned out to be smaller than thought.
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
Maybe. Not convinced. "NO" needs to have a convincing answer to "I work for Nissan. What does this mean for my job?" Or even "I work in a US bank. Will I lose my job if they move their EU headquarters to Paris?" Or "I sell my product to customers in Germany. Will I have to pay customs charges?" Or even "Can I go on holiday to Spain or will I need a visa?"
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
Hmmm. On the other hand, a valid anti-EU argument is that they keep on asking questions until they get the right answer. Such a message might give the same impression: we'll keep on having referenda until the 'right' answer is reached.
Then again, there's no perfect soundbite message. ;-)
Well it wasn't completely loathed, so I'm delighted.
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
Maybe. Not convinced. "NO" needs to have a convincing answer to "I work for Nissan. What does this mean for my job?" Or even "I work in a US bank. Will I lose my job if they move their EU headquarters to Paris?" Or "I sell my product to customers in Germany. Will I have to pay customs charges?" Or even "Can I go on holiday to Spain or will I need a visa?"
Well, in the first place the Channel Islands were part of the UK for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes - so not much has changed. To repeat once again as far as EU referendums go, it might make sense for outers to agree amongst themselves on what they mean by OUT and how they think they can achieve it and how much better it will be than the revised position of being IN.
Of course, there would be some uncertainty about the UK's future relationship with the European Union should there be a "No" vote. What is clear is that there will be end to the direct effect and supremacy of EU law, an end to binding status being given to the caprice of the European Court of Justice, and a repatriation of the vast majority of competences currently exercise by the European Union institutions set out in articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 TFEU. The list could go on. The treaties provide a mechanism for exit (article 50 TEU) which ensures we could be out in two years; self-government having been restored.
Interesting show from HSBC today. A bank ruthlessly seeking dividend or in trouble ?
Not sure you are off topic considering that they are head-quartered in London. If you look at the BBC story and their assets and their staff numbers only Chinese banks seem to have bigger numbers, significantly bigger for lower assets. As its CEO claims, global banking is extremely competitive. HSBC was a bank that escaped the fall out from the crash in 2008, but it has still clearly got problems. It also wants to change its name in the UK which suggests its brand is not shining with virtue. I think what this also points out is that the UK economy after the crash (with its especial effects on banking) is not as big as was thought pre crash. The banking profits and the resulting taxes are not going to return as otherwise they might have been expected to after a 'normal' recession. I am sure others can comment better, but when we look at the LIBOR fixing that went on under Ed Balls' nose and which gave nice bonuses and taxes then I do not think we should be surprised that the banking sector has turned out to be smaller than thought.
All banks are ruthlessly rethinking their strategies right now. All of them, whether they announce this or not. It is a good thing because too many of them got too large, did too many things, many of them not well and caused a lot of grief when it all went wrong. It's the inevitable next step once they sorted out their capital positions and once they realised how much some of those activities have cost them (fines etc).
And governments have made it harder to make money from overly risky or marginal activities so only the very best will be able to survive.
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
Maybe. Not convinced. "NO" needs to have a convincing answer to "I work for Nissan. What does this mean for my job?" Or even "I work in a US bank. Will I lose my job if they move their EU headquarters to Paris?" Or "I sell my product to customers in Germany. Will I have to pay customs charges?" Or even "Can I go on holiday to Spain or will I need a visa?"
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
Maybe. Not convinced. "NO" needs to have a convincing answer to "I work for Nissan. What does this mean for my job?" Or even "I work in a US bank. Will I lose my job if they move their EU headquarters to Paris?" Or "I sell my product to customers in Germany. Will I have to pay customs charges?" Or even "Can I go on holiday to Spain or will I need a visa?"
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
Maybe. Not convinced. "NO" needs to have a convincing answer to "I work for Nissan. What does this mean for my job?" Or even "I work in a US bank. Will I lose my job if they move their EU headquarters to Paris?" Or "I sell my product to customers in Germany. Will I have to pay customs charges?" Or even "Can I go on holiday to Spain or will I need a visa?"
Re the previous thread on Scottish Labour: am I the only one who thinks they should get Johann Lamont back? I always thought she was rather good, very no nonsense.
A very interesting comment by Phil Hammond in the referendum debate:
"We need a fundamental change in the way the European Union operates. It is now a union which has at its core a eurozone of 19 members which will integrate more closely together.
"There needs to be an explicit recognition those who are not part of that core do not need to pursue ever closer union. There need to be an explicit protection of the interests of those non-eurozone members as the EU goes forward."
We might be heading towards the outcome I suggested three or four years ago, whereby we (and perhaps a few other non-Eurozone EU members) become semi-detached from the Eurozone core but retain influence over it. If so, that's potentially a very good outcome indeed, and one which is very much in Germany's interests, and those of the other Eurozone countries which really do need institutional change if the Euro area is to prosper.
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
Maybe. Not convinced. "NO" needs to have a convincing answer to "I work for Nissan. What does this mean for my job?" Or even "I work in a US bank. Will I lose my job if they move their EU headquarters to Paris?" Or "I sell my product to customers in Germany. Will I have to pay customs charges?" Or even "Can I go on holiday to Spain or will I need a visa?"
A very interesting comment by Phil Hammond in the referendum debate:
"We need a fundamental change in the way the European Union operates. It is now a union which has at its core a eurozone of 19 members which will integrate more closely together.
"There needs to be an explicit recognition those who are not part of that core do not need to pursue ever closer union. There need to be an explicit protection of the interests of those non-eurozone members as the EU goes forward."
We might be heading towards the outcome I suggested three or four years ago, whereby we (and perhaps a few other non-Eurozone EU members) become semi-detached from the Eurozone core but retain influence over it. If so, that's potentially a very good outcome indeed, and one which is very much in Germany's interests, and those of the other Eurozone countries which really do need institutional change if the Euro area is to prosper.
