Cherie Blair's bid to match her husband's riches met with disaster yesterday when her chain of healthcare shops went bust.
Eleven stores have closed with the loss of dozens of jobs.
Staff told bosses to 'rot in hell' during a heated conference call announcing the business was going into liquidation.
It is a massive setback for Mrs Blair, who launched Mee Healthcare with her American business partner Gail Lese in 2011 to exploit reforms opening up the NHS to private competition.
Mrs Blair, 60, a lifelong socialist, has always rejected claims that she was cashing in on NHS privatisation – even though Mee Healthcare was funded via an investment company in the tax haven of the Cayman Islands.
Support for In and Out has fluctuated sharply over the years.
The MORI poll finds the most popular position (a free trade area) is not the one that's on offer.
Indeed. It is interesting to dig into the figures of that poll that TSE was so keen to trumpet yesterday.
Given a choice of what they would like to see as far as the UK relationship with the EU goes:
13% said they want to leave 14% said they want closer union.
They are the ones with a clear black and white view
33% said they wanted a return to a economic Community with no political links 31% said they wanted the relationship to stay as it is now.
I don't think there is anyone on either side who is informed about the EU who believes either of these things are possible. They are not being offered and will not happen as long as we remain inside the EU.
So we have 27% of the electorate equally split who have a realistic view of the EU and 64% who are are wanting something they simply cannot have. Rather similar I suppose to the situation in Greece where people want their cake and eat it.
Oh and those numbers are no where near as bad as the headline figures TSE was pushing.
You mean the poll I heavily caveated and said was down to the Cameron/Tory honeymoon?
I reread your thread header before I posted just to make sure I was right. Not once did you mention the underlying figures which frankly transform that poll.
Why was that? Couldn't be bothered or didn't like what it showed?
I felt it didn't show much, other than more people want ever closer union than want to leave the EU, which amused me no end.
Writing threads can be a challenge, the first draft of the thread was along the lines of 57% of the voters aren't confident in Cameron getting a good deal for the UK in the renegotiations but 75% want us to remain in the EU, which I found fascinating and still can't explain.
But I chose to focus on the reasons why the headline figures were probably higher for IN because of the honeymoon, so In shouldn't be complacent/Out shouldn't be disheartened.
So at the very time the EU is at its worst, and the whole thing looks like being in danger of collapse, the poll ratings for staying IN are the highest they have been for ages..?
WTF?
I really don't get it.
In some ways I think it's a proxy approval rating for Angela Merkel. The polls would look very different if Germany had a different leader.
I had an interesting conversation with a patient this week (a lull in the final Med School exams). His view (at the age of 70 and with two grandparents interned as Italian aliens) was that much British anti-europeanism dated from the emphasis in Britain on the two world wars. As these fade into history, and with the Cold war ending 3 decades ago, attitudes to Europe will become more positive.
I think that he had a point. Angel Merkel is not to be feared, and neither is Juncker. Europe is a different and more positive place than in previous decades.
I think it's much more deep-seated than that. There's a streak of bloddy-minded independence in the average Brit that simply doesn't like being told what to do. Even London is at best grudgingly accepted. And as you get further and further away, they are more and more resisted.
Whereas Europeans have had tiers of princelings for multiple generations and basically just ignore them rather than resist.
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
But this is not about beliefs it is about facts.
I asked you a question earlier that you have so far avoided so I will repeat it.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
But, of course, they'll also tell you it's totally possible to be British and Scottish.
"European" as an identity is artificial and meaningless.
All identities are artificial, and the fear it inspires suggests it is objectively not meaningless.
Identity is based on common areas of culture, language, political and judicial systems and heritage.
In those terms 'English' or 'Scottish' are valid identifiers. British has attempted to become one but even after almost 3 centuries it has struggled because of the cultural, legal and political differences between the two countries. 'European' is simply a modern construct that has not yet even begun to seep into people's consciences except perhaps in an overtly racist manner connected with 'white' and 'civilised'.
But, of course, they'll also tell you it's totally possible to be British and Scottish.
"European" as an identity is artificial and meaningless.
"European' as an identity means exactly what those who believe it applies to them means. No more, no less. Whether you like it or not.
Because the reason a transfer union is such a popular idea in the EU is that we all feel like one big European family and are happy to support the less productive members of the family in the same way that one state in the United States supports another, or one county in the UK supports another.... oh wait! Now I think about it there was a lot of pro-EU Germans stating that they did want hard working Germans propping up the lifestyles of lazy Greeks, or words to that effect, can't you just feel the European spirit of brotherhood and unity ?
So at the very time the EU is at its worst, and the whole thing looks like being in danger of collapse, the poll ratings for staying IN are the highest they have been for ages..?
WTF?
I really don't get it.
In some ways I think it's a proxy approval rating for Angela Merkel. The polls would look very different if Germany had a different leader.
I had an interesting conversation with a patient this week (a lull in the final Med School exams). His view (at the age of 70 and with two grandparents interned as Italian aliens) was that much British anti-europeanism dated from the emphasis in Britain on the two world wars. As these fade into history, and with the Cold war ending 3 decades ago, attitudes to Europe will become more positive.
I think that he had a point. Angel Merkel is not to be feared, and neither is Juncker. Europe is a different and more positive place than in previous decades.
I think it's much more deep-seated than that. There's a streak of bloddy-minded independence in the average Brit that simply doesn't like being told what to do. Even London is at best grudgingly accepted. And as you get further and further away, they are more and more resisted.
Whereas Europeans have had tiers of princelings for multiple generations and basically just ignore them rather than resist.
One word: Guillotine.
One word, one country, one city, one small group of middle class radicals. One point in history
Life for most peasants in France was little different, except that they got to die on battlefields in a range of different countries
I asked you a question earlier that you have so far avoided so I will repeat it.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
What I would chose is not the issue. The issue whether a majority of people can be persuaded to place a cross against Yes or No in a referendum.
