PT/SF If you want to cut taxes and spending as your main priority, then the Tories already offer such a platform for you now, if you opposed gay marriage, want more grammar schools, a firm EU exit and more spending on defence not overseas aid UKIP are your only choice
TSE Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine and Anna Soubry are many things, but I don't think anyone has ever described them as shy, quiet, lacking self confidence and modest
TSE Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine and Anna Soubry are many things, but I don't think anyone has ever described them as shy, quiet, lacking self confidence and modest
What Cameron appears to want to do is to be able to discriminate on the grounds of nationality on this subject, which is going to be all but impossible to achieve.
You underestimate the Eurocrats. Of course it's not impossible to achieve, it just requires them to be told to find a formula which achieves it. All that training at the Ecole Normale d'Adminstration wasn't wasted.
For example, they could simply draft a half-page codicil to the treaties, or use the provisions in the Lisbon Treaty for amendments. But I expect they'll come up with something more sinuous and imaginative.
I'll be honest, I have no idea why he should be able to claim it - too lazy to cook himself a decent meal... I'd be full points if that was the criteria tbh.
The UKIP vote went from 3.1% to 12.6%. The 9.5% increase was greater than any other party. The next best was the SNP (+3.1%) and the Greens (+2.8%)
I don't think that this could be considered by any means an "unmitigated failure" for UKIP.
We don't have PR, it is seats that matter. Even still, just looking at votes they took a fraction of the lost Lib Dem votes and the lost BNP votes. That was a total failure in my eyes for UKIP. It confirms that UKIP are nothing more than a minor protest party capable of swinging protest votes from the other protest parties - they failed to get any form of major breakthrough that had been proclaimed in either votes or seats.
The swing for the SNP was not +3.1%, that is just dishonest.
"That was a total failure in my eyes for UKIP." - Then you were careless in your use of words. You were asserting it as fact, not opinion.
"The swing for the SNP was not +3.1%, that is just dishonest." - It's not a "swing". It's the gain in vote, as my text clearly implies. The figure is taken from the BBC website, so if they are "dishonest" blame them, not me.
Oh, and as further "mitigation", on the same day as the General Election, in the Council elections, the net gains/losses in seats were Cons (+541) UKIP (+176) Green (+10) Labour(-203) LibDem (-411)
.... AND BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING I DON'T SUPPORT ANY UK POLITICAL PARTIES.
TSE Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine and Anna Soubry are many things, but I don't think anyone has ever described them as shy, quiet, lacking self confidence and modest
Whoosh
I hope you were wearing your (in)famous red shoes while posting that!
There are so many negative connotations that go with wanting to leave the EU ("little Englander", "head banger", "xenophobe", etc...) How many people will actually admit to pollsters their true voting intention?
The more abuse that's heaped on OUT the more this referendum will have the chance of being another serious polling £$%^ up!
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such as Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
We Broxtowe Europhiles are indeed modest people, and of course alien to irony and mischief-making, but pleased to see the project advancing. Let's hear it for ever-closer union!
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
To be fair, I don't think Ken Clarke, Dominic Grieve, or Anna Soubry are dishonest. They're pretty open about their beliefs.
I think that people who tell selection committees that they're Eurosceptic while doing the complete opposite in Parliament are the dishonest ones.
Clarke was certainly honest in the past about his view of the UK. Back in 1996 when things were looking good for the Pro EU movement he was happy to write:
"I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a Council Chamber in Europe."
I don't doubt that is still his view but he won't say it openly. He is quite happy now to deny there is any prospect of ever closer union even though he knows it is the aim of both the EU and himself.
"The swing for the SNP was not +3.1%, that is just dishonest." - It's not a "swing". It's the gain in vote, as my text clearly implies. The figure is taken from the BBC website, so if they are "dishonest" blame them, not me.
Oh, and as further "mitigation", on the same day as the General Election, in the Council elections, the net gains/losses in seats were Cons (+541) UKIP (+176) Green (+10) Labour(-203) LibDem (-411)
Ooh they nearly have a third as many as the Lib Dems do. Once again UKIP succeed in picking up a fraction of what the Lib Dems lost.
If UKIP aren't to be anything other than a largely irrelevant protest party, where do they go from here? Picking up protest votes is one thing, picking up serious votes is something else. So far we only have protest votes.
You underestimate the Eurocrats. Of course it's not impossible to achieve, it just requires them to be told to find a formula which achieves it. All that training at the Ecole Normale d'Adminstration wasn't wasted.
For example, they could simply draft a half-page codicil to the treaties, or use the provisions in the Lisbon Treaty for amendments. But I expect they'll come up with something more sinuous and imaginative.
I wonder. On in-work benefits, given that what Cameron wants to change is currently contained in binding and directly effective secondary legislation, he has to get to the consent of the European Parliament to change it. There is in any event the question about whether it would even be possible to do it without treaty change. I doubt it would be, but some serious people whose views merit close attention like Damian Chalmers say it can be done via secondary legislation. Frankly, it really depends on what mood the Court of Justice is in. It is a political "court", quite capable of allowing the UK derogation one day and eviscerating it the next.
Secondly, while Lisbon contains several ways of allowing for more rapid integration, including various passerelle clauses and the nebulous procedures for "enhances cooperation", the only mechanism for treaty change of the sort envisaged by Cameron is article 48 TEU. Who really believes it can be signed, sealed and delivered in the time frame set out in the European Union Referendum Bill? A non-binding declaration of the European Council would be pure fraud.
(I find this rather odd - what's the hurry? I'd have expected Labour to wait until the new leader is in place, in less than twelve weeks' time, before deciding on their detailed position on the referendum).
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
The fact that more integration is on the table, nay, inevitable, is the primary reason I've switched to intending to vote to leave. We may gain some small concessions here and there, and maybe we would suffer if we left, but I don't like the direction of travel - I can just about stomach where we are now, even though I would prefer to claw back more powers - and that is not changed and will not changed. I think most people agree with me on not wanting more integration, but maybe I'm wrong, but if I am right about that, it is not good for us or the EU, as we will just grow more bitter and they more irritated with us, causing a festering sore at the heart of the project which is not good for either side.
I find the following particularly encouraring:
When asked about preferences for Britain's future role in Europe, one in three (33%) would like to return to being part of an economic community, without political links, while 31% would like it to remain broadly as it is at present. Fourteen percent would like closer political and economic integration and 13% would like to leave the EU altogether.
Only 14% are in favour of more integration. Only the very naive think that there will be no more integration so a significant number of people are going to be sorely disappointed when it inevitably occurs.
The fact that more integration is on the table, nay, inevitable, is the primary reason I've switched to intending to vote to leave. We may gain some small concessions here and there, and maybe we would suffer if we left, but I don't like the direction of travel - I can just about stomach where we are now, even though I would prefer to claw back more powers - and that is not changed and will not changed. I think most people agree with me on not wanting more integration, but maybe I'm wrong, but if I am right about that, it is not good for us or the EU, as we will just grow more bitter and they more irritated with us, causing a festering sore at the heart of the project which is not good for either side.
I find the following particularly encouraring:
When asked about preferences for Britain's future role in Europe, one in three (33%) would like to return to being part of an economic community, without political links, while 31% would like it to remain broadly as it is at present. Fourteen percent would like closer political and economic integration and 13% would like to leave the EU altogether.