Perhaps ourselves, Denmark and Norway could 'swap' into the Euro for Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain. The sharp appreciation of Sterling against the Euro is threatening to play merry havoc with the company I work for's finances !
Update on Select Committee Chairs candidates....nominations added today to the list I posted this morning
Update
Scottish Affairs
Pete Wishart
Nominated by (own party) Angus Robertson, Stewart Hosie, Mike Weir, Drew Hendry, Kirsten Oswald, Dr Eilidh Whiteford
Nominated by (other parties) : no-one listed
Women and Equalities
Maria Miller
Nominated by (own party) Mrs Caroline Spelman, Sir Eric Pickles, Nick Herbert, Paul Maynard, Chloe Smith, Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Mr Nigel Evans, Mr David Jones, Richard Graham, James Berry, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Nicola Blackwood, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Fiona Bruce, Mr Keith Simpson
Nominated by (other parties) Frank Field, Meg Hillier, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Kate Green, Barry Gardiner
Media Culture and Sport
Graham Stuart
Nominated by (own party) Mrs Maria Miller, Nicola Blackwood, Craig Williams, Sir Alan Duncan, Mark Pritchard, Graham Evans, Iain Stewart, Mr Richard Bacon, Julian Knight, Maria Caulfield, Caroline Ansell, Andrew Bingham, Mr Geoffrey Cox, Mike Wood, David Warburton
Nominated by (other parties) Mr Jim Cunningham, Helen Jones, Mary Glindon, Angus Brendan MacNeil, Ian Blackford
Education
Caroline Nokes
Nominated by (own party) Mr Simon Burns, Dr Julian Lewis, Rebecca Harris, Andrew Bingham, Maria Caulfield, Mr Nigel Evans, Bob Stewart, Gareth Johnson, Chris White, Stephen Metcalfe, Andrew Griffiths, Sir Nicholas Soames, Mark Garnier, Heather Wheeler, Mrs Maria Miller
Nominated by (other parties) Alison McGovern, Mary Glindon, Dr Alan Whitehead, Ian Paisley, Kevin Barron
Public Accounts
Meg Hillier
Nominated by (own party) Gareth Thomas, Kate Osamor, Catherine West, Stephen Twigg, Siobhain McDonagh, Mrs Louise Ellman, Luciana Berger, Karin Smyth, Paul Blomfield, Carolyn Harris, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Mr Gavin Shuker, Thangam Debbonaire, Teresa Pearce, Mike Kane
Nominated by (other parties) Pauline Latham, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Mr Charles Walker, Simon Hoare, John Pugh
Science and Technology
Stephen Metcalfe
Nominated by (own party) Dr Liam Fox, Karen Lumley, Robert Neill, Rebecca Harris, Graham Stuart, Bob Stewart, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Chris Green, Jeremy Lefroy, Lucy Allan, John Glen, James Heappey, Fiona Bruce, Mr Andrew Turner, Anne Marie Morris
Nominated by (other parties) Graham Stringer, Carolyn Harris, Hywel Williams, Geraint Davies, Sammy Wilson
Dan Poulter
Nominated by (own party) Jo Churchill, Sir Paul Beresford, Peter Aldous, James Cartlidge, Mr Julian Brazier, Paul Scully, Mr Philip Hollobone, David Tredinnick, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Richard Graham, Sir David Amess, Mr Robert Syms, Bill Wiggin, Sir Greg Knight, Stephen Hammond
Nominated by (other parties) Angus Brendan MacNeil, Jon Cruddas, Ann Clwyd, Norman Lamb, Paul Flynn
Not sure if Wishart didn't ask anybody from other parties to sign his nomination paper or if no-one wanted to sign it.
Angus McNeil (who is standing for Energy Select Committee) has the 5 nominations from other parties (Huw Irranca-Davies, Alec Shelbrooke, Bill Wiggin, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
It seems that Mr Carmichael misstated his awareness of the leaked memorandum.
Irrespective of the actual legal merits of this case, I hope that becomes a euphemism for lying in future. Terminological inexactitude is so last century.
What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Will they be voting in the EU referendum?
They have a different relationship to the EU than Gibraltrar. The treaties apply to Gibraltar (see art. 355(3) TFEU and declaration 55 to the Treaties). In the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, there is a much more limited relationship (see article 355(5)(c) TFEU).
It seems that the Channel Islands are part of the EU for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes.
Perhaps UKIP could form a shell company based in Jersey that owns the UK, so that we become a dependency of them for legal purposes!
Well, in the first place the Channel Islands were part of the UK for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes - so not much has changed. To repeat once again as far as EU referendums go, it might make sense for outers to agree amongst themselves on what they mean by OUT and how they think they can achieve it and how much better it will be than the revised position of being IN.
The point is that ANY version of OUT is better than in.
My personal choice would be for EFTA membership as it is easy to explain (No change on trading terms - except we get our own seat on the trade bodies instead of a fraction of a seat via the EU - but outside all the non trading issues such as justice, CAP, CFP, defence, foreign policy, social policy and a host of other unwanted interference)
But even a separately negotiated trade agreement would be better than what we have now. The EU needs to trade with us just as much or more than we need to trade with them. So they are simply not able to shut the door on us. Moreover huge swathes of trade agreements are no longer defined by the EU but by the WTO - where again we would have a seat independent of the EU - and as such the EU would not be able to impose the sorts of barriers to trade that scaremongering Europhiles like to claim.
Given that EU membership is a very long way from being the most important factor for companies when they look at where to build factories or put investment capital, it is not difficult to find plenty of examples of how EU membership either has made no difference to investment and jobs or has actually made it worse.