Just to avoid being accused of dodging the question, I would chose ever closer union.
Which is a valid choice but which informs your view of the question. Most people - I would suggest - would not, if the choice were put in those stark terms. Indeed the fact that so many people are apparently willing to be swayed by Cameron's renegotiation indicates that the majority are not content with 'ever closer union'.
As I say, that is the message that OUT will be pushing; that the choice presented is not between status quo and change but between two different directions neither of which will bear much relation to what we have known to date.
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
You wish that was the choice.
Since we don't know what the Euro or EU will be like on Monday let alone in ten years time, you appear surer of everything than most of us are of anything.....
But, of course, they'll also tell you it's totally possible to be British and Scottish.
"European" as an identity is artificial and meaningless.
All identities are artificial, and the fear it inspires suggests it is objectively not meaningless.
True enough. I get furious when people say there is no such thing as British identity for that very reason, that to some extent all such identities are artificial, or at least arbitrary. I feel a little European, but not to the point of desiring ever closer union, but I can accept some people might and perhaps do feel so.
But, of course, they'll also tell you it's totally possible to be British and Scottish.
"European" as an identity is artificial and meaningless.
"European' as an identity means exactly what those who believe it applies to them means. No more, no less. Whether you like it or not.
Because the reason a transfer union is such a popular idea in the EU is that we all feel like one big European family and are happy to support the less productive members of the family in the same way that one state in the United States supports another, or one county in the UK supports another.... oh wait! Now I think about it there was a lot of pro-EU Germans stating that they did want hard working Germans propping up the lifestyles of lazy Greeks, or words to that effect, can't you just feel the European spirit of brotherhood and unity ?
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
You wish that was the choice.
Since we don't know what the Euro or EU will be like on Monday let alone in ten years time, you appear surer of everything than most of us are of anything.....
I am sure the intent is to move toward Ever Closer Union - if that is not the case in ten years time, or still the intended endgame in ten years time, it will be against the wishes and actions of the bureaucratic machine and many of the heads of state of the project, and so to me it appears very unlikely the direction of travel will ever alter. It may stall for a time, but that hasn't happened yet either (slowing it seems to be the order of the day), and that is my fundamental problem.
So at the very time the EU is at its worst, and the whole thing looks like being in danger of collapse, the poll ratings for staying IN are the highest they have been for ages..?
WTF?
I really don't get it.
In some ways I think it's a proxy approval rating for Angela Merkel. The polls would look very different if Germany had a different leader.
I had an interesting conversation with a patient this week (a lull in the final Med School exams). His view (at the age of 70 and with two grandparents interned as Italian aliens) was that much British anti-europeanism dated from the emphasis in Britain on the two world wars. As these fade into history, and with the Cold war ending 3 decades ago, attitudes to Europe will become more positive.
I think that he had a point. Angel Merkel is not to be feared, and neither is Juncker. Europe is a different and more positive place than in previous decades.
I think it's much more deep-seated than that. There's a streak of bloddy-minded independence in the average Brit that simply doesn't like being told what to do. Even London is at best grudgingly accepted. And as you get further and further away, they are more and more resisted.
Whereas Europeans have had tiers of princelings for multiple generations and basically just ignore them rather than resist.
One word: Guillotine.
One word, one country, one city, one small group of middle class radicals. One point in history
Life for most peasants in France was little different, except that they got to die on battlefields in a range of different countries
Hmm. No it was not. If you think the revolution was limited just to the middle classes and nobs in the cities then I suggest you go and look up the Vendee.
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
You wish that was the choice.
Since we don't know what the Euro or EU will be like on Monday let alone in ten years time, you appear surer of everything than most of us are of anything.....
I am sure the intent is to move toward Ever Closer Union
That may well be the case among the EUrocracy - but would not appear to be the case among the heads of government, who ultimately decide.
But, of course, they'll also tell you it's totally possible to be British and Scottish.
"European" as an identity is artificial and meaningless.
"European' as an identity means exactly what those who believe it applies to them means. No more, no less. Whether you like it or not.
Because the reason a transfer union is such a popular idea in the EU is that we all feel like one big European family and are happy to support the less productive members of the family in the same way that one state in the United States supports another, or one county in the UK supports another.... oh wait! Now I think about it there was a lot of pro-EU Germans stating that they did want hard working Germans propping up the lifestyles of lazy Greeks, or words to that effect, can't you just feel the European spirit of brotherhood and unity ?
You are confusing 'Europe' with 'the EU'......
I have seen EU leaflets describing Brussels as the Capital of Europe (as I said yesterday, not as a quote or nickname, just a statement of fact). All sides confuse the EU for Europe for their own purposes.
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
You wish that was the choice.
Since we don't know what the Euro or EU will be like on Monday let alone in ten years time, you appear surer of everything than most of us are of anything.....
No, what I am sure about is what the EU is now. Something you seem to be painfully unaware of.
Europeans have had tiers of princelings for multiple generations and basically just ignore them rather than resist.
You think we haven't had tiers of princelings for multiple generations?
* Make a list of all the countries in Europe, including the UK. * For each country list the last date at which their head of state was overthrown violently. * Rank that list in date order. * Look at the position of the UK in that list.
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
You wish that was the choice.
Since we don't know what the Euro or EU will be like on Monday let alone in ten years time, you appear surer of everything than most of us are of anything.....
I am sure the intent is to move toward Ever Closer Union
That may well be the case among the EUrocracy - but would not appear to be the case among the heads of government, who ultimately decide.
I am far less sure of that - the talk appears to be about speed of closer union and clawing back largely inconsequential details, with a few soft eurosceptics. The intent of the bureaucrats does not seem a problem for many of the leaders.
