Why would workers' rights automatically be weakened if the UK leaves the EU?
The short answer is that it would be for Parliament to decide, were the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. There is one respect that workers' rights would undoubtedly be strengthened were the UK to leave the EU. Under EU law, companies' rights to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services under articles 49 & 56 are directly effective against trades unions (International Transport Workers' Federation v Viking Line ABP [2008] 1 CMLR 51). This has the result that a strike which interferes with a company's EU law rights cannot take place if a judge holds that it is not a necessary and proportionate means of fulfilling a legitimate aim of a non-economic character. This is a restriction on striking which does not exist in domestic law, where the position has always been that there is a right to strike provided the strike is in furtherance of a trade dispute and the statutory procedural formalities are complied with.
Tata Steel has announced it will shed 720 jobs in its UK business, because of rising costs and a strong pound.
Most of the jobs will go from its steel bar-making plant in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.
In a statement, it said its steel bars business had been "underperforming" and unable to be as competitive as its European counterparts.
It also said it planned to "refocus" on "high-value" markets, such as the aerospace industry.
Tata added that of the jobs being lost, 35 would go from its steel operations in the West Midlands.
The firm said it would be working closely with those at risk of losing their jobs, as well as trade unions, to redeploy people and minimise compulsory redundancies.
"Energy is one of our largest costs at our speciality and bar business and we are disadvantaged by the UK's cripplingly high electricity costs," said Karl Koehler, chief executive of Tata Steel's European operations.
"And while the UK government announced helpful measures to reduce the impact of its high energy taxes a few years ago, these measures still haven't been introduced.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the bridging finance is secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Ah! But would our friends in the EU have caved in without the "Sword of Brexit" hanging over their heads to concentrate their minds?
Probably not. Definitely not if we were led by Tony "lets cave in on everything to gain 'influence" Blair.
That's why we need to exercise the threat of Brexit to get a permanent change to protect the non-EZ - as Cameron as seeking. Getting one would be a remarkable victory.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Given that you can see into the future and know what further deals/treaty provisions the EU will forget about or declare null and void, could you please let me have a note of this Saturday's winning lottery numbers.
I took 9/1 on Mr Farron succeeding Clegg way back in late 2010. It was the only winner of around 15 long term politics bets placed with Mr. Chandler before he closed my account.
Ed balls never became labour leader (22/1) and neither did Alan Johnson (33/1). There was no election in 2011 (11/2) or 2012 (7/1). Oh, and Ron Paul never became president (100/1)!
Of all my pre-2011 bets, my winnings minus stakes only just left me in the green by about 4%. I think my advantage these days on long term politics bets is more like 30%.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Given that you can see into the future and know what further deals/treaty provisions the EU will forget about or declare null and void, could you please let me have a note of this Saturday's winning lottery numbers.
Unlike others here (like those incorrectly claiming the UK would be made to pay to this bailout) I'm talking about what's agreed in the present not crying about a hypothetical imagined future.
If you care to give the lottery numbers with your imagined future though that'd be interesting.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Just so we understand, they are taking some of our money, which they agreed not to take, and are promising to pay it back from some money that really belongs to Greece should the Greeks not be able to pay the money back. If they are so sure the Greeks are going to pay it back, why don't the Eurozone countries or the ECB foot the bill ? This agreement to cover the money with the ECB cash, is that just a gentlemen's agreement, or is it legally binding ?
What was that the Conservative Manifesto said again ? “We took Britain out of Eurozone bailouts, including for Greece – the first ever return of powers from Brussels.”.
Unlike others here (like those incorrectly claiming the UK would be made to pay to this bailout) I'm talking about what's agreed in the present not crying about a hypothetical imagined future.
Hysterical, what is agreed in the present, like the not using the Stability Fund was agreed in the present a while ago and now seems to be forgotten. I suppose you believe in Santa as well.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Just so we understand, they are taking some of our money, which they agreed not to take, and are promising to pay it back from some money that really belongs to Greece should the Greeks not be able to pay the money back. If they are so sure the Greeks are going to pay it back, why don't the Eurozone countries or the ECB foot the bill ? This agreement to cover the money with the ECB cash, is that just a gentlemen's agreement, or is it legally binding ?
What was that the Conservative Manifesto said again ? “We took Britain out of Eurozone bailouts, including for Greece – the first ever return of powers from Brussels.”.
Good, glad that is clear.
No they're not taking our money as much as you imagine scenarios where they do no money is transferring from us to the bailout. There could have been a hypothetical liability on us (were the bridging loan not repaid) but that liability is being taken by someone else.