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
No because for forty years the principle was that Parliament could unilaterally approve treaty changes passing new powers. New treaties like that require a referendum now.
Thatcher's Single European Act, Major's Maastricht etc were passed without a referendum, that's not the rule now.
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
Maybe. Not convinced. "NO" needs to have a convincing answer to "I work for Nissan. What does this mean for my job?" Or even "I work in a US bank. Will I lose my job if they move their EU headquarters to Paris?" Or "I sell my product to customers in Germany. Will I have to pay customs charges?" Or even "Can I go on holiday to Spain or will I need a visa?"
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
No because for forty years the principle was that Parliament could unilaterally approve treaty changes passing new powers. New treaties like that require a referendum now.
Thatcher's Single European Act, Major's Maastricht etc were passed without a referendum, that's not the rule now.
Parliaments can't bind their successors.
It has other uses too. You can state any desirable outcome of regaining our national sovereignty and say 'If not 'no', when?'
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
No because for forty years the principle was that Parliament could unilaterally approve treaty changes passing new powers. New treaties like that require a referendum now.
Thatcher's Single European Act, Major's Maastricht etc were passed without a referendum, that's not the rule now.
Says who? The Nice Treaty was passed without a referendum.
What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Will they be voting in the EU referendum?
They have a different relationship to the EU than Gibraltrar. The treaties apply to Gibraltar (see art. 355(3) TFEU and declaration 55 to the Treaties). In the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, there is a much more limited relationship (see article 355(5)(c) TFEU).
It seems that the Channel Islands are part of the EU for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes.
Perhaps UKIP could form a shell company based in Jersey that owns the UK, so that we become a dependency of them for legal purposes!
Well, in the first place the Channel Islands were part of the UK for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes - so not much has changed. To repeat once again as far as EU referendums go, it might make sense for outers to agree amongst themselves on what they mean by OUT and how they think they can achieve it and how much better it will be than the revised position of being IN.
The point is that ANY version of OUT is better than in.
My personal choice would be for EFTA membership as it is easy to explain (No change on trading terms - except we get our own seat on the trade bodies instead of a fraction of a seat via the EU - but outside all the non trading issues such as justice, CAP, CFP, defence, foreign policy, social policy and a host of other unwanted interference)
What would you say if Norway decided to join the EU on the basis of the newly formalised non-Eurozone status?
Maybe. Not convinced. "NO" needs to have a convincing answer to "I work for Nissan. What does this mean for my job?" Or even "I work in a US bank. Will I lose my job if they move their EU headquarters to Paris?" Or "I sell my product to customers in Germany. Will I have to pay customs charges?" Or even "Can I go on holiday to Spain or will I need a visa?"
If anyone asked me that, I'd ask them to speak to a laid off van factory worker from Southampton, who lost their job because of a taxpayer funded EU development aid loan to Ford to fund it's NON EU Turkey based plant.
Delighted you agree. Hope you'll do the right thing when it comes to it - after all, if not 'No', when?
Irony never works well on the internet. Sadly.
Yes, I'm sure in person 'hmmmm' would have been positively Wildean.
Let me be blunt. The "No" campaign has a lot of work to do. Telling someone worried about their job that the EU put someone out of work because of some plant in Turkey so leaving it can't be any worse does not strike me as a winning answer. Sovereignty and self-government are all very fine but a lot of people couldn't care less about self-government if it means they'll be unemployed.
"No" have to show why staying in will be worse than now and that being "Out" will be better than staying in. And they have to do it in a pithy and believable way by people who don't seem either loony or obsessed. (This is not a dig at you.)
I'm not a particular fan of the EU. I've become less of a fan as time goes on. But I have no idea how things will be were we to leave and I don't think anyone on the No side (publicly) has ever given a coherent answer to this question. Unless they do, they risk the same fate as the "Yes to Independence" campaign in Scotland which was equally unable to give a coherent answer to the currency question.
In case you missed this afternoon’s debate on the EU referendum, here’s a transcript.
Philip Hammond: “The—” Tory MPs: “Will my right honourable friend give way?”
Philip Hammond: “British—” Tory MPs: “Will my right honourable friend give way?”
Philip Hammond: “People—” Tory MPs: “Will my right honourable friend give way?”
Philip Hammond: “Have—” Tory MPs: “Will my right honourable friend give way?”
To be fair, Tories weren’t the only ones shoving their oars into the Foreign Secretary’s opening speech. But it was interesting to watch a minister being interrupted so frequently by his own side. Again and again they rose, their outstretched arms and imploring moans giving the chamber the feel of a zombie film. Mr Hammond could barely stagger to the end of a phrase without a colleague rearing up to tell him how wrong or right he was...
In the end, the only thing everyone agreed on was that the referendum would be decided not by politicians but by “the British people”. I’ll be impressed if the British people can get a word in edgeways.
I've just realised that when thinking of Zac Goldsmith I've been picturing Tristram Hunt's face, even though I know who Tristram Hunt is and so should have been able not to confuse those particular two at least. I might be a posh-guy racist.
"Tried to intervene on Foreign Secretary 40 times,” huffed Mr Carswell on Twitter. Forty? That’s only once a minute. A true Kipper would have been springing up and down like Zebedee on a trampoline.
Mr. kle4, you may have contracted Milibandausen By Proxy. Have you recently started describing private firms as predators or producers?
I did comment today that one characteristic of large private enterprises would be to treat its employees even more like crap than anyone else. I may need to read and be horrified by some Guardian comments to swing back the other way.
I've just realised that when thinking of Zac Goldsmith I've been picturing Tristram Hunt's face, even though I know who Tristram Hunt is and so should have been able not to confuse those particular two at least. I might be a posh-guy racist.