Only 14% are in favour of more integration. Only the very naive think that there will be no more integration so a significant number of people are going to be sorely disappointed when it inevitably occurs.
Wouldn't further integration require another referendum? So there will be the opportunity to object to it when the time comes.
The fact that more integration is on the table, nay, inevitable, is the primary reason I've switched to intending to vote to leave. We may gain some small concessions here and there, and maybe we would suffer if we left, but I don't like the direction of travel - I can just about stomach where we are now, even though I would prefer to claw back more powers - and that is not changed and will not changed. I think most people agree with me on not wanting more integration, but maybe I'm wrong, but if I am right about that, it is not good for us or the EU, as we will just grow more bitter and they more irritated with us, causing a festering sore at the heart of the project which is not good for either side.
I find the following particularly encouraring:
When asked about preferences for Britain's future role in Europe, one in three (33%) would like to return to being part of an economic community, without political links, while 31% would like it to remain broadly as it is at present. Fourteen percent would like closer political and economic integration and 13% would like to leave the EU altogether.
Only 14% are in favour of more integration. Only the very naive think that there will be no more integration so a significant number of people are going to be sorely disappointed when it inevitably occurs.
Wouldn't further integration require another referendum? So there will be the opportunity to object to it when the time comes.
No, Opting in to EU criminal justice provisions did not require a further referendum (this was established in the High Court). The so-called "referendum lock" is meaningless.
"The swing for the SNP was not +3.1%, that is just dishonest." - It's not a "swing". It's the gain in vote, as my text clearly implies. The figure is taken from the BBC website, so if they are "dishonest" blame them, not me.
Oh, and as further "mitigation", on the same day as the General Election, in the Council elections, the net gains/losses in seats were Cons (+541) UKIP (+176) Green (+10) Labour(-203) LibDem (-411)
Ooh they nearly have a third as many as the Lib Dems do. Once again UKIP succeed in picking up a fraction of what the Lib Dems lost.
If UKIP aren't to be anything other than a largely irrelevant protest party, where do they go from here? Picking up protest votes is one thing, picking up serious votes is something else. So far we only have protest votes.
The fact that more integration is on the table, nay, inevitable, is the primary reason I've switched to intending to vote to leave. We may gain some small concessions here and there, and maybe we would suffer if we left, but I don't like the direction of travel - I can just about stomach where we are now, even though I would prefer to claw back more powers - and that is not changed and will not changed. I think most people agree with me on not wanting more integration, but maybe I'm wrong, but if I am right about that, it is not good for us or the EU, as we will just grow more bitter and they more irritated with us, causing a festering sore at the heart of the project which is not good for either side.
I find the following particularly encouraring:
When asked about preferences for Britain's future role in Europe, one in three (33%) would like to return to being part of an economic community, without political links, while 31% would like it to remain broadly as it is at present. Fourteen percent would like closer political and economic integration and 13% would like to leave the EU altogether.
Only 14% are in favour of more integration. Only the very naive think that there will be no more integration so a significant number of people are going to be sorely disappointed when it inevitably occurs.
Wouldn't further integration require another referendum? So there will be the opportunity to object to it when the time comes.
No, Opting in to EU criminal justice provisions did not require a further referendum (this was established in the High Court). The so-called "referendum lock" is meaningless. That's only because the EU Criminal Justice treaty provisions were already passed without a referendum by Labour in Lisbon isn't it? So doing so doesn't require a new Treaty, just an Act of Parliament.
A new Treaty would trigger the lock - and now that its established, the public and media would demand one.
No, Opting in to EU criminal justice provisions did not require a further referendum (this was established in the High Court). The so-called "referendum lock" is meaningless.
It's not meaningless. Its meaning is very specifically laid out in the Act, in great detail.
"The swing for the SNP was not +3.1%, that is just dishonest." - It's not a "swing". It's the gain in vote, as my text clearly implies. The figure is taken from the BBC website, so if they are "dishonest" blame them, not me.
Oh, and as further "mitigation", on the same day as the General Election, in the Council elections, the net gains/losses in seats were Cons (+541) UKIP (+176) Green (+10) Labour(-203) LibDem (-411)
Ooh they nearly have a third as many as the Lib Dems do. Once again UKIP succeed in picking up a fraction of what the Lib Dems lost.
If UKIP aren't to be anything other than a largely irrelevant protest party, where do they go from here? Picking up protest votes is one thing, picking up serious votes is something else. So far we only have protest votes.
You could almost imagine that Cameron hatched a long-term plan in the 90s to rout the 'bastards' who brought down John Major. It will be a sweet victory if the result is anything like this poll.
'Give them enough votes to hang themselves' could be Cameron's lasting contribution to political strategy.
Which is the wrong link for the SNP. That's like looking at the UK vote to figure out how the UUP did rather than the NI vote. The SNP vote is in the Scotland tab, the UUP in Northern Ireland.
No, Opting in to EU criminal justice provisions did not require a further referendum (this was established in the High Court). The so-called "referendum lock" is meaningless.
Indeed, giving the Commission enforcement powers and the Court of Justice jurisdiction over the criminal law for the first time required no referendum. It did not even require a resolution of the House of Commons. Counsel for Mr Wheeler submitted that the Act should be construed purposively, and that it was Parliament's intention that there should be a referendum whenever there was a transfer of power to Brussels or Luxembourg. Giving the judgment of the Divisional Court, Leveson LJ (with whom Lewis & Jay JJ agreed) stated:
If the case falls outside the circumstances expressly specified [in the European Union Act 2011], it cannot be accommodated within the statutory scheme by invoking some vague and generalised principle of “Parliamentary intent”. There is no recognised principle of statutory construction which vouches such an approach: it is simply wrong (Wheeler v Office of the Prime Minister [2015] 1 CMLR 46, 1318).
His conclusion is undoubtedly correct as a matter of law, but is demonstrative of the useless referendum lock.
Apparently the Pope wants us all to cut back on consumerism..Is this the same Pope who has an entire city, private planes, an army, hundreds of staff.Princes.. aka Cardinals, all housed in staffed Palaces around the world..Princelets, aka Bishops etc..all of whom live in staffed palaces around the world..that Pope..Ok I will have a few less chips with my fish tonight..
No, Opting in to EU criminal justice provisions did not require a further referendum (this was established in the High Court). The so-called "referendum lock" is meaningless.
It's not meaningless. Its meaning is very specifically laid out in the Act, in great detail.
Apparently the Pope wants us all to cut back on consumerism..Is this the same Pope who has an entire city, private planes, an army, hundreds of staff.Princes aka Cardinals, all housed in Palaces around the world..Princelets, aa Bishops etc..all of whom live in staffed palaces around the world..that Pope..Ok I will have a few less chips with my fish tonight..
It is very common for well-heeled people to decry consumerism.
Kippers falling out (continued) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33202900 "Watching Suzanne Evans, it was bit like watching a 1938 politburo member criticising Joe Stalin," Mr Bloom, a former flatmate of Nigel Farage's who quit the party in 2013 after falling out with him, said.
Stalin? More like Mr Bean to pinch one of Vince's best jokes.
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
Try being a bit less abusive, today you've called me slimy also you've called me not very bright again, if you're going to try and win people, I suggest you read some Dale Carnegie.