In your eyes this may be taking our money. In my eyes, they'd need to be taking our money to be taking our money *rolleyes*
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Given that you can see into the future and know what further deals/treaty provisions the EU will forget about or declare null and void, could you please let me have a note of this Saturday's winning lottery numbers.
Unlike others here (like those incorrectly claiming the UK would be made to pay to this bailout) I'm talking about what's agreed in the present not crying about a hypothetical imagined future.
If you care to give the lottery numbers with your imagined future though that'd be interesting.
So you don't actually know whether the UK's guarantee will be covered if and when it is called in but you think it will because the EU have said so - like they said the guarantee would never in fact be asked for.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Given that you can see into the future and know what further deals/treaty provisions the EU will forget about or declare null and void, could you please let me have a note of this Saturday's winning lottery numbers.
Unlike others here (like those incorrectly claiming the UK would be made to pay to this bailout) I'm talking about what's agreed in the present not crying about a hypothetical imagined future.
If you care to give the lottery numbers with your imagined future though that'd be interesting.
So you don't actually know whether the UK's guarantee will be covered if and when it is called in but you think it will because the EU have said so - like they said the guarantee would never in fact be asked for.
They said the UK's guarantee will never be asked for - and its not being asked for. The ECB is covering our guarantee.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
The European Central Bank is forbidden from assuming liability for our contribution (see articles 123 and 125 TFEU). If the funds in question to be used as collateral are the ECB's cash profits from Greek bonds, they can only be realised in accordance with article 33 of the Statute of the ECB, which does not permit their use as a guarantee for the budget contributions of non-Eurozone countries. Article 33 can be amended by the ordinary legislative procedure (see article 40(1) of the statute). There is nothing to suggest, however, that legislation will be introduced and approved by the Parliament and Council before our liability for the bridging finance accrues.
In any event, your argument is like saying that a man is not liable for negligently running over pedestrians because he has car insurance. Cameron and Osborne promised that we would no longer be liable for the EFSM. We are so liable, whether or not they have managed to arrange a secondary mechanism to insulate us from liability by making the ECB our insurer.
No we are not liable. An agreement was made that we would not be liable, events changed and that agreement is still being honoured.
Keep trying to spin all the BS fiction that you want. Lets see you find us actually paying money over rather than this crystal ball gazing saying we are going to do so when we're not.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Given that you can see into the future and know what further deals/treaty provisions the EU will forget about or declare null and void, could you please let me have a note of this Saturday's winning lottery numbers.
Unlike others here (like those incorrectly claiming the UK would be made to pay to this bailout) I'm talking about what's agreed in the present not crying about a hypothetical imagined future.
If you care to give the lottery numbers with your imagined future though that'd be interesting.
So you don't actually know whether the UK's guarantee will be covered if and when it is called in but you think it will because the EU have said so - like they said the guarantee would never in fact be asked for.
They said the UK's guarantee will never be asked for - and its not being asked for. The ECB is covering our guarantee.
Promise made, promise delivered.
See the other posts for details of why you are in error on this matter. I can't see any point in repeating what others have already told you.
No we are not liable. An agreement was made that we would not be liable, events changed and that agreement is still being honoured.
Keep trying to spin all the BS fiction that you want. Lets see you find us actually paying money over rather than this crystal ball gazing saying we are going to do so when we're not.
Not, much easier to sit back, drink a beer, and watch you squirm when Greece defaults. Its pointless trying to explain things in the teeth of blind partisanship. Yes, we understand that you think Dave walks on water.
We now have a leader of a Liberal party that didn't vote in favour of same sex marriage and was one of the very few MP's excluded from the coalition. Very strange choice, any idea what his USP is ?
Why do you Tories get everything so wrong, Mr Zims?
Just comes naturally, I suppose.
Why so bitter on a day that should be full of joy for you? After all, the fight-back begins here...
Tata Steel has announced it will shed 720 jobs in its UK business, because of rising costs and a strong pound.
Most of the jobs will go from its steel bar-making plant in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.
In a statement, it said its steel bars business had been "underperforming" and unable to be as competitive as its European counterparts.
It also said it planned to "refocus" on "high-value" markets, such as the aerospace industry.
Tata added that of the jobs being lost, 35 would go from its steel operations in the West Midlands.
The firm said it would be working closely with those at risk of losing their jobs, as well as trade unions, to redeploy people and minimise compulsory redundancies.
"Energy is one of our largest costs at our speciality and bar business and we are disadvantaged by the UK's cripplingly high electricity costs," said Karl Koehler, chief executive of Tata Steel's European operations.