One of the arguments put forward for repatriating human rights is that British judges will be more sensible. But when one reads stories like this I wonder. It was exactly this sort of racism of low expectations which led social workers to miss or ignore the abuse doled out to poor Victoria Climbie.
One of the arguments put forward for repatriating human rights is that British judges will be more sensible. But when one reads stories like this I wonder. It was exactly this sort of racism of low expectations which led social workers to miss or ignore the abuse doled out to poor Victoria Climbie.
EU referendum: Rules 'rigged' towards Yes vote, former Tory Cabinet minister says As the EU referendum Bill is debated in Parliament today, Owen Paterson says using taxpayer money to support the government's favoured outcome would be 'illegitimate'
Re the previous thread on Scottish Labour: am I the only one who thinks they should get Johann Lamont back? I always thought she was rather good, very no nonsense.
I think Lamont hated every minute of being SLab leader. Her tweets since giving up the post has been a revelation, every indication of a witty, pleasantly normal person.
What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Will they be voting in the EU referendum?
They have a different relationship to the EU than Gibraltrar. The treaties apply to Gibraltar (see art. 355(3) TFEU and declaration 55 to the Treaties). In the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, there is a much more limited relationship (see article 355(5)(c) TFEU).
It seems that the Channel Islands are part of the EU for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes.
Perhaps UKIP could form a shell company based in Jersey that owns the UK, so that we become a dependency of them for legal purposes!
Well, in the first place the Channel Islands were part of the UK for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes - so not much has changed. To repeat once again as far as EU referendums go, it might make sense for outers to agree amongst themselves on what they mean by OUT and how they think they can achieve it and how much better it will be than the revised position of being IN.
The point is that ANY version of OUT is better than in.
I think you are in a very significant minority with that view. I hate much about the EU, and the arrogance of Eurocrats and those who push "the Project" regardless of the democratic deficit it entails. I despise those who say that leaving will put 5 million jobs at risk.
And yet...
Leaving on any terms at all, as you would accept, is just too much of a leap into the dark. Any departure has to be demonstrably for the better. That case is not being made. It will not be made by Farage. It is hard to see who else has the intellectual weight to get that case heard.
One of the arguments put forward for repatriating human rights is that British judges will be more sensible. But when one reads stories like this I wonder. It was exactly this sort of racism of low expectations which led social workers to miss or ignore the abuse doled out to poor Victoria Climbie.
If a case comes to court, at least there is the possibility of appeal. But what statements like this one will likely lead to is police forces and social services thinking that there is no point investigating matters because the courts will not take them seriously. So a girl complains of sexual abuse by a recent Asian immigrant and the police and social services decide that the "cultural context" of that immigrant (i.e. the fact that he thinks white girls are sexual trash to be used however he wants) should be taken into account and the complainant is ignored.
And "recent" immigrants learn the lesson that they have no obligation to adapt to the mores, let alone the laws, of the country they have chosen to live in.
This is how, slowly, the links binding us together as a nation get frayed.
What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Will they be voting in the EU referendum?
They have a different relationship to the EU than Gibraltrar. The treaties apply to Gibraltar (see art. 355(3) TFEU and declaration 55 to the Treaties). In the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, there is a much more limited relationship (see article 355(5)(c) TFEU).
It seems that the Channel Islands are part of the EU for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes.
Perhaps UKIP could form a shell company based in Jersey that owns the UK, so that we become a dependency of them for legal purposes!
Well, in the first place the Channel Islands were part of the UK for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes - so not much has changed. To repeat once again as far as EU referendums go, it might make sense for outers to agree amongst themselves on what they mean by OUT and how they think they can achieve it and how much better it will be than the revised position of being IN.
The point is that ANY version of OUT is better than in.
I think you are in a very significant minority with that view. I hate much about the EU, and the arrogance of Eurocrats and those who push "the Project" regardless of the democratic deficit it entails. I despise those who say that leaving will put 5 million jobs at risk.
And yet...
Leaving on any terms at all, as you would accept, is just too much of a leap into the dark. Any departure has to be demonstrably for the better. That case is not being made. It will not be made by Farage. It is hard to see who else has the intellectual weight to get that case heard.
Actually, for better or worse (given how he is viewed by much of the population) that is exactly the case being made by Farage. He is rejecting the EFTA option and instead is aiming for full exit with subsequent trade agreements. As I say it is not my view - I would prefer the EFTA route - but to say it is not being advocated by significant numbers of OUT supporters incuding some of their leaders is not correct.
What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Will they be voting in the EU referendum?
They have a different relationship to the EU than Gibraltrar. The treaties apply to Gibraltar (see art. 355(3) TFEU and declaration 55 to the Treaties). In the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, there is a much more limited relationship (see article 355(5)(c) TFEU).
It seems that the Channel Islands are part of the EU for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes.
Perhaps UKIP could form a shell company based in Jersey that owns the UK, so that we become a dependency of them for legal purposes!
Well, in the first place the Channel Islands were part of the UK for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes - so not much has changed. To repeat once again as far as EU referendums go, it might make sense for outers to agree amongst themselves on what they mean by OUT and how they think they can achieve it and how much better it will be than the revised position of being IN.
The point is that ANY version of OUT is better than in.
My personal choice would be for EFTA membership as it is easy to explain (No change on trading terms - except we get our own seat on the trade bodies instead of a fraction of a seat via the EU - but outside all the non trading issues such as justice, CAP, CFP, defence, foreign policy, social policy and a host of other unwanted interference)
What would you say if Norway decided to join the EU on the basis of the newly formalised non-Eurozone status?
They won't. The Eurozone is the least of the reasons they object to EU membership and that opposition is now at an all time high in the polls. Fishing, agriculture and energy policy are all far more important to the Norwegians than Eurozone membership and they could have long ago negotiated a non Eurozone membership as the Norwegian government wanted had it not been for the massive opposition by the Norwegian people.