I mean I hate to repost that link that shows Kippers have lower IQs than the average Tory, and the IQ of the average Kipper is only marginally higher than of the typical BNP supporter.
If you don't, you Kippers are going to make the Scot Nats look like well balanced, charming people.
I used to think you were a well balanced Kipper, and I guess you still are, with chips on both shoulders.
A it disingenuous given that the SNP only stood in a tenth of the seats.
If it makes you feel better, just compare the changes for parties which stood in the whole of the UK then. UKIP (+9.5) Green (+2.8) Lab (+1.5) Con (+0.8) LD (-15.2)
Cons and UKIP made big gains in council seats on the same day, at the expense of most of the others.
Trying to spin this as an "unmitigated disaster" is clearly false. It is incremental progress, and a fairly big increment at that.
Apparently the Pope wants us all to cut back on consumerism..Is this the same Pope who has an entire city, private planes, an army, hundreds of staff.Princes.. aka Cardinals, all housed in staffed Palaces around the world..Princelets, aka Bishops etc..all of whom live in staffed palaces around the world..that Pope..Ok I will have a few less chips with my fish tonight..
To be fair to him, he doesn't seem like the person that enjoy the trappings of being Pope.
You are a lawyer, and so you should be perfectly capable of understanding that that is not the case.
I understand that if a government introduced legislation to implement a new EU Treaty, transferring power from Parliament to the EU, then in principle, a referendum would be required, prior to its taking effect. But, since this would be primary legislation, it would be legally binding whether or not a referendum were held (on the basis that no Parliament can bind its successor).
But, there would be political pressure to hold a referendum.
There is however, nothing to prevent a government transferring powers to the EU by means of statutory instrument, regulation, etc.
Greek debt crisis endgame: ECB agrees to pump more money into Greece's banks as Russia enters the ring. Summit planned for next Monday, as €1bn pulled from banks yesterday and senior Government figures say Grexit is inevitable. The man leading Monday's emergency summit, EU Council president Donald Tusk......
"The game of chicken needs to end, and so does the blame game. There is no time for more games. We need to get rid of the illusion that there will be a magic solution at the leaders level. This summit will not be the final step - there will be no detailed technical negotiations, that remains the job of the finance ministers. We are close to the point where the Greek government will have to choose to accept what I believe is a good offer for support, or to head towards default. At the end of the day, this can only be a Greek decision. There is time, but only a few days. Let us use them wisely."
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
Try being a bit less abusive, today you've called me slimy also you've called me not very bright again, if you're going to try and win people, I suggest you read some Dale Carnegie.
I mean I hate to repost that link that shows Kippers have lower IQs than the average Tory, and the IQ of the average Kipper is only marginally higher than of the typical BNP supporter.
If you don't, you Kippers are going to make the Scot Nats look like well balanced, charming people.
I used to think you were a well balanced Kipper, and I guess you still are, with chips on both shoulders.
Based on pre-election YouGov which we know was 100% accurate?
Hi Philip. That is the revised version, post election.
The original version was based on the opinion polls. From memory, it had 5 switchers from Conservatve to UKIP in the original version but this was revised down to 4 in the final version.
"Churn" is often mentioned on PB, but its fascinating to see a graphical demo of it.
2015 was an incredible step forward to UKIP. But it was also not the breakthrough that was hoped for following the European Election result and the Rochester and Clacton by-elections.
Worse: there is some evidence that voters on the left of the political spectrum are willing to vote Conservative to stop UKIP. Tactical voting has slaughtered the FN in France. It could well harming UKIP equally. It is possible to see UKIP on 15% in 2020, but without a single seat.
FPT Sorry, Mr Disraeli, for not coming back to you sooner. You asked about what the Lib Dems stand for. I could give you my personal view (as you asked for), but I think this speech by Tim Farron sums it up much more eloquently.
I know that Tories rubbish everything that fails to put Cameron and Osborne on a pedastal, but if you sincerely want to know what the Lib Dems are about, this may help.
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
Try being a bit less abusive, today you've called me slimy also you've called me not very bright again, if you're going to try and win people, I suggest you read some Dale Carnegie.
I mean I hate to repost that link that shows Kippers have lower IQs than the average Tory, and the IQ of the average Kipper is only marginally higher than of the typical BNP supporter.
If you don't, you Kippers are going to make the Scot Nats look like well balanced, charming people.
I used to think you were a well balanced Kipper, and I guess you still are, with chips on both shoulders.
Private Eye manages to churn out some decent jokes at UKIP's expense. I imagine the secret to it is quality over quantity. Something your constant baiting/trolling is sorely lacking.
Apparently the Pope wants us all to cut back on consumerism..Is this the same Pope who has an entire city, private planes, an army, hundreds of staff.Princes.. aka Cardinals, all housed in staffed Palaces around the world..Princelets, aka Bishops etc..all of whom live in staffed palaces around the world..that Pope..Ok I will have a few less chips with my fish tonight..
Interesting series of claims, Richard. I suspect that most of them are straw men.
I'd be fascinated to see any evidence of the Pope having all of the above for his personal use.
Do you happen to have the registration numbers of the Pope's private planes for example?
You are a lawyer, and so you should be perfectly capable of understanding that that is not the case.
There are three principal problems with the 2011 Act. Since Wheeler, it is clear that the 2011 Act only covers the precise provisions it mentions. Has anyone gone through both the Treaties to check if there are others not mentioned by the Act which allow for a transfer of powers? I have a reasonable knowledge of the Treaties, but could not give an honest answer to that question. It is clear that the Act is not exhaustive, since it did not cover a decision under article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to the Treaties. Who knows how many other such loopholes for the government there are. Where there is a loophole, the government can ratify the provision under the royal prerogative.
Secondly, the Act cannot require the holding of a referendum if a future Act of Parliament provides for a transfer of powers without a referendum. That is trite law (for some of the most extreme examples, see British Coal Corporation v King [1935] AC 500, 520 (PC); Sillars v Smith 1982 SLT 539; Manuel v Attorney General [1983] Ch. 77, per Sir Robert Megarry & Slade LJ).
Thirdly, there is a strong argument that many of the provisions of the 2011 Act, including the one requiring a referendum on whether or not the UK would join the Euro, are inconsistent with EU law, and would be disapplied by the courts under section 2(4) of the European Communities Act 1972 were the issue to arise (see Craig, 'The European Union Act 2011: Locks, Limits and Legality', (2011) 48 CMLR 1881).
Presumably if the leaked Evans sacking email was sent without proper authorisation and she has not been sacked (or has been unsacked), we need to know who sent that email and if they have been sacked as a result?
Stalinesque. "Those responsible for liquidating the people who have just been liquidated have been liquidated...."
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
Try being a bit less abusive, today you've called me slimy also you've called me not very bright again, if you're going to try and win people, I suggest you read some Dale Carnegie.
I mean I hate to repost that link that shows Kippers have lower IQs than the average Tory, and the IQ of the average Kipper is only marginally higher than of the typical BNP supporter.
If you don't, you Kippers are going to make the Scot Nats look like well balanced, charming people.
I used to think you were a well balanced Kipper, and I guess you still are, with chips on both shoulders.
Private Eye manages to churn out some decent jokes at UKIP's expense. I imagine the secret to it is quality over quantity. Something your constant baiting/trolling is sorely lacking.
Don't worry, I've raised my game for a thread next week.