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
You wish that was the choice.
Since we don't know what the Euro or EU will be like on Monday let alone in ten years time, you appear surer of everything than most of us are of anything.....
I am sure the intent is to move toward Ever Closer Union
That may well be the case among the EUrocracy - but would not appear to be the case among the heads of government, who ultimately decide.
Carlotta makes use of the same systems of misdirection that have been so successful for the last 40 years.
- oh this is not going to happen. It is not even on the table. - oh well some people are suggesting it but we will not be involved so don't worry about it. - oh well, it has happened now and there is nothing we can do about it. If you felt that strongly about it you should have objected at the time.
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
You wish that was the choice.
Since we don't know what the Euro or EU will be like on Monday let alone in ten years time, you appear surer of everything than most of us are of anything.....
I am sure the intent is to move toward Ever Closer Union
That may well be the case among the EUrocracy - but would not appear to be the case among the heads of government, who ultimately decide.
Except they don't any more, a Qualified Majority of them do. For us that will be an Eurozone Majority outvoting us, and a poor South/Mediterranean EU outvoting us. The days of us getting anything substantial the way we want in the EU as long past. Incidentally even the the heads of government will it, if its not in a treaty, which for various reasons most heads of government dont want to get into, its at the mercy of the ECJ, which has as one of its founding principles, promoting "ever closer union". National governments are bound by EU and ECJ law while they are in the EU...
No. The point is that the status quo is not on offer and it then depends on how those voters split when they realise that is the case. The final choice is OUT or closer union. Neither of the other options is on offer.
That is the message that the OUT campaign will be concentrating on. There is no status quo option.
You might find that coming back to bite you. If you cast the referendum as a choice between "out" and "ever closer union", then what will you do if "out" loses?
Portillo spotted this some years ago as the reason why he didn't want a referendum: the possibility of losing it.
So at the very time the EU is at its worst, and the whole thing looks like being in danger of collapse, the poll ratings for staying IN are the highest they have been for ages..?
WTF?
I really don't get it.
In some ways I think it's a proxy approval rating for Angela Merkel. The polls would look very different if Germany had a different leader.
I had an interesting conversation with a patient this week (a lull in the final Med School exams). His view (at the age of 70 and with two grandparents interned as Italian aliens) was that much British anti-europeanism dated from the emphasis in Britain on the two world wars. As these fade into history, and with the Cold war ending 3 decades ago, attitudes to Europe will become more positive.
I think that he had a point. Angel Merkel is not to be feared, and neither is Juncker. Europe is a different and more positive place than in previous decades.
I think it's much more deep-seated than that. There's a streak of bloddy-minded independence in the average Brit that simply doesn't like being told what to do. Even London is at best grudgingly accepted. And as you get further and further away, they are more and more resisted.
Whereas Europeans have had tiers of princelings for multiple generations and basically just ignore them rather than resist.
One word: Guillotine.
One word, one country, one city, one small group of middle class radicals. One point in history
Life for most peasants in France was little different, except that they got to die on battlefields in a range of different countries
Hmm. No it was not. If you think the revolution was limited just to the middle classes and nobs in the cities then I suggest you go and look up the Vendee.
I'd argue that the discontent of the masses was exploited by a group of articulate lawyers in Paris. Although, to a great extent, this is arguably more the case with the Jacobins and the Terror than the original revolution.
Most of the original discontent was the result of climate change
No. The point is that the status quo is not on offer and it then depends on how those voters split when they realise that is the case. The final choice is OUT or closer union. Neither of the other options is on offer.
That is the message that the OUT campaign will be concentrating on. There is no status quo option.
You might find that coming back to bite you. If you cast the referendum as a choice between "out" and "ever closer union", then what will you do if "out" loses?
I'd be annoyed, but would complain less about the arrogant pronouncements of the EU bureaucrats, as they would have been proven right, regrettably.
Europeans have had tiers of princelings for multiple generations and basically just ignore them rather than resist.
You think we haven't had tiers of princelings for multiple generations?
* Make a list of all the countries in Europe, including the UK. * For each country list the last date at which their head of state was overthrown violently. * Rank that list in date order. * Look at the position of the UK in that list.
We haven't had tiers of princelings for multiple generations. Our royal dukes have no authority in their own right, while in European countries they were much more powerful.
The UK it would be 1688, which is not so long ago in the scheme of things.
But, of course, they'll also tell you it's totally possible to be British and Scottish.
"European" as an identity is artificial and meaningless.
"European' as an identity means exactly what those who believe it applies to them means. No more, no less. Whether you like it or not.
Because the reason a transfer union is such a popular idea in the EU is that we all feel like one big European family and are happy to support the less productive members of the family in the same way that one state in the United States supports another, or one county in the UK supports another.... oh wait! Now I think about it there was a lot of pro-EU Germans stating that they did want hard working Germans propping up the lifestyles of lazy Greeks, or words to that effect, can't you just feel the European spirit of brotherhood and unity ?
You are confusing 'Europe' with 'the EU'......
I have seen EU leaflets describing Brussels as the Capital of Europe (as I said yesterday, not as a quote or nickname, just a statement of fact). All sides confuse the EU for Europe for their own purposes.
Its disingenuous cant from Carlotta just for a change anyway - members of the EU are not happy with the idea of a transfer union within the EU, because they do not see themselves as one people, one demos in the same way as the USA, or the counties in a country. German politicians (whose country is in the EU) have expressed vocal concerns about industrious Germans (who are in the EU) supporting the lifestyle of "lazy Greeks" (who are also in the EU).
Makes just as much sense, removing the word Europe entirely, but the comment wasnt about finding sense, just making sixth form debating points.
Support for In and Out has fluctuated sharply over the years.