"And while the UK government announced helpful measures to reduce the impact of its high energy taxes a few years ago, these measures still haven't been introduced.
Pretending something is going to happen doesn't mean it will. Unsurprised you're still headbanging and refusing to admit your crystal ball was broken when it said we would be made to pay when in fact "a cash fund, held by the European Central Bank, would cover any liabilities that would have fallen to British or other non-eurozone taxpayers".
The EU can't be all that bad if you have to make up your own fiction to attack it with rather than live in reality.
No we are not liable. An agreement was made that we would not be liable, events changed and that agreement is still being honoured.
Keep trying to spin all the BS fiction that you want. Lets see you find us actually paying money over rather than this crystal ball gazing saying we are going to do so when we're not.
If you ever doubted whether the British Left had a sense of humour, the last 24 hours should have resolved the issue for you. Yesterday, I (along with a publicity-shy junior colleague) published an article about Jeremy Corbyn. You may have read it here.
Or you may have read about it in the Guardian. That newspaper seemed very taken with the piece, and has, at the time of writing, published three stories of its own about ours.
James Kirkup: - My failed attempt to destroy Jeremy Corbyn, Labour and British democracy Yes, it was me. I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids.
"Indeed, some people might just have concluded that an article that referred to Mr Corbyn as a “bearded socialist voter repellent” might not have been written in deadly earnest. They might have shrugged and considered the article a joke, or at least an attempt at one.
Not our chums at the Guardian though. No, they saw through my feeble gags and spotted me for the dangerous authoritarian that I am. My attempt to destroy British democracy was rumbled. Curses, foiled again, etc etc."
No we are not liable. An agreement was made that we would not be liable, events changed and that agreement is still being honoured.
Keep trying to spin all the BS fiction that you want. Lets see you find us actually paying money over rather than this crystal ball gazing saying we are going to do so when we're not.
Recital (4) of Council Decision 2011/199/EU stated:
The stability mechanism will provide the necessary tool for dealing with such cases of risk to the financial stability of the euro area as a whole as have been experienced in 2010, and hence help preserve the economic and financial stability of the Union itself. At its meeting of 16 and 17 December 2010, the European Council agreed that, as this mechanism is designed to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as whole, Article 122(2) of the TFEU will no longer be needed for such purposes. The Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes.
That is plainly worthless, because article 122(2) is being used to provide the bridging finance. The fact is simple. If the Hellenic Republic defaults on this bridging loan before article 33 of the statute of the European Central Bank is amended, the United Kingdom will be liable on a pro rata basis for the bridging finance. Whether or not we will be liable in any event is entirely dependent on the indulgence of the European Parliament, and the Council cannot bind the European Parliament.
"Britain’s biggest trade union could switch sides and campaign to leave the EU if David Cameron uses his renegotiation with Brussels to weaken workers’ rights, its leader says."
They clearly won't, because a Britain outside the EU will be worse for workers' rights prospectively*.
So why are they saying it, and whom does it serve?
* fancy way of saying going forward
I don't think you can assume that, Owen Jones in the Guardian certainly doesn't. Also you wont be able to nationalise the railway or the Royal Mail while in the EU so that would be another promise to your voters gone west.
Owen Jones is a loonie left daftie who dreams of a British Workers' Republic.
Lots of EU countries have nationalised rail and mail.
Pretending something is going to happen doesn't mean it will. Unsurprised you're still headbanging and refusing to admit your crystal ball was broken when it said we would be made to pay when in fact "a cash fund, held by the European Central Bank, would cover any liabilities that would have fallen to British or other non-eurozone taxpayers".
The EU can't be all that bad if you have to make up your own fiction to attack it with rather than live in reality.
So you believe the BBC is correct in every detail and they could not have misunderstood or simplified, and that the usually impeccable legal advice from LIAMT is wrong. Fair enough, we will see what happens.
If you ever doubted whether the British Left had a sense of humour, the last 24 hours should have resolved the issue for you. Yesterday, I (along with a publicity-shy junior colleague) published an article about Jeremy Corbyn. You may have read it here.
Or you may have read about it in the Guardian. That newspaper seemed very taken with the piece, and has, at the time of writing, published three stories of its own about ours.
James Kirkup: - My failed attempt to destroy Jeremy Corbyn, Labour and British democracy Yes, it was me. I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids.
"Indeed, some people might just have concluded that an article that referred to Mr Corbyn as a “bearded socialist voter repellent” might not have been written in deadly earnest. They might have shrugged and considered the article a joke, or at least an attempt at one.
Not our chums at the Guardian though. No, they saw through my feeble gags and spotted me for the dangerous authoritarian that I am. My attempt to destroy British democracy was rumbled. Curses, foiled again, etc etc."