Rob D .. Total nonsense..If he didn't like it then he could walk away.. the original fella lived in a modest dwelling by a lake and caught some fish for his dinner..This Pope,like all the others, wallows in the luxury of it all and sends messages to the poor buggers who have bought into the package that they should all have more kids and cut back on the consumerism.... Rank Hypocrisy
Apparently the Pope wants us all to cut back on consumerism..Is this the same Pope who has an entire city, private planes, an army, hundreds of staff.Princes.. aka Cardinals, all housed in staffed Palaces around the world..Princelets, aka Bishops etc..all of whom live in staffed palaces around the world..that Pope..Ok I will have a few less chips with my fish tonight..
Interesting series of claims, Richard. I suspect that most of them are straw men.
I'd be fascinated to see any evidence of the Pope having all of the above for his personal use.
Do you happen to have the registration numbers of the Pope's private planes for example?
Rob D .. Total nonsense..If he didn't like it then he could walk away.. the original fella lived in a modest dwelling by a lake and caught some fish for his dinner..This Pope,like all the others, wallows in the luxury of it all and sends messages to the poor buggers who have bought into the package that they should all have more kids and cut back on the consumerism.... Rank Hypocrisy
Or he could stick at it and make some changes? I haven't seen much evidence of him taking advantage of all the luxuries offered to him. Instead eating in the staff canteen, and living in a small apartment, rather than the official papal residence.
Mattw Of course he doesn't have any of those things for his personal use..he walks around the gilded halls of his palace with his eyes closed and only opens them when the superbly cooked food arrives on the table in front of him..just before he dashes off to book an easyjet flight to see his flock..all paid for out of his own hard earned and taxed income of course.
A it disingenuous given that the SNP only stood in a tenth of the seats.
If it makes you feel better, just compare the changes for parties which stood in the whole of the UK then. UKIP (+9.5) Green (+2.8) Lab (+1.5) Con (+0.8) LD (-15.2)
Cons and UKIP made big gains in council seats on the same day, at the expense of most of the others.
Trying to spin this as an "unmitigated disaster" is clearly false. It is incremental progress, and a fairly big increment at that.
Incremental progress to what? UKIP gained 9.5% - yet the Tories STILL gained votes too. That wasn't in the grand strategy of buggering up the Conservative Party, so those on the right would flock to UKIP. Plan A is in tatters. That those who went to UKIP detoxified the Tories so that swathes of other voters felt comfortable enough to vote for them again was a delicious irony. It has also hugely strengthened the Tories in the process.
In 2020, the EU will have been aired as an issue and put back in its box for decades - for all but the die-hard Kippers. UKIP's only hope for moving forward politically requires the defenestration of Nigel and then trashing Labour in the north. The SNP has shown that Labour voters, taken for granted for decades, are there for the taking....
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
Try being a bit less abusive, today you've called me slimy also you've called me not very bright again, if you're going to try and win people, I suggest you read some Dale Carnegie.
I mean I hate to repost that link that shows Kippers have lower IQs than the average Tory, and the IQ of the average Kipper is only marginally higher than of the typical BNP supporter.
If you don't, you Kippers are going to make the Scot Nats look like well balanced, charming people.
I used to think you were a well balanced Kipper, and I guess you still are, with chips on both shoulders.
Since we established several years ago that many people on here including myself consider IQ to be a meaningless measure of anything you really are going to have to do better than that.
As an attack line it is rather on a par with thinking that insulting Farage is going to upset a Farage opponent. Maybe I was right that you really aren't that bright.
The bottom line is that British Europhile like yourself are, by necessity, inherently dishonest because they know that if they were honest about the long term results of an IN vote then the public would run a mile. This is why they use arguments about stuff like 'referendum locks' even though they know they are meaningless.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
@PClipp Thank you for the video. I watched it intently and made notes. If I have noted what Tim Farron said correctly...
LD achievements in coalition - support for Pupil Premium (£2 billion) - Green Energy (£8 billion) - Ending of detention of children of Asylum seekers (500 kids benefit)
Motivation for wanting to be leader - Defend civil liberties - Defend Human Rights (including surveillance, extremism orders) - Enthusiastic support for membership of EU - Strong Green agenda - Strong personal driver is inequality and the resultant waste - Wants party and country to have "ambition" - Personal hero is William Beveridge because he created the blueprint for post-war Britain (so he claims) - With only 8 MP's nuance gets you nowhere - Wants LDs to be the party that identifies the big issues and provides the big solutions - Switched to housing problem (2 million people on waiting list) - "Nothing matters more than tackling climate change" - A curious statement on Civil liberties at around 7:50: "If 70% of the electorate disagree with us I don't care! 30% will do for me!" - Its all about revival and survival, but survival is essential "but not inevitable". A plan is needed and Tim has one (9:00). - Have to understand that the LD are not quite the cutting edge campaigning force that they sometimes tell themselves that they are. - They have to learn from many quarters, even from people that they may not like. - Last bit was a tribute to Charles Kennedy (Human, pricipled, effective)
The fact that more integration is on the table, nay, inevitable, is the primary reason I've switched to intending to vote to leave. We may gain some small concessions here and there, and maybe we would suffer if we left, but I don't like the direction of travel - I can just about stomach where we are now, even though I would prefer to claw back more powers - and that is not changed and will not changed. I think most people agree with me on not wanting more integration, but maybe I'm wrong, but if I am right about that, it is not good for us or the EU, as we will just grow more bitter and they more irritated with us, causing a festering sore at the heart of the project which is not good for either side.
This. If No campaigns on the 'there is no status quo' line they may just stand a chance.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
Try being a bit less abusive, today you've called me slimy also you've called me not very bright again, if you're going to try and win people, I suggest you read some Dale Carnegie.
I mean I hate to repost that link that shows Kippers have lower IQs than the average Tory, and the IQ of the average Kipper is only marginally higher than of the typical BNP supporter.
If you don't, you Kippers are going to make the Scot Nats look like well balanced, charming people.
I used to think you were a well balanced Kipper, and I guess you still are, with chips on both shoulders.
The bottom line is that British Europhile like yourself are, by necessity, inherently dishonest because they know that if they were honest about the long term results of an IN vote then the public would run a mile. This is why they use arguments about stuff like 'referendum locks' even though they know they are meaningless.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
That is your choice.
Your pomposity and arrogant condescension on this and other issues is quite extraordinary. And - to be clear - this extends well beyond your ongoing spat with TSE.
This is NOT a comment on the accuracy or otherwise of your statements, NOR is it based on any disagreement with you or your espoused views. It is purely a comment on your behaviour.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
I have come across some Europhiles who are quite open about their desire for this country to be run from Brussels, Luxembroug and Strasbourg, and would happily swear an oath of allegiance to Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow if they had the chance. As for those who are not openly of that opinion, there is a third possibility, which is that they are neither stupid nor dishonest, but merely badly informed. For example, how many people appreciate that the transfer of legislative powers, supremacy of European law and the direct effect in domestic law of its provisions do not apply to members of the European Economic Area (see Sveinbjörnsdóttir v Iceland [1999] 1 CMLR 884, 897)? The EU is a very difficult organisation to understand. Its machinations are inscrutable. We will have to persuade our opponents of our views with reasoned argument in the referendum campaign rather than accusing them necessarily of being stupid or dishonest, although many undoubtedly are.