The MORI poll finds the most popular position (a free trade area) is not the one that's on offer.
Indeed. It is interesting to dig into the figures of that poll that TSE was so keen to trumpet yesterday.
Given a choice of what they would like to see as far as the UK relationship with the EU goes:
13% said they want to leave 14% said they want closer union.
They are the ones with a clear black and white view
33% said they wanted a return to a economic Community with no political links 31% said they wanted the relationship to stay as it is now.
I don't think there is anyone on either side who is informed about the EU who believes either of these things are possible. They are not being offered and will not happen as long as we remain inside the EU.
So we have 27% of the electorate equally split who have a realistic view of the EU and 64% who are are wanting something they simply cannot have. Rather similar I suppose to the situation in Greece where people want their cake and eat it.
Oh and those numbers are no where near as bad as the headline figures TSE was pushing.
You mean the poll I heavily caveated and said was down to the Cameron/Tory honeymoon?
I reread your thread header before I posted just to make sure I was right. Not once did you mention the underlying figures which frankly transform that poll.
Why was that? Couldn't be bothered or didn't like what it showed?
I felt it didn't show much, other than more people want ever closer union than want to leave the EU, which amused me no end.
Writing threads can be a challenge, the first draft of the thread was along the lines of 57% of the voters aren't confident in Cameron getting a good deal for the UK in the renegotiations but 75% want us to remain in the EU, which I found fascinating and still can't explain.
But I chose to focus on the reasons why the headline figures were probably higher for IN because of the honeymoon, so In shouldn't be complacent/Out shouldn't be disheartened.
33% want a trade only relationship. That would involve leaving the EU.
No. The point is that the status quo is not on offer and it then depends on how those voters split when they realise that is the case. The final choice is OUT or closer union. Neither of the other options is on offer.
That is the message that the OUT campaign will be concentrating on. There is no status quo option.
You might find that coming back to bite you. If you cast the referendum as a choice between "out" and "ever closer union", then what will you do if "out" loses?
Portillo spotted this some years ago as the reason why he didn't want a referendum: the possibility of losing it.
We are where we are, the referendum has been called. The only thing to do is make the best fist of it we can, the out campaign has one chance, and that is to persuade people its a proxy for voting in or out of membership of the future United States of Europe... unless Cameron does their job for them by making the campaign and the referendum feel so biased and unfair to the man in the street that the referendum loses all credibility, and he is off to a good start there!
Support for In and Out has fluctuated sharply over the years.
The MORI poll finds the most popular position (a free trade area) is not the one that's on offer.
Indeed. It is interesting to dig into the figures of that poll that TSE was so keen to trumpet yesterday.
Given a choice of what they would like to see as far as the UK relationship with the EU goes:
13% said they want to leave 14% said they want closer union.
They are the ones with a clear black and white view
33% said they wanted a return to a economic Community with no political links 31% said they wanted the relationship to stay as it is now.
I don't think there is anyone on either side who is informed about the EU who believes either of these things are possible. They are not being offered and will not happen as long as we remain inside the EU.
So we have 27% of the electorate equally split who have a realistic view of the EU and 64% who are are wanting something they simply cannot have. Rather similar I suppose to the situation in Greece where people want their cake and eat it.
Oh and those numbers are no where near as bad as the headline figures TSE was pushing.
You mean the poll I heavily caveated and said was down to the Cameron/Tory honeymoon?
I reread your thread header before I posted just to make sure I was right. Not once did you mention the underlying figures which frankly transform that poll.
Why was that? Couldn't be bothered or didn't like what it showed?
I felt it didn't show much, other than more people want ever closer union than want to leave the EU, which amused me no end.
Writing threads can be a challenge, the first draft of the thread was along the lines of 57% of the voters aren't confident in Cameron getting a good deal for the UK in the renegotiations but 75% want us to remain in the EU, which I found fascinating and still can't explain.
But I chose to focus on the reasons why the headline figures were probably higher for IN because of the honeymoon, so In shouldn't be complacent/Out shouldn't be disheartened.
33% want a trade only relationship. That would involve leaving the EU.
75% want a reduction in immigration, 56% want a "large" reduction in immigration. The first would probably require leaving the EU, the second definitely would. If Cameron gets his benefit changes, which isn't looking too promising at the moment, it will make zero difference to immigration, and people will be back on his case in 3-4 years time when they notice the figures keep going up.
No. The point is that the status quo is not on offer and it then depends on how those voters split when they realise that is the case. The final choice is OUT or closer union. Neither of the other options is on offer.
That is the message that the OUT campaign will be concentrating on. There is no status quo option.
You might find that coming back to bite you. If you cast the referendum as a choice between "out" and "ever closer union", then what will you do if "out" loses?
Portillo spotted this some years ago as the reason why he didn't want a referendum: the possibility of losing it.
It cannot come back to bite me because I fully embrace it. Ever Closer Union will be the result of an IN vote. No one with any sense can imagine otherwise. Even if one believed that a government opposed to closer union could resist (which they could not) they would not be in power for ever. The EU operates by a ratchet effect and powers once lost do not come back.
Those believing that there is some middle ground are sadly deluded.
75% want a reduction in immigration, 56% want a "large" reduction in immigration. The first would probably require leaving the EU, the second definitely would. If Cameron gets his benefit changes, which isn't looking too promising at the moment, it will make zero difference to immigration, and people will be back on his case in 3-4 years time when they notice the figures keep going up.
I wonder how long politcians will be able to get away with 300k per year immigration to this country before they finally admit they can do nothing about it.
So at the very time the EU is at its worst, and the whole thing looks like being in danger of collapse, the poll ratings for staying IN are the highest they have been for ages..?
WTF?
I really don't get it.