I was brought up to think if other people don't find your jokes funny, they are not funny. I found his joke funny. I was brought up to think that different people find different jokes funny, there is no universal standard or judge.
Pretending something is going to happen doesn't mean it will. Unsurprised you're still headbanging and refusing to admit your crystal ball was broken when it said we would be made to pay when in fact "a cash fund, held by the European Central Bank, would cover any liabilities that would have fallen to British or other non-eurozone taxpayers".
The EU can't be all that bad if you have to make up your own fiction to attack it with rather than live in reality.
So you believe the BBC is correct in every detail and they could not have misunderstood or simplified, and that the usually impeccable legal advice from LIAMT is wrong. Fair enough, we will see what happens.
No I believe the Treasury (which the BBC is quoting) is correct and that LIAMT's crystal ball is wrong. We will see, but what we'll never see is an admission that you were wrong will we?
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
If you ever doubted whether the British Left had a sense of humour, the last 24 hours should have resolved the issue for you. Yesterday, I (along with a publicity-shy junior colleague) published an article about Jeremy Corbyn. You may have read it here.
Or you may have read about it in the Guardian. That newspaper seemed very taken with the piece, and has, at the time of writing, published three stories of its own about ours.
James Kirkup: - My failed attempt to destroy Jeremy Corbyn, Labour and British democracy Yes, it was me. I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids.
"Indeed, some people might just have concluded that an article that referred to Mr Corbyn as a “bearded socialist voter repellent” might not have been written in deadly earnest. They might have shrugged and considered the article a joke, or at least an attempt at one.
Not our chums at the Guardian though. No, they saw through my feeble gags and spotted me for the dangerous authoritarian that I am. My attempt to destroy British democracy was rumbled. Curses, foiled again, etc etc."
I was brought up to think if other people don't find your jokes funny, they are not funny.
I found his joke funny. I was brought up to think that different people find different jokes funny, there is no universal standard or judge.
OK. You are right.
Still, if people do not find your jokes funny, you can't just tell them "It is a joke, it is funny".
There really isn't anything self-evidently non-earnest about "bearded socialist voter repellent". It's standard fare on the Conservative-leaning parts of the internet. (Similarly, "milk snatcher" may be imagery, but it is not non-earnest.)
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
Pretending something is going to happen doesn't mean it will. Unsurprised you're still headbanging and refusing to admit your crystal ball was broken when it said we would be made to pay when in fact "a cash fund, held by the European Central Bank, would cover any liabilities that would have fallen to British or other non-eurozone taxpayers".
The EU can't be all that bad if you have to make up your own fiction to attack it with rather than live in reality.
Just a point of order I don't think I have ever said the Uk was going to have to pay up front. I have always understood the difference between a contingent liability and a bill.
It is true I have no time for Cameron and never had had, and, furthermore, events over the years have and continue to confirm my opinion of the man.
So, I have never made up any fiction about the EU, I merely state that the fact they have said they will do or not do something is no guarantee that they will. You, in the face of all the evidence, seem to believe that is their word is to be taken as gospel. However, there is no point in trying to discuss anything with a zealot so I shan't bother further.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
Pretending something is going to happen doesn't mean it will. Unsurprised you're still headbanging and refusing to admit your crystal ball was broken when it said we would be made to pay when in fact "a cash fund, held by the European Central Bank, would cover any liabilities that would have fallen to British or other non-eurozone taxpayers".
The EU can't be all that bad if you have to make up your own fiction to attack it with rather than live in reality.
So you believe the BBC is correct in every detail and they could not have misunderstood or simplified, and that the usually impeccable legal advice from LIAMT is wrong. Fair enough, we will see what happens.
No I believe the Treasury (which the BBC is quoting) is correct and that LIAMT's crystal ball is wrong. We will see, but what we'll never see is an admission that you were wrong will we?
This would be the Treasury which claimed a while back that we were only going to pay half of some humungous sum to the EU to reflect the strength of our economy (based, as I seem to recall, on the fact that the EU had estimated that we had more tarts than they first thought, to which the only answer is that they should know) and it turned out that "half" meant "half now" and "half later" i.e all?
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
Absolutely. We'll be able to judge that in 2017 and each have a vote accordingly.
Which wouldn't have happened if Cameron wasn't PM of course.
"Acknowledged" means nothing legally.
In EU speak, for instance, the Germans have "acknowledged" the Greek referendum.
Or - in plain English - they've seen the result and it has made no difference to their actions.