@PClipp 'but if you sincerely want to know what the Lib Dems are about, this may help.' Apart from the Lib Dems love affair with the EU,everything else in that speech you will hear from the four Labour leadership candidates.
I would suggest you take another look, Mr Zims. Quite a lot of it was undoing, as part of the last government, some of the damage done by the previous Labour government.
Your pomposity and arrogant condescension on this and other issues is quite extraordinary. And - to be clear - this extends well beyond your ongoing spat with TSE.
We are all grown ups here, perhaps we should be slightly less thin skinned. Only two questions really matter though, "is he right", and "is he right". Or I guess we could try and play the man and not the ball and see how that works...
Thank you for at least taking the time to watch and listen, Mr Disaeli. Hard for a speaker to get everything into a a ten minute speech, of course, especially if preaching to the unconverted is not his purpose. But I hope it does at least give you a flavour of what the Liberal Democrats are in business to do. And I find it very motivating.
Thank you for at least taking the time to watch and listen, Mr Disaeli.
My pleasure. Thank you again for posting it.
Some people suggest that the Labour and LibDem parties should merge. From what I've seen they are still far too distinct for that to work (it's not like the Liberal/SDP merger), but they could form an electoral alliance on the basis of sufficient common ground for a program of government INCLUDING INTRODUCING PR.
Greek debt crisis endgame: ECB agrees to pump more money into Greece's banks as Russia enters the ring. Summit planned for next Monday, as €1bn pulled from banks yesterday and senior Government figures say Grexit is inevitable. The man leading Monday's emergency summit, EU Council president Donald Tusk......
"The game of chicken needs to end, and so does the blame game. There is no time for more games. We need to get rid of the illusion that there will be a magic solution at the leaders level. This summit will not be the final step - there will be no detailed technical negotiations, that remains the job of the finance ministers. We are close to the point where the Greek government will have to choose to accept what I believe is a good offer for support, or to head towards default. At the end of the day, this can only be a Greek decision. There is time, but only a few days. Let us use them wisely."
I doubt that I am the only one to have made this observation, but just in case...
1200 school inspectors go.. Unions whine about having had to put up with them so long....
So when the Govt sacks the 3000?? most useless teachers, one assumes the Unions will be equally as glad that its been done at last. and whine about having had to put up with them so long..
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
I have come across some Europhiles who are quite open about their desire for this country to be run from Brussels, Luxembroug and Strasbourg, and would happily swear an oath of allegiance to Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow if they had the chance. As for those who are not openly of that opinion, there is a third possibility, which is that they are neither stupid nor dishonest, but merely badly informed. For example, how many people appreciate that the transfer of legislative powers, supremacy of European law and the direct effect in domestic law of its provisions do not apply to members of the European Economic Area (see Sveinbjörnsdóttir v Iceland [1999] 1 CMLR 884, 897)? The EU is a very difficult organisation to understand. Its machinations are inscrutable. We will have to persuade our opponents of our views with reasoned argument in the referendum campaign rather than accusing them necessarily of being stupid or dishonest, although many undoubtedly are.
I would say the vast majority of people do not even understand what the EU is. Outside of people with an interest in politics I have met very few people who have the slightest idea of what it actually is.
Your pomposity and arrogant condescension on this and other issues is quite extraordinary. And - to be clear - this extends well beyond your ongoing spat with TSE.
This is NOT a comment on the accuracy or otherwise of your statements, NOR is it based on any disagreement with you or your espoused views. It is purely a comment on your behaviour.
Why should I care what you think. There are plenty of people from the Tory side of the argument who are more than happy to throw insults at the Out side and TSE never fails to make clear his scorn for us. I see no reason to be any less forthright in my replies. And I can only assume that you accuse me of arrogance ans pomposity because I am actually able to present a coherent argument.
I have yet to see you make any worthwhile contribution to the discussion so perhaps you should concentrate on that rather than whining about others.
And yes that is scorn you can detect in my reply to you.
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
Try being a bit less abusive, today you've called me slimy also you've called me not very bright again, if you're going to try and win people, I suggest you read some Dale Carnegie.
I mean I hate to repost that link that shows Kippers have lower IQs than the average Tory, and the IQ of the average Kipper is only marginally higher than of the typical BNP supporter.
If you don't, you Kippers are going to make the Scot Nats look like well balanced, charming people.
I used to think you were a well balanced Kipper, and I guess you still are, with chips on both shoulders.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
That is your choice.
Or that British EUphobes are paranoid or delusional.
The fact that more integration is on the table, nay, inevitable, is the primary reason I've switched to intending to vote to leave. We may gain some small concessions here and there, and maybe we would suffer if we left, but I don't like the direction of travel - I can just about stomach where we are now, even though I would prefer to claw back more powers - and that is not changed and will not changed. I think most people agree with me on not wanting more integration, but maybe I'm wrong, but if I am right about that, it is not good for us or the EU, as we will just grow more bitter and they more irritated with us, causing a festering sore at the heart of the project which is not good for either side.
This. If No campaigns on the 'there is no status quo' line they may just stand a chance.
Much of the rest of the continent - or at least their elite - believe political union is their inevitable and desirable destiny. Brits generally don't. The euro necessitates further integration, particularly fiscally and therefore some kind of over arching chancellery is likely to evolve at some point. Brits don't fit into that at all.
At some point there has to be a parting of ways, "this far and no further". I'm not too fussed whether this occurs by means of the UK withdrawing from the EU though continuing to trade with it, or by the separation of an "inner core" of members into a quasi-federal structure that leaves states like the UK in a "semi-detached" position. Neither is flawless, since in the former case we may be left in the Norwegian position of having to accept regulations we can do little to influence (but this is a feature of much international trade) while the latter leaves fringe members exposed to being outvoted and outmanoeuvred by an increasingly united Core grouping during pan-EU discussions. But I could live with either flaw, I think.
If I can't see clear progress towards an institutional structure for Two Speed Europe that can accommodate the more semi-detached members adequately, it does make me lean more heavily towards voting No. Stumbling towards tighter integration is increasingly unattractive as an option.
"British taxpayers could be tapped for hundreds of millions of pounds to support Greece should it crash out of the eurozone, according to emergency plans under development by European officials."
"British taxpayers could be tapped for hundreds of millions of pounds to support Greece should it crash out of the eurozone, according to emergency plans under development by European officials."
Retires.
Thankfully there is a paywall, so I can remain blissfully unaware of what may come.
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
Try being a bit less abusive, today you've called me slimy also you've called me not very bright again, if you're going to try and win people, I suggest you read some Dale Carnegie.
I mean I hate to repost that link that shows Kippers have lower IQs than the average Tory, and the IQ of the average Kipper is only marginally higher than of the typical BNP supporter.
If you don't, you Kippers are going to make the Scot Nats look like well balanced, charming people.
I used to think you were a well balanced Kipper, and I guess you still are, with chips on both shoulders.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
That is your choice.
Or that British EUphobes are paranoid or delusional.
That is your choice.