In some ways I think it's a proxy approval rating for Angela Merkel. The polls would look very different if Germany had a different leader.
I had an interesting conversation with a patient this week (a lull in the final Med School exams). His view (at the age of 70 and with two grandparents interned as Italian aliens) was that much British anti-europeanism dated from the emphasis in Britain on the two world wars. As these fade into history, and with the Cold war ending 3 decades ago, attitudes to Europe will become more positive.
I think that he had a point. Angel Merkel is not to be feared, and neither is Juncker. Europe is a different and more positive place than in previous decades.
I think it's much more deep-seated than that. There's a streak of bloddy-minded independence in the average Brit that simply doesn't like being told what to do. Even London is at best grudgingly accepted. And as you get further and further away, they are more and more resisted.
Whereas Europeans have had tiers of princelings for multiple generations and basically just ignore them rather than resist.
One word: Guillotine.
One word, one country, one city, one small group of middle class radicals. One point in history
Life for most peasants in France was little different, except that they got to die on battlefields in a range of different countries
Hmm. No it was not. If you think the revolution was limited just to the middle classes and nobs in the cities then I suggest you go and look up the Vendee.
I'd argue that the discontent of the masses was exploited by a group of articulate lawyers in Paris. Although, to a great extent, this is arguably more the case with the Jacobins and the Terror than the original revolution.
Most of the original discontent was the result of climate change
There is a wonderful quote about how the French revolution happened not because peasants were starving (they thought starvation part of their lot), but becauselawyers were.....
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
You wish that was the choice.
Since we don't know what the Euro or EU will be like on Monday let alone in ten years time, you appear surer of everything than most of us are of anything.....
I am sure the intent is to move toward Ever Closer Union
That may well be the case among the EUrocracy - but would not appear to be the case among the heads of government, who ultimately decide.
Carlotta makes use of the same systems of misdirection that have been so successful for the last 40 years.
- oh this is not going to happen. It is not even on the table. - oh well some people are suggesting it but we will not be involved so don't worry about it. - oh well, it has happened now and there is nothing we can do about it. If you felt that strongly about it you should have objected at the time.
Richard makes the same use of misdirection the SNP tried in the recent referendum:
- If we're not out of the UK/EU - The Tories will abolish the Scottish NHS / Brussels will [fill in bogeyman du jour]
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
You wish that was the choice.
Since we don't know what the Euro or EU will be like on Monday let alone in ten years time, you appear surer of everything than most of us are of anything.....
I am sure the intent is to move toward Ever Closer Union
That may well be the case among the EUrocracy - but would not appear to be the case among the heads of government, who ultimately decide.
Carlotta makes use of the same systems of misdirection that have been so successful for the last 40 years.
- oh this is not going to happen. It is not even on the table. - oh well some people are suggesting it but we will not be involved so don't worry about it. - oh well, it has happened now and there is nothing we can do about it. If you felt that strongly about it you should have objected at the time.
Richard makes the same use of misdirection the SNP tried in the recent referendum:
- If we're not out of the UK/EU - The Tories will abolish the Scottish NHS / Brussels will [fill in bogeyman du jour]
May he enjoy as much success as the SNP....
Nice try Carlotta but mine at least made sense. Yours is just drivel.
The crucial difference is that the EU is happy to admit what its aims are as they believe them to be valid and worthy so you really can't deny what I said.
The demand-side problems are what are screwing Greece right now. The main ones are: a highly overvalued exchange rate, an insanely tight fiscal squeeze (from this point of view, Greece collects far too much tax) and a collapsing banking system (this is a supply-side problem, but its implications are mostly on the demand side). These simply not soluble within the eurozone, without an unthinkable level of charity from northern Europe.
I think you are right.
Greece needs to defer its debt repayments until it can afford them, and reflate its economy. Its creditors will not allow it to do this.
So Greece should take unilateral action. It should declare its own debt repayment schedule - take it or leave it - and start issuing Euro IOUs (I promise to pay the bearer one euro from 1 Jan 2020). These will trade at a discount to real Euros but that is fine. It can pay pensions, salaries, invest in infrastructure and generally boost demand.
It will be in technical default so it won't be able to borrow Euros but it can print its own IOUs. It will be a dual currency economy - still in the Eurozone but reflating its economy.
It should tell its creditors to take a jump. I guess that is what it .
Barnesian: that's simply not true. Greece has been offered:
GDP linked repayments An interest holiday Maturity extensions And coupon cuts
Furthermore, the troika had dramatically reduced the primary surplus Greece is expected to run.
In return for which, it must free up labour markets, restart privatisations, raise civil service pension ages and reform VAT.
I've always suspected Farage desperately want's to stay in the EU, as leaving sort of destroy's his future (not to mention booting him and Mrs F off the gravy train)
I'm quite confident someone will "grasp the nettle" for NO though and take control of the campaign...
YES already looks very complacent...
I think people are attaching far too much importance to whether voters are pro or anti-Farage.
The government's enjoying its honeymoon, people are prepared to give Cameron the benefit of the doubt, the dire headlines of 2011/12 have receded, and the MORI poll is in any case way out of line with other pollsters.
Currently, Cameron has a 49% approval rating, and the government has 43%. It's fair to assume that both numbers will be well down by Autumn 2016.
...and it's 61% for IN (75% excluding don't knows).
75% want a reduction in immigration, 56% want a "large" reduction in immigration. The first would probably require leaving the EU, the second definitely would. If Cameron gets his benefit changes, which isn't looking too promising at the moment, it will make zero difference to immigration, and people will be back on his case in 3-4 years time when they notice the figures keep going up.
I wonder how long politcians will be able to get away with 300k per year immigration to this country before they finally admit they can do nothing about it.