I don't think Osborne was speaking as a lawyer but as a politician in his choice of words. Unless someone else has a crystal ball we'll be able to see in the future if and how it is acknowledged. I'm hoping for a change to QMV but that is ambitious (it could mean the UK has more power out of the EZ than in it).
Given that Clinton apparently doesn't come across well, I'm shocked (although with the way polls have gone, best not to completely take it at face value) that Clinton is doing pretty okay according to to that Virginia poll.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
Absolutely. We'll be able to judge that in 2017 and each have a vote accordingly.
Which wouldn't have happened if Cameron wasn't PM of course.
"Acknowledged" means nothing legally.
In EU speak, for instance, the Germans have "acknowledged" the Greek referendum.
Or - in plain English - they've seen the result and it has made no difference to their actions.
I don't think Osborne was speaking as a lawyer but as a politician in his choice of words. Unless someone else has a crystal ball we'll be able to see in the future if and how it is acknowledged. I'm hoping for a change to QMV but that is ambitious (it could mean the UK has more power out of the EZ than in it).
Exactly so. And politicians' words mean nothing. So we are reliant on a hope that at some point in the future something might be done by people who have a track record of reneging on promises, changing the rules to suit them etc to do something to give us something that we were told by our politicians we already had.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
No we are not liable. An agreement was made that we would not be liable, events changed and that agreement is still being honoured.
Keep trying to spin all the BS fiction that you want. Lets see you find us actually paying money over rather than this crystal ball gazing saying we are going to do so when we're not.
On a rare anti-EU stance from me, the Eurosceptics are right in this instance. A promise not to use something is a promise not to use something. Using it but saying "it's OK, there are safeguards" isn't keeping the promise, it's breaking it. I am sympathetic to the "things have changed" argument, and - as ever - needs must when the devil drives, but that doesn't change the fact that a promise has been broken.
Given that Clinton apparently doesn't come across well, I'm shocked (although with the way polls have gone, best not to completely take it at face value) that Clinton is doing pretty okay according to to that Virginia poll.
Virginia is now a key swing state, so if she has any sort of lead nationally she should be competitive in Virginia. After Ohio, Virginia is now probably the 2nd closest swing state in the nation
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
Absolutely. We'll be able to judge that in 2017 and each have a vote accordingly.
Which wouldn't have happened if Cameron wasn't PM of course.
Christ on a bike, does every post have to be a Cameron advertisement.
A tinder-dry forest of opinion - and you have to piss on the one evergreen shrub of truth?
Some people seem not to have noticed that the election is passed, its almost another 5 years before we have to go around ramping leaders and parties again. To paraphrase Lady Thatcher "Being a good political leader is like being a lady, if your supporters have to keep telling people you are one, you aren't".
I admit I don't have much time for Cameron, he would be much happier wearing a yellow rosette than a blue one. We may or may not have covered ourselves against this bail out, but it was only the credulity of him and Osborne taking peoples word for it rather than getting it in the treaty when it was being changed that lead to this mess in the first place. Since we have burned once by this credulity, and possibly got off if we are very lucky, you would have hoped for slightly more than taking peoples word for it this time around. Those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
At its meeting of 16 and 17 December 2010, the European Council agreed that, as this mechanism is designed to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as whole, Article 122(2) of the TFEU will no longer be needed for such purposes. The Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes.
I'm going to be ultra-picky here, and it's a very fine point, but there's a subtle difference between the "European Council" and "the Heads of State or Government". When they said it should not be used for such purposes, were they speaking as twenty-blah individual Heads or as the whole European Council? Getting John, Paul, George and Ringo to individually agree to something is qualitatively different to getting "the Beatles" to collectively agree to something, especially when it comes to signing contracts.
I ask because I think there's a difference in things like when does it comes into effect and which court you would use if there's a dispute.
No we are not liable. An agreement was made that we would not be liable, events changed and that agreement is still being honoured.
Keep trying to spin all the BS fiction that you want. Lets see you find us actually paying money over rather than this crystal ball gazing saying we are going to do so when we're not.
On a rare anti-EU stance from me, the Eurosceptics are right in this instance. A promise not to use something is a promise not to use something. Using it but saying "it's OK, there are safeguards" isn't keeping the promise, it's breaking it. I am sympathetic to the "things have changed" argument, and - as ever - needs must when the devil drives, but that doesn't change the fact that a promise has been broken.
Even the argument that "things haven't changed" (from the EU - not from you) doesn't impress me. That promise was extracted at the time of a previous bailout and precisely because it was foreseeable that there would very likely need to be other bailouts within the Eurozone. So what has happened was entirely foreseeable and, indeed, has been on the cards for some time. Plenty of time for alternative arrangements to be put in place.