Nope because we have facts and history on our side. We also have the examples shown on here - as we have seen this evening - where those who actually understand the law are able to show how wrong the Europhiles are on so many if their claims.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
I have come across some Europhiles who are quite open about their desire for this country to be run from Brussels, Luxembroug and Strasbourg, and would happily swear an oath of allegiance to Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow if they had the chance. As for those who are not openly of that opinion, there is a third possibility, which is that they are neither stupid nor dishonest, but merely badly informed. For example, how many people appreciate that the transfer of legislative powers, supremacy of European law and the direct effect in domestic law of its provisions do not apply to members of the European Economic Area (see Sveinbjörnsdóttir v Iceland [1999] 1 CMLR 884, 897)? The EU is a very difficult organisation to understand. Its machinations are inscrutable. We will have to persuade our opponents of our views with reasoned argument in the referendum campaign rather than accusing them necessarily of being stupid or dishonest, although many undoubtedly are.
I would say the vast majority of people do not even understand what the EU is. Outside of people with an interest in politics I have met very few people who have the slightest idea of what it actually is.
Not an excuse though that should be accepted from some of the regular posters on here who one would expect to know better.
"British taxpayers could be tapped for hundreds of millions of pounds to support Greece should it crash out of the eurozone, according to emergency plans under development by European officials."
Retires.
I think that would be very difficult to enforce. The proposed mechanism, article 143 TFEU, only applies to member states with a derogation from membership of the Euro within the meaning of article 139(1) TFEU. It provides that a member state with a derogation is one "in respect of which the Council has not decided that they fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro". If Greece crashed out of the Eurozone, it is difficult to argue that it would have a derogation within the meaning of that provision. Without a treaty change, it would have left the Eurozone illegally.
"British taxpayers could be tapped for hundreds of millions of pounds to support Greece should it crash out of the eurozone, according to emergency plans under development by European officials."
Retires.
I think that would be very difficult to enforce. Article 143 TFEU only applies to member states with a derogation from membership of the Euro within the meaning of article 139(1) TFEU. It provides that a member state with a derogation is one "in respect of which the Council has not decided that they fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro". If Greece crashed out of the Eurozone, it is difficult to argue that it would have a derogation within the meaning of that provision. Without a treaty change, it would have left the Eurozone illegally.
In practice it would probably be in Britain's interests to contribute in such circumstances, and the Prime Minister would be well-advised to say so directly if needs be.
The Church of England is to urge worshippers to dedicate the first day of every month to fasting and prayer for planet Earth as part of a major drive to instill green ideas in its followers.
Candidates for ordination as priests are also set to be trained in “eco-theology” while plans are being considered to install solar farms across parts of the Church’s extensive land holdings, in addition to existing wind farms...
It comes a day after Pope Francis published a long-awaited encyclical on the environment in which he threw the weight of the 1.2 billion-strong Roman Catholic Church behind the fight against climate change and called for fossil fuels to be phased out.
In practice it would probably be in Britain's interests to contribute in such circumstances, and the Prime Minister would be well-advised to say so directly if needs be.
That may or may not be the case, but forcing us to contribute on the basis of QMV would be outrageous (see article 8 of Council Regulation 332/2002/EC). Article 143 is a transitional provision designed to assist states to join the Euro, not to assist those who, in default of their treaty obligations, have left the single currency. There is of course nothing to stop Her Majesty's Government making such bilateral or multilateral agreements with other members states as it considers in the UK's national interest.
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
Try being a bit less abusive, today you've called me slimy also you've called me not very bright again, if you're going to try and win people, I suggest you read some Dale Carnegie.
I mean I hate to repost that link that shows Kippers have lower IQs than the average Tory, and the IQ of the average Kipper is only marginally higher than of the typical BNP supporter.
If you don't, you Kippers are going to make the Scot Nats look like well balanced, charming people.
I used to think you were a well balanced Kipper, and I guess you still are, with chips on both shoulders.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
Is it any wonder that No will do so badly.
Farage could hardly do better himself, at alienating potential supporters.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
I think UKIP will pick up in the next few years after a bit of a disappointment at the GE - if memory serves it wasn't until 3 years in or so unil there was a UKIP surge after GE2010 - but they are going through a difficult patch, and not making themselves look great, irrespective of others wanting to make them look not great.
UKIP's rise was IMO simply an inverse of the death of the Lib-Dems and the BNP. It was a dead cat bounce for protest parties as half the protest parties vote went to UKIP and half went to the two main parties.
I agree: but it's not just about the protest vote. It's also that the Conservative Party appeared to lose some of its more extreme supporters. UKIP detoxified the Conservative Party and made it more appealing to LibDem/Conservative waverers.
Robert, thanks for help , my problems are fixed.
That seems quite unlikely actually
Was that a squeak I heard from under yonder rock.
The unmistakable squeak of a turnip, perhaps?
Rob, that is an insult to all turnips
Depends on the type of turnip, surely? For the Granny Smiths of the turnip world, you may be right.... titter
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
Is it any wonder that No will do so badly.
Farage could hardly do better himself, at alienating potential supporters.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
How is this any better than saying that British Europhobes are either fruitcakes, nuts or loons?
The fact you refer to the OUT side as Europhobes rather destroys any claims you might make to moral superiority. And as you so helpfully point out it was Cameron who decided to refer to those who were making a principled stand in such derogatory terms, a tradition TSE has been happy to continue.
To coin a phrase, could we have just reached peak IN? We have a referendum planned, we have the Eurocrats staying silent or not being reported, and Cameron is shown getting a good reception from the EU leaders in his drive for changes.
Downhill all the way from here? Maybe age has made me cynical but even if Cameron returns reporting peace in our time, tinsel dressed up as presents is still tinsel.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
How is this any better than saying that British Europhobes are either fruitcakes, nuts or loons?
The fact you refer to the OUT side as Europhobes rather destroys any claims you might make to moral superiority. And as you so helpfully point out it was Cameron who decided to refer to those who were making a principled stand in such derogatory terms, a tradition TSE has been happy to continue.
Actually he referred to Kippers in that term, as for the terminology Europhobe is the opposite of Europhile ... -phobe and -phile are antonyms... sorry if that's not Politically Correct enough for you.
Funny though as I thought too much PC was normally the complaint?
To coin a phrase, could we have just reached peak IN? We have a referendum planned, we have the Eurocrats staying silent or not being reported, and Cameron is shown getting a good reception from the EU leaders in his drive for changes.
Downhill all the way from here? Maybe age has made me cynical but even if Cameron returns reporting peace in our time, tinsel dressed up as presents is still tinsel.
Doubt its peak anything yet.
If Cameron returns with some form of victory that doesn't unravel then I think In would gain from here. If Cameron returns with a flop that unravels then I think Out would gain from here.
I would be very interested to see an overlay of the trend in voters' economic optimism/perceived prosperity over a "net In" trend line ...
I suspect that for the vast majority of voters, a decision on In/Out will largely be a proxy for how well they felt the the economy was doing, and their own personal prospects.
After all, if the economy is doing well and you think you're likely to do well out of it, you're very unlikely to vote for rocking the boat. Single-issue constitutional referenda strike me more as being emotionally-driven judgements on the status quo than rational explorations of the options on offer. If that's true, if things are going well, the status quo will win. Even if things are going badly, if the alternative is painted as sufficiently frightening due to its unknown nature, then the status quo should also win.
Single-issue referenda - esp. on very complex constitutional issues like AV, Scottish independence, EU status - are more about politicians copping out of tough decisions rather than wanting the population to make a democratic choice.