Andy Burnham's attempts to portray himself as a man of the people backfired today when he was exposed for not knowing the price of petrol.
The Labour leadership hopeful said he thought a litre of unleaded costed £1.60. But according to the latest government figures the average forecourt price is currently around £1.16p...
Today he admitted he had spoken to Unite boss 'Red' Len McCluskey last week about the leadership election...
Mr Burnham appeared to position himself as the 'heir to Ed' as he praised Labour's election manifesto as the 'best' of all those he had stood on as a Labour candidate since he was elected in 2001.
He said: 'I say it was the best manifesto I have stood on in the four general elections I have stood for Labour.'
'I pay tribute to Ed Miliband. He did something important in refocusing our party on inequality'.
What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Will they be voting in the EU referendum?
They have a different relationship to the EU than Gibraltrar. The treaties apply to Gibraltar (see art. 355(3) TFEU and declaration 55 to the Treaties). In the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, there is a much more limited relationship (see article 355(5)(c) TFEU).
It seems that the Channel Islands are part of the EU for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes.
Perhaps UKIP could form a shell company based in Jersey that owns the UK, so that we become a dependency of them for legal purposes!
Well, in the first place the Channel Islands were part of the UK for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes - so not much has changed. To repeat once again as far as EU referendums go, it might make sense for outers to agree amongst themselves on what they mean by OUT and how they think they can achieve it and how much better it will be than the revised position of being IN.
The point is that ANY version of OUT is better than in.
My personal choice would be for EFTA membership as it is easy to explain (No change on trading terms - except we get our own seat on the trade bodies instead of a fraction of a seat via the EU - but outside all the non trading issues such as justice, CAP, CFP, defence, foreign policy, social policy and a host of other unwanted interference)
What would you say if Norway decided to join the EU on the basis of the newly formalised non-Eurozone status?
They won't. The Eurozone is the least of the reasons they object to EU membership and that opposition is now at an all time high in the polls. Fishing, agriculture and energy policy are all far more important to the Norwegians than Eurozone membership and they could have long ago negotiated a non Eurozone membership as the Norwegian government wanted had it not been for the massive opposition by the Norwegian people.
Interesting. What is it that you think is more important to Britain than, say, membership of the non-Eurozone? Financial services might be one, though I doubt that it is important to many people in Britain outside those who work in the sector.
What is the British equivalent of the Norwegian people's red lines?
This judge needs to be sacked immediately. Hopefully there'll be an online petition to set the process in motion.
The Judge can only be sacked by Her Majesty on an Address of both Houses of Parliament (Senior Courts Act 1981, s. 11(3)). It hasn't happened since the early nineteenth century and won't happen now. I would prefer to read the full judgment rather than an account in the press. Pauffley J cannot really have been suggesting that a person's cultural background entitles him to break the criminal law or commit a tort. At common law, parents may reasonably chastise their children provided they do not cause them actual bodily harm (Children Act 2004, s. 58(2)). The Judge specifically held, according to that article, that the hurt suffered by the boy was transient. That means it cannot amount to actual bodily harm (R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498, 509 (CCA) per Swift J).
That Jack Warner $10m missing from FIFA could have made a huge impact on the women's World Cup if it had been spent on coaching the match officials. Very poor decisions so far.
Well, in the first place the Channel Islands were part of the UK for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes - so not much has changed. To repeat once again as far as EU referendums go, it might make sense for outers to agree amongst themselves on what they mean by OUT and how they think they can achieve it and how much better it will be than the revised position of being IN.
The point is that ANY version of OUT is better than in. My personal choice would be for EFTA membership as it is easy to explain (No change on trading terms - except we get our own seat on the trade bodies instead of a fraction of a seat via the EU - but outside all the non trading issues such as justice, CAP, CFP, defence, foreign policy, social policy and a host of other unwanted interference) But even a separately negotiated trade agreement would be better than what we have now. The EU needs to trade with us just as much or more than we need to trade with them. So they are simply not able to shut the door on us. Moreover huge swathes of trade agreements are no longer defined by the EU but by the WTO - where again we would have a seat independent of the EU - and as such the EU would not be able to impose the sorts of barriers to trade that scaremongering Europhiles like to claim. Given that EU membership is a very long way from being the most important factor for companies when they look at where to build factories or put investment capital, it is not difficult to find plenty of examples of how EU membership either has made no difference to investment and jobs or has actually made it worse.
EFTA has no effective existence. You have to be in and abide by EEA rules to be 'in' EFTA, such as it is. I do not mind this, it keeps us out of 'ever closer union; it means however still being part of the single market and movement of Labour - rules as they are now, not as they might be if we stay a EU member. As for the rest - this is mostly what the negotiations are about, our relationship with the Eurozone and the inevitable monetary fiscal and political closer union. This closer union will happen if we leave and it might well happen not to our advantage. Your obsession with trade agreements and the WTO is pretty fanciful and in practice it would be interesting to see how we can be expected to end up with anything different as one country compared to a block like the EU where anything we see as our interests can be backed up with 450 million consumers. You have not really shown how we would be better off out, all you have done is show that you want out come what may.
EFTA has no effective existence. You have to be in and abide by EEA rules to be 'in' EFTA, such as it is. I do not mind this, it keeps us out of 'ever closer union; it means however still being part of the single market and movement of Labour - rules as they are now, not as they might be if we stay a EU member. As for the rest - this is mostly what the negotiations are about, our relationship with the Eurozone and the inevitable monetary fiscal and political closer union. This closer union will happen if we leave and it might well happen not to our advantage. Your obsession with trade agreements and the WTO is pretty fanciful and in practice it would be interesting to see how we can be expected to end up with anything different as one country compared to a block like the EU where anything we see as our interests can be backed up with 450 million consumers. You have not really shown how we would be better off out, all you have done is show that you want out come what may.