Or that it shows that this country is doing okay. I couldn't help but troll a lefty friend of mine on Facebook before the election. He'd posted some left wing rubbish talking about foodbanks and the bedroom tax and I asked "if this country is so bad and nasty, why have more than 2.5 million people moved here in the last five years?" Of course, you'd never hear the Tories making that argument.
Just watching the BBC and they're reporting the courts ruled a Somali former al-Shabab member should have his electronic tag removed because it breached his human rights. It beggars belief.
95% of the time 95% of the people don't think about politics. That fraction becomes even more extreme when you consider EU politics.
But when they do think about it they often have their preconceptions shattered. That is what the OUT campaign aim to do. To make it clear that what people might want cannot be achieved inside the EU; that the claims that have long been whispered in the background about trading links free of political or judicial interference are not and never have been on offer.
There's a long tradition, not unique to the UK, of people with fundamentalist views on a given subject believing that, "If only the people understood, they would agree with me!" The reality rarely bares this out.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
You wish that was the choice.
Since we don't know what the Euro or EU will be like on Monday let alone in ten years time, you appear surer of everything than most of us are of anything.....
I am sure the intent is to move toward Ever Closer Union
That may well be the case among the EUrocracy - but would not appear to be the case among the heads of government, who ultimately decide.
It is the heads of government that have pushed treaty after treaty integrating us further.
Richard makes the same use of misdirection the SNP tried in the recent referendum:
- If we're not out of the UK/EU - The Tories will abolish the Scottish NHS / Brussels will [fill in bogeyman du jour]
May he enjoy as much success as the SNP....
No United Kingdom Parliament can bind its successor. Any faction with a majority in the House of Commons can change the laws of the land and the policy of the government. It makes little sense to say that certain things will inevitably occur in the United Kingdom. It is at root a question of political will.
The EU is a very different kettle of fish. It sets out its aims in the Treaties, which cannot be modified unilaterally, or even by the unanimous agreement of the heads of government of member states. The Commission is the guardian of those treaties. Its members must be "committed Europeans". It enjoys a monopoly on the proposal of secondary legislation. The Court of Justice is a political court, which has a naked pro-integration bias. Barring some unforeseen or unforeseeable future events, the consequences of continued membership of the European Union are clear. As article 1 of the Treaty on European Union makes clear, the aim is an ever closer union.
Or that it shows that this country is doing okay. I couldn't help but troll a lefty friend of mine on Facebook before the election. He'd posted some left wing rubbish talking about foodbanks and the bedroom tax and I asked "if this country is so bad and nasty, why have more than 2.5 million people moved here in the last five years?" Of course, you'd never hear the Tories making that argument.
That reminds me of Thatcher's response to hecklers who got into the conference hall - "You can't blame them. It's always better where the Tories are!"
Or that it shows that this country is doing okay. I couldn't help but troll a lefty friend of mine on Facebook before the election. He'd posted some left wing rubbish talking about foodbanks and the bedroom tax and I asked "if this country is so bad and nasty, why have more than 2.5 million people moved here in the last five years?" Of course, you'd never hear the Tories making that argument.
That reminds me of Thatcher's response to hecklers who got into the conference hall - "You can't blame them. It's always better where the Tories are!"
I hadn't seen that clip before until I googled it, very funny. I should point out that I don't actually agree with immigration proving that the country is okay. I was just trying to wind up my friend who probably hadn't heard anyone making such an argument and I suspect he hates Ukip even more than he hates the Tories.
Just watching the BBC and they're reporting the courts ruled a Somali former al-Shabab member should have his electronic tag removed because it breached his human rights. It beggars belief.
The courts are obliged to apply the Human Rights Act 1998. If that leads to perverse consequences, the answer is to repeal the 1998 Act, not to blame the judges for doing their judicial duty. The judgment of Collins J in DD v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2015] EWHC 1681 (Admin) is attached. Collins J appears to have followed the domestic and Strasbourg authorities and reached a justifiable conclusion, demonstrated by the fact that the Secretary of State will not be appealing from his judgment.
Just watching the BBC and they're reporting the courts ruled a Somali former al-Shabab member should have his electronic tag removed because it breached his human rights. It beggars belief.
The courts are obliged to apply the Human Rights Act 1998. If that leads to perverse consequences, the answer is to repeal the 1998 Act, not to blame the judges for doing their judicial duty. The judgment of Collins J in DD v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2015] EWHC 1681 (Admin) is attached. Collins J appears to have followed the domestic and Strasbourg authorities and reached a justifiable conclusion, demonstrated by the fact that the Secretary of State will not be appealing from his judgment.
Then there's something badly wrong with the Human Rights Act and we need to get rid of it promptly. It's running the name of human rights through the mud.
"I am proud to be British, which is one of several overlapping identities including being English, Leicesterian (by choice) and European."
When I was a boy you could tell a Leicesterian by the perverse pride they took in Daniel Lambert. Now you get photos of people like him every other day in the DM and I imagine he has been forgotten.
Since the Treaty of Rome the drive has been closer union between the 'peoples' of Europe - not states....
My citation of the Treaties, as amended, are correct. The Treaty of Rome is now known as TFEU. The Treaty of Maastricht is now known as TEU. Both are numbered numerically, rather than alphabetically. The preamble, and article 1 TEU have been modified since Maastricht to read:
This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of European
The meaning of the phrase changes when you insert an indefinite article. Both the preambles to TEU and TFEU now have the stronger meaning. It is perfectly clear that the aim is a political union of states.
Edit: scrap that, you misquoted the original treaty, the indefinite article has always been there. The other points stand.
It is perfectly clear that the aim is a political union of states.
It's certainly not clear that the aim is to create a political union using a model that has ever existed in the past.
The weakness of the scaremongering about a United States of Europe is that even the most ardent federalists can, in full honesty, deny that that is the plan.