That is, if the EZ took seriously the fact that we did not opt for the euro and therefore don't want to pay for it, instead of treating us a cash cow to be used to pay for something that we opposed, didn't join and were right about, and hoping either to sneak it past when we weren't looking or brazenly going ahead and then claiming that "things had changed".
The politicians may have been up all night and tired but there are plenty of lawyers and others within the EU bureaucracy who could perfectly well have sorted this out, without needing to get into a fight with Britain. Why not simply accept from the start that they could not access British money for this rescue?
It's this sense that the EU will always try it on and will only retreat if resistance is met, that is so wearying and dispiriting. It smacks of bad faith (at its worst) or (at best) a sort of weary/possibly even contemptuous indifference to us. We are not some minor statelet to be viewed in this way.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
Absolutely. We'll be able to judge that in 2017 and each have a vote accordingly.
Which wouldn't have happened if Cameron wasn't PM of course.
"Acknowledged" means nothing legally.
In EU speak, for instance, the Germans have "acknowledged" the Greek referendum.
Or - in plain English - they've seen the result and it has made no difference to their actions.
I don't think Osborne was speaking as a lawyer but as a politician in his choice of words. Unless someone else has a crystal ball we'll be able to see in the future if and how it is acknowledged. I'm hoping for a change to QMV but that is ambitious (it could mean the UK has more power out of the EZ than in it).
Exactly so. And politicians' words mean nothing. So we are reliant on a hope that at some point in the future something might be done by people who have a track record of reneging on promises, changing the rules to suit them etc to do something to give us something that we were told by our politicians we already had.
No we are not liable. An agreement was made that we would not be liable, events changed and that agreement is still being honoured.
Keep trying to spin all the BS fiction that you want. Lets see you find us actually paying money over rather than this crystal ball gazing saying we are going to do so when we're not.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
Absolutely. We'll be able to judge that in 2017 and each have a vote accordingly.
Which wouldn't have happened if Cameron wasn't PM of course.
Christ on a bike, does every post have to be a Cameron advertisement.
A tinder-dry forest of opinion - and you have to piss on the one evergreen shrub of truth?
Some people seem not to have noticed that the election is passed, its almost another 5 years before we have to go around ramping leaders and parties again. To paraphrase Lady Thatcher "Being a good political leader is like being a lady, if your supporters have to keep telling people you are one, you aren't".
I admit I don't have much time for Cameron, he would be much happier wearing a yellow rosette than a blue one. We may or may not have covered ourselves against this bail out, but it was only the credulity of him and Osborne taking peoples word for it rather than getting it in the treaty when it was being changed that lead to this mess in the first place. Since we have burned once by this credulity, and possibly got off if we are very lucky, you would have hoped for slightly more than taking peoples word for it this time around. Those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Why such credulity? We should have known since - at least - Blair gave up a portion of the rebate in return for CAP reform (how's that going?) that promises without someone's feet, hands and pretty much everything else nailed to the floor were worthless.
Look at how long it took Thatcher to get the refund in the first place. That's how much work and persistence and bloody mindedness is needed. Not this milksop "he's a good chap and we've shaken hands on it" nonsense coupled with OTT chest-beating for the papers.
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
Absolutely. We'll be able to judge that in 2017 and each have a vote accordingly.
Which wouldn't have happened if Cameron wasn't PM of course.
Christ on a bike, does every post have to be a Cameron advertisement.
A tinder-dry forest of opinion - and you have to piss on the one evergreen shrub of truth?
Some people seem not to have noticed that the election is passed, its almost another 5 years before we have to go around ramping leaders and parties again. To paraphrase Lady Thatcher "Being a good political leader is like being a lady, if your supporters have to keep telling people you are one, you aren't".
I admit I don't have much time for Cameron, he would be much happier wearing a yellow rosette than a blue one. We may or may not have covered ourselves against this bail out, but it was only the credulity of him and Osborne taking peoples word for it rather than getting it in the treaty when it was being changed that lead to this mess in the first place. Since we have burned once by this credulity, and possibly got off if we are very lucky, you would have hoped for slightly more than taking peoples word for it this time around. Those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Cameron will let us down on the EU and immigration but, to be fair, he's so far otherwise been pretty fair to his manifesto.
There's really no reason why measures like EVEL, and the Human Rights reform shouldn't pass. The Tories have a majority and 331 MPs.
It was in the manifesto. They should all be voting for it. I hope some three-line whips aren't far off.