Er no I am afraid that you are completely wrong there. Fundamentally wrong in fact.
I always talk of EFTA membership first because EFTA is the body alongside the EU that has agreed the EEA. It is an organisation in its own right. You cannot currently be part of the EEA - which is not an organisation but an agreement between organisations - without membership of EFTA or the EU.
Nor do you have to subscribe to the EEA agreement to be part of EFTA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but is not a signatory to the EEA.
So your basic premise is wrong from the very start. The rest of your comment is equally as wrong headed as the basic factual errors in your first paragraph.
What about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Will they be voting in the EU referendum?
They have a different relationship to the EU than Gibraltrar. The treaties apply to Gibraltar (see art. 355(3) TFEU and declaration 55 to the Treaties). In the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, there is a much more limited relationship (see article 355(5)(c) TFEU).
It seems that the Channel Islands are part of the EU for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes.
Perhaps UKIP could form a shell company based in Jersey that owns the UK, so that we become a dependency of them for legal purposes!
Well, in the first place the Channel Islands were part of the UK for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes - so not much has changed. To repeat once again as far as EU referendums go, it might make sense for outers to agree amongst themselves on what they mean by OUT and how they think they can achieve it and how much better it will be than the revised position of being IN.
The point is that ANY version of OUT is better than in.
My personal choice would be for EFTA membership as it is easy to explain (No change on trading terms - except we get our own seat on the trade bodies instead of a fraction of a seat via the EU - but outside all the non trading issues such as justice, CAP, CFP, defence, foreign policy, social policy and a host of other unwanted interference)
What would you say if Norway decided to join the EU on the basis of the newly formalised non-Eurozone status?
They won't. The Eurozone is the least of the reasons they object to EU membership and that opposition is now at an all time high in the polls. Fishing, agriculture and energy policy are all far more important to the Norwegians than Eurozone membership and they could have long ago negotiated a non Eurozone membership as the Norwegian government wanted had it not been for the massive opposition by the Norwegian people.
The last referendum was 46.5% in favour of the 'ever closer union' version of the EU.
Once it is formally accepted that 'ever closer union' doesn't apply outside the Eurozone then we're in a different world and it's quite likely that the EFTAs and EEAs will go the way of the dodo (which they arguably already have).
Correction: the last Norwegian referendum was 47.8% in favour of joining.
You fail to mention that that vote was 21 years ago and that at the time the polls also showed around 45% in favour of joining the EU. A result that was reflected in the referendum.
The latest polling shows just 18% in favour of joining and 71% opposed.
Re the previous thread on Scottish Labour: am I the only one who thinks they should get Johann Lamont back? I always thought she was rather good, very no nonsense.
I think Lamont hated every minute of being SLab leader. Her tweets since giving up the post has been a revelation, every indication of a witty, pleasantly normal person.
She is also free (for the first time in 30 years) of the influence of the Wicked Witch of the East End.
Comments
There are far too many highly-paid people in public service. Time to introduce Jessop's fourth law of government: no public servant gets paid more from the state, in total for all jobs, than the PM.
I too have a child who for a number of years has been suffering from a serious and likely life-long illness which may make it harder than it is for others for him to work. (I clearly hope not and am doing everything possible to ensure that this is not the outcome.) I am supporting my child (and it costs me a great deal and may well mean that I will work for far longer than in my ideal world I would want to). That is what being a parent means. I simply would not dream of no longer supporting my child simply because he is over the age of 18 and therefore notionally an adult and expecting others to pay for him.
There are plenty of us in this position and plenty who look after partners or parents or others. I am doing nothing special and nothing that would not be seen as entirely normal amongst my Italian family. Indeed they would regard it as bizarre and wrong if I were not to do this, if I were to discharge my family responsibilities onto strangers, regardless of what level of income I have.
I do not think it a bad default assumption to make that (a) families should be responsible for their members and (b) that responsibility lasts a lifetime.
Interesting show from HSBC today. A bank ruthlessly seeking dividend or in trouble ?
But there are times when that is not possible: the costs of care are too great for a family to withstand (we cannot all be on good salaries), or even the people concerned don't have any family.
Your argument appears to be that (and forgive me if I've got this wrong) we've swung too far in the non-contributory direction. That might be correct. But we have to be very careful that any changes do not swing us too far the other way.
It's far from easy to strike a balance, as there probably is not an ideal position. Someone will always be taking advantage, and someone will always be hurt.
And a final point: you said: "But most other civilized societies in Europe have a far greater contributory element "
Do you have links for that?
Who'll vote for me?
Taxi drivers, I would have thought, would be as horrified by Nat as they were by Boris and Ken: he is, after all, yet another car hating greenie...
It is a difficult balance. I think we need to have a better realisation that the welfare pot needs to be paid for by all of us and we all need to put in before (ideally) we take out, if we take out at all. Only in this way can we really help those who like your friend need help - and do so generously. People have become too willing to demand entitlement purely because they can rather than because they really need the help: "I want" disguised as "I need" or "I am entitled to". See the ludicrous wailing of those on 3 or 4 times the average income at the loss of child benefit, for instance.
Re your last question, I'm sorry - I don't have links to hand. Someone on here (can't remember who) pointed out that in Germany if you hadn't contributed you only got a very basic benefit when unemployed.
It seems that the Channel Islands are part of the EU for trade purposes but outside it for other purposes.
Perhaps UKIP could form a shell company based in Jersey that owns the UK, so that we become a dependency of them for legal purposes!
'If not 'No', when?'