In should win, regardless of the outcome of negotiations, unless there's a major economic wobble or EU drama at the same time as the campaign. Not impossible, of course (it IS the EU, and the Eurozone's troubles will still be unresolved), but I strongly suspect that despite a lot of sound & fury, In will be very comfortable winners on the night.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
How is this any better than saying that British Europhobes are either fruitcakes, nuts or loons?
The fact you refer to the OUT side as Europhobes rather destroys any claims you might make to moral superiority. And as you so helpfully point out it was Cameron who decided to refer to those who were making a principled stand in such derogatory terms, a tradition TSE has been happy to continue.
It all part of the Nabavi Tendancy of Cameroonism . The merits of the argument are beside the point, Dave has said it, therefore its right, and detailed investigation of the issue is discouraged in favour of party loyalty. It seems to be a growing, and rather boring, trend on these forums at the moment.
I guess Ken Clarke won't be as lonely among party members as a whole as he sometimes appears among the parliamentary party.
There's a few Pro Europeans in the parliamentary party, such Grieve and Anna Soubry.
The Eurosceptic head bangers make all the noise.
I guess the Pro Europeans in the Tory party are a lot like me, shy, restrained, quiet, very modest and lacking self confidence.
And thoroughly dishonest. You forgot that one.
No you're thinking of Nigel Farage.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
Yep Farage is dishonest. Given my comments on him before I am not sure why you thought I would have a problem with confirming that. Not your brightest retort today.
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
Is it any wonder that No will do so badly.
Farage could hardly do better himself, at alienating potential supporters.
TSE is not a potential supporter.
A comment on a widely read blog is seen by more people than the person you're directly addressing!
Comments
For example, they could simply draft a half-page codicil to the treaties, or use the provisions in the Lisbon Treaty for amendments. But I expect they'll come up with something more sinuous and imaginative.
I think that people who tell selection committees that they're Eurosceptic while doing the complete opposite in Parliament are the dishonest ones.
I'll be honest, I have no idea why he should be able to claim it - too lazy to cook himself a decent meal... I'd be full points if that was the criteria tbh.
His unresignation, the latest lie to come from his mouth.
- Then you were careless in your use of words. You were asserting it as fact, not opinion.
"The swing for the SNP was not +3.1%, that is just dishonest."
- It's not a "swing". It's the gain in vote, as my text clearly implies. The figure is taken from the BBC website, so if they are "dishonest" blame them, not me.
Oh, and as further "mitigation", on the same day as the General Election, in the Council elections, the net gains/losses in seats were
Cons (+541)
UKIP (+176)
Green (+10)
Labour(-203)
LibDem (-411)
.... AND BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING I DON'T SUPPORT ANY UK POLITICAL PARTIES.
Swiss Vote - Alarm Bells in Europe | Quadriga https://youtu.be/ES9K4qMoUdM
The more abuse that's heaped on OUT the more this referendum will have the chance of being another serious polling £$%^ up!
Keep the good work up.
"I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a Council Chamber in Europe."
I don't doubt that is still his view but he won't say it openly. He is quite happy now to deny there is any prospect of ever closer union even though he knows it is the aim of both the EU and himself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland Ooh they nearly have a third as many as the Lib Dems do. Once again UKIP succeed in picking up a fraction of what the Lib Dems lost.
If UKIP aren't to be anything other than a largely irrelevant protest party, where do they go from here? Picking up protest votes is one thing, picking up serious votes is something else. So far we only have protest votes.
Good luck either way!
Secondly, while Lisbon contains several ways of allowing for more rapid integration, including various passerelle clauses and the nebulous procedures for "enhances cooperation", the only mechanism for treaty change of the sort envisaged by Cameron is article 48 TEU. Who really believes it can be signed, sealed and delivered in the time frame set out in the European Union Referendum Bill? A non-binding declaration of the European Council would be pure fraud.
http://www.cityam.com/218400/eu-referendum-alan-johnson-given-role-head-labours-yes-campaign
(I find this rather odd - what's the hurry? I'd have expected Labour to wait until the new leader is in place, in less than twelve weeks' time, before deciding on their detailed position on the referendum).
Hart was born in 1957 whole Thomas in 1942.
Hart has serve in government since 1999
Still doesn't change the fact that slimy Europhiles like yourself are consistently dishonest about what EU membership means for the UK and what the consequences of an IN vote would be.
Only 14% are in favour of more integration. Only the very naive think that there will be no more integration so a significant number of people are going to be sorely disappointed when it inevitably occurs.
Only 14% are in favour of more integration. Only the very naive think that there will be no more integration so a significant number of people are going to be sorely disappointed when it inevitably occurs.
Wouldn't further integration require another referendum? So there will be the opportunity to object to it when the time comes.
No, Opting in to EU criminal justice provisions did not require a further referendum (this was established in the High Court). The so-called "referendum lock" is meaningless.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Also check out this page. It shows voter churn between 2010 and 2015.
You can see that the biggest group switching to UKIP are from the Conservatives!
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_votermigration.html
That's only because the EU Criminal Justice treaty provisions were already passed without a referendum by Labour in Lisbon isn't it? So doing so doesn't require a new Treaty, just an Act of Parliament.
A new Treaty would trigger the lock - and now that its established, the public and media would demand one.
http://www.cityam.com/218401/end-austerity-now-here-wholl-be-protest
'Give them enough votes to hang themselves' could be Cameron's lasting contribution to political strategy.
Though even if that was right, the Conservatives gained more than they lost - which seems a good trade given their much higher starting figures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33202900
"Watching Suzanne Evans, it was bit like watching a 1938 politburo member criticising Joe Stalin," Mr Bloom, a former flatmate of Nigel Farage's who quit the party in 2013 after falling out with him, said.
Stalin? More like Mr Bean to pinch one of Vince's best jokes.
I mean I hate to repost that link that shows Kippers have lower IQs than the average Tory, and the IQ of the average Kipper is only marginally higher than of the typical BNP supporter.
If you don't, you Kippers are going to make the Scot Nats look like well balanced, charming people.
I used to think you were a well balanced Kipper, and I guess you still are, with chips on both shoulders.
UKIP (+9.5)
Green (+2.8)
Lab (+1.5)
Con (+0.8)
LD (-15.2)
Cons and UKIP made big gains in council seats on the same day, at the expense of most of the others.
Trying to spin this as an "unmitigated disaster" is clearly false. It is incremental progress, and a fairly big increment at that.
But, there would be political pressure to hold a referendum.
There is however, nothing to prevent a government transferring powers to the EU by means of statutory instrument, regulation, etc.
Greek debt crisis endgame: ECB agrees to pump more money into Greece's banks as Russia enters the ring. Summit planned for next Monday, as €1bn pulled from banks yesterday and senior Government figures say Grexit is inevitable. The man leading Monday's emergency summit, EU Council president Donald Tusk......
"The game of chicken needs to end, and so does the blame game. There is no time for more games. We need to get rid of the illusion that there will be a magic solution at the leaders level. This summit will not be the final step - there will be no detailed technical negotiations, that remains the job of the finance ministers. We are close to the point where the Greek government will have to choose to accept what I believe is a good offer for support, or to head towards default. At the end of the day, this can only be a Greek decision. There is time, but only a few days. Let us use them wisely."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11685405/Greek-debt-crisis-endgame-ECB-agrees-to-pump-more-money-into-Greeces-banks-as-Russia-enters-the-ring-live.html
That is the revised version, post election.