I'm going to be ultra-picky here, and it's a very fine point, but there's a subtle difference between the "European Council" and "the Heads of State or Government". When they said it should not be used for such purposes, were they speaking as twenty-blah individual Heads or as the whole European Council? Getting John, Paul, George and Ringo to individually agree to something is qualitatively different to getting "the Beatles" to collectively agree to something, especially when it comes to signing contracts.
I ask because I think there's a difference in things like when does it comes into effect and which court you would use if there's a dispute.
Happy to be corrected if this is inaccurate.
In the quotation from the recital to the decision of the Council, "Heads of State or Government" is simply referring to the membership of the European Council. The two are being used interchangeably. The important point is that it was a political rather than a legal agreement, so it matters not whether it was agreed by the each member of the European Council or the Council collectively, although that distinction would be important in some contexts.
Possibly the first time in recorded history, one of my tips actually wins something! (faints in a swoon).
I was tipping Farron as next Lib Dem leader a couple of years back on here. If anybody had followed my tip, they might have recouped a small percentage of the money they would have lost on my other tips ...
So the UK won't be paying towards the Eurozone bailout despite hysteria from some conspiracy theorists here always expecting the worst outcome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
Expecting a retraction/congratulation to Osborne and Cameron in 1 ... 2 ... never ...
Britain is paying towards the Greek bailout, because the funds are secured on the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron and Osborne assured the public that this could not happen. The issue is now whether or not some secondary mechanism for limiting the UK's undoubted liability to the EFSM has been found. We have no detail on that front, but there is nothing to suggest the mechanism is either legal or legally binding.
No we're not. Did you read the article? The ECB is taking on our share of the responsibility.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
Yes - It says "The chancellor said he expected the principle of treating non-eurozone countries differently to be "acknowledged" when the UK attempted to renegotiate its relationship with the EU ahead of the referendum on its membership, promised by 2017."
Absolutely. We'll be able to judge that in 2017 and each have a vote accordingly.
Which wouldn't have happened if Cameron wasn't PM of course.
Christ on a bike, does every post have to be a Cameron advertisement.
A tinder-dry forest of opinion - and you have to piss on the one evergreen shrub of truth?
Some people seem not to have noticed that the election is passed, its almost another 5 years before we have to go around ramping leaders and parties again. To paraphrase Lady Thatcher "Being a good political leader is like being a lady, if your supporters have to keep telling people you are one, you aren't".
I admit I don't have much time for Cameron, he would be much happier wearing a yellow rosette than a blue one. We may or may not have covered ourselves against this bail out, but it was only the credulity of him and Osborne taking peoples word for it rather than getting it in the treaty when it was being changed that lead to this mess in the first place. Since we have burned once by this credulity, and possibly got off if we are very lucky, you would have hoped for slightly more than taking peoples word for it this time around. Those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Cameron will let us down on the EU and immigration but, to be fair, he's so far otherwise been pretty fair to his manifesto.
There's really no reason why measures like EVEL, and the Human Rights reform shouldn't pass. The Tories have a majority and 331 MPs.
It was in the manifesto. They should all be voting for it. I hope some three-line whips aren't far off.
I'm sure he will have a referendum. It's just that we will be voting on promises which risk turning out to be less than they seem and don't, at least as far as I'm concerned, carve out a proper settlement between the UK and the EU which reflects our divergent interests and those areas where we can and do work together. A bit of tinkering around those matters which currently worry the public is not enough given that the EU is going to change - possibly quite radically - and we need to be thinking about that.
In EU speak, for instance, the Germans have "acknowledged" the Greek referendum.
Or - in plain English - they've seen the result and it has made no difference to their actions.
Yes, but that's not the same as "nothing". Acknowledging something means that it legally exists and that you were aware of it at the time of acknowledgement. Failing to acknowlege something means that it can't be assumed that you knew it existed - it provides legal plausible deniability.
If memory serves, isn't this technique (mentioning that something exists) a handy way of getting a lot of legislation onto the books quickly?
I'm going to be ultra-picky here, and it's a very fine point, but there's a subtle difference between the "European Council" and "the Heads of State or Government". When they said it should not be used for such purposes, were they speaking as twenty-blah individual Heads or as the whole European Council? Getting John, Paul, George and Ringo to individually agree to something is qualitatively different to getting "the Beatles" to collectively agree to something, especially when it comes to signing contracts.
I ask because I think there's a difference in things like when does it comes into effect and which court you would use if there's a dispute.
Happy to be corrected if this is inaccurate.
In the quotation from the recital to the decision of the Council, "Heads of State or Government" is simply referring to the membership of the European Council. The two are being used interchangeably. The important point is that it was a political rather than a legal agreement, so it matters not whether it was agreed by the each member of the European Council or the Council collectively, although that distinction would be important in some contexts.