The message is, the last time people got a vote (and politicians, big business etc. piled in to tell everyone how essential entering the common market was, and how it was merely a trading agreement), look what happened. If this vote goes decisively for 'Yes', do we have another 40 years of the EU doing precisely what the heck it wants before we get any other semblance of a say? Will there even be a UK by then? Even those who support continued membership, but are unhappy with the current arrangement and not convinced Cameron's concessions represent a satisfactory final and irrevocable settlement, should lend 'No' their support.
IF NOT 'NO', WHEN?
I think that would work well on the doorsteps.
Then again, there's no perfect soundbite message. ;-)
If you look at the BBC story and their assets and their staff numbers only Chinese banks seem to have bigger numbers, significantly bigger for lower assets. As its CEO claims, global banking is extremely competitive. HSBC was a bank that escaped the fall out from the crash in 2008, but it has still clearly got problems. It also wants to change its name in the UK which suggests its brand is not shining with virtue.
I think what this also points out is that the UK economy after the crash (with its especial effects on banking) is not as big as was thought pre crash. The banking profits and the resulting taxes are not going to return as otherwise they might have been expected to after a 'normal' recession. I am sure others can comment better, but when we look at the LIBOR fixing that went on under Ed Balls' nose and which gave nice bonuses and taxes then I do not think we should be surprised that the banking sector has turned out to be smaller than thought.
And governments have made it harder to make money from overly risky or marginal activities so only the very best will be able to survive.
Furthermore, I'd tell them that the majority of employment growth lies in SMEs (the ones that EU regulations actively harm), not large corporations (who like the fact that the regulations act as a block to smaller competitors) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/sales/11208821/UKs-30000-super-SMEs-behind-68pc-of-new-jobs.html
"We need a fundamental change in the way the European Union operates. It is now a union which has at its core a eurozone of 19 members which will integrate more closely together.
"There needs to be an explicit recognition those who are not part of that core do not need to pursue ever closer union. There need to be an explicit protection of the interests of those non-eurozone members as the EU goes forward."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33067157
We might be heading towards the outcome I suggested three or four years ago, whereby we (and perhaps a few other non-Eurozone EU members) become semi-detached from the Eurozone core but retain influence over it. If so, that's potentially a very good outcome indeed, and one which is very much in Germany's interests, and those of the other Eurozone countries which really do need institutional change if the Euro area is to prosper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BywaCeQ4YrDMTEpWVEswa0xVY00/view
Defence appears to be based on his actions not being relevant and being outwith the scope of S106.
Just as well he stepped down.
Update
Scottish Affairs
Pete Wishart
Nominated by (own party)
Angus Robertson, Stewart Hosie, Mike Weir, Drew Hendry, Kirsten Oswald, Dr Eilidh Whiteford
Nominated by (other parties) : no-one listed
Women and Equalities
Maria Miller
Nominated by (own party)
Mrs Caroline Spelman, Sir Eric Pickles, Nick Herbert, Paul Maynard, Chloe Smith, Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Mr Nigel Evans, Mr David Jones, Richard Graham, James Berry, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Nicola Blackwood, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, Fiona Bruce, Mr Keith Simpson
Nominated by (other parties)
Frank Field, Meg Hillier, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Kate Green, Barry Gardiner
Media Culture and Sport
Graham Stuart
Nominated by (own party)
Mrs Maria Miller, Nicola Blackwood, Craig Williams, Sir Alan Duncan, Mark Pritchard, Graham Evans, Iain Stewart, Mr Richard Bacon, Julian Knight, Maria Caulfield, Caroline Ansell, Andrew Bingham, Mr Geoffrey Cox, Mike Wood, David Warburton
Nominated by (other parties)
Mr Jim Cunningham, Helen Jones, Mary Glindon, Angus Brendan MacNeil, Ian Blackford
Education
Caroline Nokes
Nominated by (own party)
Mr Simon Burns, Dr Julian Lewis, Rebecca Harris, Andrew Bingham, Maria Caulfield, Mr Nigel Evans, Bob Stewart, Gareth Johnson, Chris White, Stephen Metcalfe, Andrew Griffiths, Sir Nicholas Soames, Mark Garnier, Heather Wheeler, Mrs Maria Miller
Nominated by (other parties)
Alison McGovern, Mary Glindon, Dr Alan Whitehead, Ian Paisley, Kevin Barron
Public Accounts
Meg Hillier
Nominated by (own party)
Gareth Thomas, Kate Osamor, Catherine West, Stephen Twigg, Siobhain McDonagh, Mrs Louise Ellman, Luciana Berger, Karin Smyth, Paul Blomfield, Carolyn Harris, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Mr Gavin Shuker, Thangam Debbonaire, Teresa Pearce, Mike Kane
Nominated by (other parties)
Pauline Latham, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Mr Charles Walker, Simon Hoare, John Pugh
Science and Technology
Stephen Metcalfe
Nominated by (own party)
Dr Liam Fox, Karen Lumley, Robert Neill, Rebecca Harris, Graham Stuart, Bob Stewart, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Chris Green, Jeremy Lefroy, Lucy Allan, John Glen, James Heappey, Fiona Bruce, Mr Andrew Turner, Anne Marie Morris
Nominated by (other parties)
Graham Stringer, Carolyn Harris, Hywel Williams, Geraint Davies, Sammy Wilson
Dan Poulter
Nominated by (own party)
Jo Churchill, Sir Paul Beresford, Peter Aldous, James Cartlidge, Mr Julian Brazier, Paul Scully, Mr Philip Hollobone, David Tredinnick, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Richard Graham, Sir David Amess, Mr Robert Syms, Bill Wiggin, Sir Greg Knight, Stephen Hammond
Nominated by (other parties)
Angus Brendan MacNeil, Jon Cruddas, Ann Clwyd, Norman Lamb, Paul Flynn
It seems that Mr Carmichael misstated his awareness of the leaked memorandum.