It is perfectly clear that the aim is a political union of states.
It's certainly not clear that the aim is to create a political union using a model that has ever existed in the past.
The weakness of the scaremongering about a United States of Europe is that even the most ardent federalists can, in full honesty, deny that that is the plan.
I think also that Britons live in such a centralised state, even post devolution, that they do not understand federalism very well.
But you make a good point. When a country defaults, it does not cease to owe the money. It just refuses to hand it over. And, taking Greece as an example, until it has come to some agreement with its creditors, it will be be unable to borrow on the international markets. Furthermore, given the nature of its contracts with the IMF, it is liable to have its foreign assets expropriated and handed over to its creditors. (As an example, see when the hedge fund got an Argentine navy ship impounded.)
But you make a good point. When a country defaults, it does not cease to owe the money. It just refuses to hand it over. And, taking Greece as an example, until it has come to some agreement with its creditors, it will be be unable to borrow on the international markets. Furthermore, given the nature of its contracts with the IMF, it is liable to have its foreign assets expropriated and handed over to its creditors. (As an example, see when the hedge fund got an Argentine navy ship impounded.)
Edit: scrap that, you misquoted the original treaty, the indefinite article has always been there. The other points stand.
Arguing over the significance of the presence or absence of an indefinite article in a language in which a document was not originally drafted doesn't seem to me a fruitful exercise.
It is perfectly clear that the aim is a political union of states.
The weakness of the scaremongering about a United States of Europe is that even the most ardent federalists can, in full honesty, deny that that is the plan.
They can always point to the treaties.....ah, but those mean something else other than that which was written down
Its perfectly clear it means something else.....when they wrote 'peoples' they really meant 'states'......obvious, really, can't imagine why no one's corrected it.....
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
"No parliament may bind its successors" is often repeated on here.
But it is clearly absolute tosh.
When a government borrows money, it creates a contractual obligation for its successors, that they cannot simply undo by Act of Parliament.
The government and Parliament are not the same. You are also quite wrong. Government borrowing is authorised by Parliament. Parliament can, however, retrospectively alter contractual and/or tortious liability. No court will enforce a contract which Parliament has retrospectively declared void. It may be economically and/or politically unwise to do so, but Parliament has done it before (consider the infamous War Damage Act 1965, which retrospectively abrogated what would now be billions of pounds worth of liabilities in tort incurred by the Crown).
Incidentally, if the government body enters into a contract without parliamentary authority, that contract is made on the footing of a lack of capacity (i.e. as if it had been made with a minor). It is ultra vires and void from the moment it is made (Credit Suisse v Allerdale BC [1997] QB 306). A lot of banks in the 1980s foolishly assumed that if a government body had ostensible authority to enter into wholly speculative and larcenous interests rate swap agreements, it would be bound by them. The banks lost a lot of money when they found out that was not the constitutional position (see Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1992] 2 AC 1 (HL); Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669 (HL)). The great beneficiary of the banks' error was the legal profession.
The treaties explicitly create an executive, legislature and judiciary, a common citizenship, a customs union, an economic and monetary union with a common currency, uniform rules of competition, a common foreign policy, a common security and defence policy, an area of freedom, justice and security without internal frontiers, an internal market, a common commercial policy, a common agricultural policy, a common fisheries policy and a harmonised social policy. They are made with the explicit intent of "advanc[ing] European integration". The treaties have also been said to be the supreme law of every state, with primacy over every national constitutional provision. They have been said to be directly effective in the courts of every member state. The Court of Justice's construction of the Treaties is even more federalist than the Treaties themselves.
We have an opt out from a few of the provisions of the Treaties, but the essence of the whole thing can be inferred from the above.
This is a very odd article. The reason that is the received wisdom is because its quite probably true - certainly a likely logical outcome.
Greece (like all EMU countries) effectively uses a foreign currency, which it therefore cannot print. The lender of last resort is the ECB. If Greece defaults it will default to the ECB sometime next month. Greece's banks and government will then not have sufficient means to make euro payments unless the ECB decides to let them have some.. which seems kind of unlikely in that circumstance. There is the amusing possibility that the default could render the ECB in need of recapitalisation under present rules, but that's another story.
So Greece will have to issue their own de facto currency in the form of IOUs or something more definite, and therefore not in any meaningful way be a member of the Eurozone. Either than or return to being a barter economy which is probably not a very good idea.
Having said that my guess for a while has been that the rest of the Eurozone would actually rather Greece defaulted than accept forgiveness of their obviously unpayable debts, because it gives make it easier to explain to angry voters. Then some form of (very quick) semi-humanitarian aid would be provided to enable Greece to remain in the Eurozone. But that's only the workings of a cynical mind.
Comments
"Mee Mee Mee. It's all about Mee...."
Writing threads can be a challenge, the first draft of the thread was along the lines of 57% of the voters aren't confident in Cameron getting a good deal for the UK in the renegotiations but 75% want us to remain in the EU, which I found fascinating and still can't explain.
But I chose to focus on the reasons why the headline figures were probably higher for IN because of the honeymoon, so In shouldn't be complacent/Out shouldn't be disheartened.
I asked you a question earlier that you have so far avoided so I will repeat it.
Given the choice between OUT and Ever Closer Union which would you choose?
That is the choice. There is no other.
Just to avoid being accused of dodging the question, I would chose ever closer union.
In those terms 'English' or 'Scottish' are valid identifiers. British has attempted to become one but even after almost 3 centuries it has struggled because of the cultural, legal and political differences between the two countries. 'European' is simply a modern construct that has not yet even begun to seep into people's consciences except perhaps in an overtly racist manner connected with 'white' and 'civilised'.
That is the basis of your 'European' identity.