The original version was based on the opinion polls. From memory, it had 5 switchers from Conservatve to UKIP in the original version but this was revised down to 4 in the final version.
"Churn" is often mentioned on PB, but its fascinating to see a graphical demo of it.
Worse: there is some evidence that voters on the left of the political spectrum are willing to vote Conservative to stop UKIP. Tactical voting has slaughtered the FN in France. It could well harming UKIP equally. It is possible to see UKIP on 15% in 2020, but without a single seat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUG5XpbCOwE
I know that Tories rubbish everything that fails to put Cameron and Osborne on a pedastal, but if you sincerely want to know what the Lib Dems are about, this may help.
I'd be fascinated to see any evidence of the Pope having all of the above for his personal use.
Do you happen to have the registration numbers of the Pope's private planes for example?
rgds
Secondly, the Act cannot require the holding of a referendum if a future Act of Parliament provides for a transfer of powers without a referendum. That is trite law (for some of the most extreme examples, see British Coal Corporation v King [1935] AC 500, 520 (PC); Sillars v Smith 1982 SLT 539; Manuel v Attorney General [1983] Ch. 77, per Sir Robert Megarry & Slade LJ).
Thirdly, there is a strong argument that many of the provisions of the 2011 Act, including the one requiring a referendum on whether or not the UK would join the Euro, are inconsistent with EU law, and would be disapplied by the courts under section 2(4) of the European Communities Act 1972 were the issue to arise (see Craig, 'The European Union Act 2011: Locks, Limits and Legality', (2011) 48 CMLR 1881).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33171549
And on that note, good night everybody
http://www.bristol247.com/channel/news-comment/daily/politics/ukip-porn-actor-sacked-as-party-vice-chair
'but if you sincerely want to know what the Lib Dems are about, this may help.'
Apart from the Lib Dems love affair with the EU,everything else in that speech you will hear from the four Labour leadership candidates.
In 2020, the EU will have been aired as an issue and put back in its box for decades - for all but the die-hard Kippers. UKIP's only hope for moving forward politically requires the defenestration of Nigel and then trashing Labour in the north. The SNP has shown that Labour voters, taken for granted for decades, are there for the taking....
As an attack line it is rather on a par with thinking that insulting Farage is going to upset a Farage opponent. Maybe I was right that you really aren't that bright.
The bottom line is that British Europhile like yourself are, by necessity, inherently dishonest because they know that if they were honest about the long term results of an IN vote then the public would run a mile. This is why they use arguments about stuff like 'referendum locks' even though they know they are meaningless.
It really does come down to the basic principle that British Europhiles are either stupid or dishonest .
That is your choice.
I watched it intently and made notes.
If I have noted what Tim Farron said correctly...
LD achievements in coalition
- support for Pupil Premium (£2 billion)
- Green Energy (£8 billion)
- Ending of detention of children of Asylum seekers (500 kids benefit)
Motivation for wanting to be leader
- Defend civil liberties
- Defend Human Rights (including surveillance, extremism orders)
- Enthusiastic support for membership of EU
- Strong Green agenda
- Strong personal driver is inequality and the resultant waste
- Wants party and country to have "ambition"
- Personal hero is William Beveridge because he created the blueprint for post-war Britain (so he claims)
- With only 8 MP's nuance gets you nowhere
- Wants LDs to be the party that identifies the big issues and provides the big solutions
- Switched to housing problem (2 million people on waiting list)
- "Nothing matters more than tackling climate change"
- A curious statement on Civil liberties at around 7:50:
"If 70% of the electorate disagree with us I don't care! 30% will do for me!"
- Its all about revival and survival, but survival is essential "but not inevitable".
A plan is needed and Tim has one (9:00).
- Have to understand that the LD are not quite the cutting edge campaigning force that they sometimes tell themselves that they are.
- They have to learn from many quarters, even from people that they may not like.
- Last bit was a tribute to Charles Kennedy (Human, pricipled, effective)
This is NOT a comment on the accuracy or otherwise of your statements, NOR is it based on any disagreement with you or your espoused views. It is purely a comment on your behaviour.
Some people suggest that the Labour and LibDem parties should merge. From what I've seen they are still far too distinct for that to work (it's not like the Liberal/SDP merger), but they could form an electoral alliance on the basis of sufficient common ground for a program of government INCLUDING INTRODUCING PR.
1200 school inspectors go.. Unions whine about having had to put up with them so long....
So when the Govt sacks the 3000?? most useless teachers, one assumes the Unions will be equally as glad that its been done at last. and whine about having had to put up with them so long..
I have yet to see you make any worthwhile contribution to the discussion so perhaps you should concentrate on that rather than whining about others.
And yes that is scorn you can detect in my reply to you.
That is your choice.
At some point there has to be a parting of ways, "this far and no further". I'm not too fussed whether this occurs by means of the UK withdrawing from the EU though continuing to trade with it, or by the separation of an "inner core" of members into a quasi-federal structure that leaves states like the UK in a "semi-detached" position. Neither is flawless, since in the former case we may be left in the Norwegian position of having to accept regulations we can do little to influence (but this is a feature of much international trade) while the latter leaves fringe members exposed to being outvoted and outmanoeuvred by an increasingly united Core grouping during pan-EU discussions. But I could live with either flaw, I think.
If I can't see clear progress towards an institutional structure for Two Speed Europe that can accommodate the more semi-detached members adequately, it does make me lean more heavily towards voting No. Stumbling towards tighter integration is increasingly unattractive as an option.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8651b708-1693-11e5-9883-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz3dWrxsg3C
"British taxpayers could be tapped for hundreds of millions of pounds to support Greece should it crash out of the eurozone, according to emergency plans under development by European officials."
Retires.
Farage could hardly do better himself, at alienating potential supporters.
To coin a phrase, could we have just reached peak IN? We have a referendum planned, we have the Eurocrats staying silent or not being reported, and Cameron is shown getting a good reception from the EU leaders in his drive for changes.
Downhill all the way from here? Maybe age has made me cynical but even if Cameron returns reporting peace in our time, tinsel dressed up as presents is still tinsel.
Funny though as I thought too much PC was normally the complaint?
If Cameron returns with some form of victory that doesn't unravel then I think In would gain from here.
If Cameron returns with a flop that unravels then I think Out would gain from here.
I suspect that for the vast majority of voters, a decision on In/Out will largely be a proxy for how well they felt the the economy was doing, and their own personal prospects.
After all, if the economy is doing well and you think you're likely to do well out of it, you're very unlikely to vote for rocking the boat. Single-issue constitutional referenda strike me more as being emotionally-driven judgements on the status quo than rational explorations of the options on offer. If that's true, if things are going well, the status quo will win. Even if things are going badly, if the alternative is painted as sufficiently frightening due to its unknown nature, then the status quo should also win.
Single-issue referenda - esp. on very complex constitutional issues like AV, Scottish independence, EU status - are more about politicians copping out of tough decisions rather than wanting the population to make a democratic choice.
In should win, regardless of the outcome of negotiations, unless there's a major economic wobble or EU drama at the same time as the campaign. Not impossible, of course (it IS the EU, and the Eurozone's troubles will still be unresolved), but I strongly suspect that despite a lot of sound & fury, In will be very comfortable winners on the night.