So that's alright then
Angus McNeil (who is standing for Energy Select Committee) has the 5 nominations from other parties (Huw Irranca-Davies, Alec Shelbrooke, Bill Wiggin, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
My personal choice would be for EFTA membership as it is easy to explain (No change on trading terms - except we get our own seat on the trade bodies instead of a fraction of a seat via the EU - but outside all the non trading issues such as justice, CAP, CFP, defence, foreign policy, social policy and a host of other unwanted interference)
But even a separately negotiated trade agreement would be better than what we have now. The EU needs to trade with us just as much or more than we need to trade with them. So they are simply not able to shut the door on us. Moreover huge swathes of trade agreements are no longer defined by the EU but by the WTO - where again we would have a seat independent of the EU - and as such the EU would not be able to impose the sorts of barriers to trade that scaremongering Europhiles like to claim.
Given that EU membership is a very long way from being the most important factor for companies when they look at where to build factories or put investment capital, it is not difficult to find plenty of examples of how EU membership either has made no difference to investment and jobs or has actually made it worse.
Thatcher's Single European Act, Major's Maastricht etc were passed without a referendum, that's not the rule now.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/09/hillary_clintons_slide_in_polls_leaves_her_vulnerable_126899.html
There may be money to be made by betting on Finland who've gone behind against Estonia:
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/event?id=27457098
It has other uses too. You can state any desirable outcome of regaining our national sovereignty and say 'If not 'no', when?'
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/06/and-so-our-eyes-turn-to-may-2016/
Interesting move by Goldsmith regarding his constituency.
"No" have to show why staying in will be worse than now and that being "Out" will be better than staying in. And they have to do it in a pithy and believable way by people who don't seem either loony or obsessed. (This is not a dig at you.)
I'm not a particular fan of the EU. I've become less of a fan as time goes on. But I have no idea how things will be were we to leave and I don't think anyone on the No side (publicly) has ever given a coherent answer to this question. Unless they do, they risk the same fate as the "Yes to Independence" campaign in Scotland which was equally unable to give a coherent answer to the currency question.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/alistair-carmichael-responds-to-election-petition-against-him-46334.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
"Tried to intervene on Foreign Secretary 40 times,” huffed Mr Carswell on Twitter. Forty? That’s only once a minute. A true Kipper would have been springing up and down like Zebedee on a trampoline. I did comment today that one characteristic of large private enterprises would be to treat its employees even more like crap than anyone else. I may need to read and be horrified by some Guardian comments to swing back the other way.
One of the arguments put forward for repatriating human rights is that British judges will be more sensible. But when one reads stories like this I wonder. It was exactly this sort of racism of low expectations which led social workers to miss or ignore the abuse doled out to poor Victoria Climbie.
EU referendum: Rules 'rigged' towards Yes vote, former Tory Cabinet minister says
As the EU referendum Bill is debated in Parliament today, Owen Paterson says using taxpayer money to support the government's favoured outcome would be 'illegitimate'
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/
And yet...
Leaving on any terms at all, as you would accept, is just too much of a leap into the dark. Any departure has to be demonstrably for the better. That case is not being made. It will not be made by Farage. It is hard to see who else has the intellectual weight to get that case heard.
And "recent" immigrants learn the lesson that they have no obligation to adapt to the mores, let alone the laws, of the country they have chosen to live in.
This is how, slowly, the links binding us together as a nation get frayed.
The $10 million payment made by Fifa to Jack Warner never appeared in the annual accounts of the Caribbean Football Union (CFU)...
The Labour leadership hopeful said he thought a litre of unleaded costed £1.60. But according to the latest government figures the average forecourt price is currently around £1.16p...
Today he admitted he had spoken to Unite boss 'Red' Len McCluskey last week about the leadership election...
Mr Burnham appeared to position himself as the 'heir to Ed' as he praised Labour's election manifesto as the 'best' of all those he had stood on as a Labour candidate since he was elected in 2001.
He said: 'I say it was the best manifesto I have stood on in the four general elections I have stood for Labour.'
'I pay tribute to Ed Miliband. He did something important in refocusing our party on inequality'.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3117195/Burnham-tanks-exposed-not-knowing-price-petrol-guessing-litre-cost-1-60.html#ixzz3caVQ9sgV
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
If it is, say, 55/45 or less, will this really shut down the issue?
What is the British equivalent of the Norwegian people's red lines?
As for the rest - this is mostly what the negotiations are about, our relationship with the Eurozone and the inevitable monetary fiscal and political closer union. This closer union will happen if we leave and it might well happen not to our advantage.
Your obsession with trade agreements and the WTO is pretty fanciful and in practice it would be interesting to see how we can be expected to end up with anything different as one country compared to a block like the EU where anything we see as our interests can be backed up with 450 million consumers.
You have not really shown how we would be better off out, all you have done is show that you want out come what may.
I always talk of EFTA membership first because EFTA is the body alongside the EU that has agreed the EEA. It is an organisation in its own right. You cannot currently be part of the EEA - which is not an organisation but an agreement between organisations - without membership of EFTA or the EU.
Nor do you have to subscribe to the EEA agreement to be part of EFTA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but is not a signatory to the EEA.
So your basic premise is wrong from the very start. The rest of your comment is equally as wrong headed as the basic factual errors in your first paragraph.
Once it is formally accepted that 'ever closer union' doesn't apply outside the Eurozone then we're in a different world and it's quite likely that the EFTAs and EEAs will go the way of the dodo (which they arguably already have).
The latest polling shows just 18% in favour of joining and 71% opposed.