Life for most peasants in France was little different, except that they got to die on battlefields in a range of different countries
As I say, that is the message that OUT will be pushing; that the choice presented is not between status quo and change but between two different directions neither of which will bear much relation to what we have known to date.
Since we don't know what the Euro or EU will be like on Monday let alone in ten years time, you appear surer of everything than most of us are of anything.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM8bTdBs-cw
* Make a list of all the countries in Europe, including the UK.
* For each country list the last date at which their head of state was overthrown violently.
* Rank that list in date order.
* Look at the position of the UK in that list.
- oh this is not going to happen. It is not even on the table.
- oh well some people are suggesting it but we will not be involved so don't worry about it.
- oh well, it has happened now and there is nothing we can do about it. If you felt that strongly about it you should have objected at the time.
Portillo spotted this some years ago as the reason why he didn't want a referendum: the possibility of losing it.
Most of the original discontent was the result of climate change
The UK it would be 1688, which is not so long ago in the scheme of things.
Makes just as much sense, removing the word Europe entirely, but the comment wasnt about finding sense, just making sixth form debating points.
Those believing that there is some middle ground are sadly deluded.
- If we're not out of the UK/EU
- The Tories will abolish the Scottish NHS / Brussels will [fill in bogeyman du jour]
May he enjoy as much success as the SNP....
The crucial difference is that the EU is happy to admit what its aims are as they believe them to be valid and worthy so you really can't deny what I said.
Won't stop you trying of course.
GDP linked repayments
An interest holiday
Maturity extensions
And coupon cuts
Furthermore, the troika had dramatically reduced the primary surplus Greece is expected to run.
In return for which, it must free up labour markets, restart privatisations, raise civil service pension ages and reform VAT.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33210687 [MODERATED].
* [MODERATED] [MODERATED] [MODERATED] [MODERATED] [PLURAL]!!!
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-06-20/labour-leadership-candidates-booed-at-campaign-hustings/
The EU is a very different kettle of fish. It sets out its aims in the Treaties, which cannot be modified unilaterally, or even by the unanimous agreement of the heads of government of member states. The Commission is the guardian of those treaties. Its members must be "committed Europeans". It enjoys a monopoly on the proposal of secondary legislation. The Court of Justice is a political court, which has a naked pro-integration bias. Barring some unforeseen or unforeseeable future events, the consequences of continued membership of the European Union are clear. As article 1 of the Treaty on European Union makes clear, the aim is an ever closer union.
Going back to the Treaty of Rome the preamble refers to 'the peoples of Europe', and also 'of their countries':
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe
RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe
The Maastricht Treaty (as Article A, not 1) says:
This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating ever closer union among the peoples of Europe...
The Union shall be founded on the European Communities...Its task shall be to organise...relations between the member states and their peoples'
http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/treaties/pdf/treaty_on_european_union/treaty_on_european_union_en.pdf
Since the Treaty of Rome the drive has been closer union between the 'peoples' of Europe - not states....
I can think of one, simple £4-billion tax-cut. Not very complex and easy to implement within England. [Other 'troupes' may require EU funding....]
When I was a boy you could tell a Leicesterian by the perverse pride they took in Daniel Lambert. Now you get photos of people like him every other day in the DM and I imagine he has been forgotten.
Edit: scrap that, you misquoted the original treaty, the indefinite article has always been there. The other points stand.
But it is clearly absolute tosh.
When a government borrows money, it creates a contractual obligation for its successors, that they cannot simply undo by Act of Parliament.
Greece are trying very hard to prove you wrong.
The weakness of the scaremongering about a United States of Europe is that even the most ardent federalists can, in full honesty, deny that that is the plan.
Yes :-)
But you make a good point. When a country defaults, it does not cease to owe the money. It just refuses to hand it over. And, taking Greece as an example, until it has come to some agreement with its creditors, it will be be unable to borrow on the international markets. Furthermore, given the nature of its contracts with the IMF, it is liable to have its foreign assets expropriated and handed over to its creditors. (As an example, see when the hedge fund got an Argentine navy ship impounded.)
Its perfectly clear it means something else.....when they wrote 'peoples' they really meant 'states'......obvious, really, can't imagine why no one's corrected it.....
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Incidentally, if the government body enters into a contract without parliamentary authority, that contract is made on the footing of a lack of capacity (i.e. as if it had been made with a minor). It is ultra vires and void from the moment it is made (Credit Suisse v Allerdale BC [1997] QB 306). A lot of banks in the 1980s foolishly assumed that if a government body had ostensible authority to enter into wholly speculative and larcenous interests rate swap agreements, it would be bound by them. The banks lost a lot of money when they found out that was not the constitutional position (see Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1992] 2 AC 1 (HL); Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669 (HL)). The great beneficiary of the banks' error was the legal profession.
We have an opt out from a few of the provisions of the Treaties, but the essence of the whole thing can be inferred from the above.
Greece (like all EMU countries) effectively uses a foreign currency, which it therefore cannot print. The lender of last resort is the ECB. If Greece defaults it will default to the ECB sometime next month. Greece's banks and government will then not have sufficient means to make euro payments unless the ECB decides to let them have some.. which seems kind of unlikely in that circumstance. There is the amusing possibility that the default could render the ECB in need of recapitalisation under present rules, but that's another story.
So Greece will have to issue their own de facto currency in the form of IOUs or something more definite, and therefore not in any meaningful way be a member of the Eurozone. Either than or return to being a barter economy which is probably not a very good idea.
Having said that my guess for a while has been that the rest of the Eurozone would actually rather Greece defaulted than accept forgiveness of their obviously unpayable debts, because it gives make it easier to explain to angry voters. Then some form of (very quick) semi-humanitarian aid would be provided to enable Greece to remain in the Eurozone. But that's only the workings of a cynical mind.
(I've been a currency trader for 20 years..)