In EU speak, for instance, the Germans have "acknowledged" the Greek referendum.
Or - in plain English - they've seen the result and it has made no difference to their actions.
Yes, but that's not the same as "nothing". Acknowledging something means that it legally exists and that you were aware of it at the time of acknowledgement. Failing to acknowlege something means that it can't be assumed that you knew it existed - it provides legal plausible deniability.
If memory serves, isn't this technique (mentioning that something exists) a handy way of getting a lot of legislation onto the books quickly?
Unless EU law accepts the legal concept of equitable estoppel (and I don't think it does) then "acknowledgment" doesn't help.
Put it this way, if the EU made the promise, we acted on it by not insisting on a legally binding amendment, then it would be inequitable for the EU to renege on its promise and an English court could use the doctrine of equitable estoppel to stop the EU from reneging and causing us detriment.
But none of this applies in EU law. The arguments I and others have been making are a civilian echo of what is a familiar argument to English lawyers. It has resonance. It feels as if the EU is not playing fair: using promises when it suits and also getting legally pernickety when it suits. A sort of "tails I win, heads you lose" approach.
Of course the estimable LIAMT may tell me I'm wrong on all this........
Absolutely. We'll be able to judge that in 2017 and each have a vote accordingly.
Which wouldn't have happened if Cameron wasn't PM of course.
Christ on a bike, does every post have to be a Cameron advertisement.
A tinder-dry forest of opinion - and you have to piss on the one evergreen shrub of truth?
Some people seem not to have noticed that the election is passed, its almost another 5 years before we have to go around ramping leaders and parties again. To paraphrase Lady Thatcher "Being a good political leader is like being a lady, if your supporters have to keep telling people you are one, you aren't".
I admit I don't have much time for Cameron, he would be much happier wearing a yellow rosette than a blue one. We may or may not have covered ourselves against this bail out, but it was only the credulity of him and Osborne taking peoples word for it rather than getting it in the treaty when it was being changed that lead to this mess in the first place. Since we have burned once by this credulity, and possibly got off if we are very lucky, you would have hoped for slightly more than taking peoples word for it this time around. Those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Cameron will let us down on the EU and immigration but, to be fair, he's so far otherwise been pretty fair to his manifesto.
There's really no reason why measures like EVEL, and the Human Rights reform shouldn't pass. The Tories have a majority and 331 MPs.
It was in the manifesto. They should all be voting for it. I hope some three-line whips aren't far off.
I'm sure he will have a referendum. It's just that we will be voting on promises which risk turning out to be less than they seem and don't, at least as far as I'm concerned, carve out a proper settlement between the UK and the EU which reflects our divergent interests and those areas where we can and do work together. A bit of tinkering around those matters which currently worry the public is not enough given that the EU is going to change - possibly quite radically - and we need to be thinking about that.
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
Mr. Smithson, you're not Lembit Opik in disguise, are you?
Miss Plato, the Duke of Edinburgh's in a uniquely bulletproof position, and it's entertaining to see him make use of it.
I would love to hear the D of E's views on the Greek crisis !!
At least one Greek is still getting money out of a German.
To make matters worse its us British tax payers who are funding the German and the Greek has the cheek to talk about spongers !!
tut tut
such hostility to migrants
Coming over here, taking our crowns, i've seen their kids playing down our street, all "baubles" this and "Duke of Cornwall" that, not one of them have had a proper job, and they 're all living off the council, well what about us, eh? When do I get to wield supreme executive power directly anointed by God Himself? Oh no, five minutes in the Greek navy and suddenly he's Duke of Edinburgh! And as for her, well it's all jewellery and carpet slippers, and she lets her dogs run with no leashes, she's a menace! Honestly, I speak as I find...
Absolutely. We'll be able to judge that in 2017 and each have a vote accordingly.
Which wouldn't have happened if Cameron wasn't PM of course.
Christ on a bike, does every post have to be a Cameron advertisement.
A tinder-dry forest of opinion - and you have to piss on the one evergreen shrub of truth?
Some people seem not to have noticed that the election is passed, its almost another 5 years before we have to go around ramping leaders and parties again. To paraphrase Lady Thatcher "Being a good political leader is like being a lady, if your supporters have to keep telling people you are one, you aren't".
I admit I don't have much time for Cameron, he would be much happier wearing a yellow rosette than a blue one. We may or may not have covered ourselves against this bail out, but it was only the credulity of him and Osborne taking peoples word for it rather than getting it in the treaty when it was being changed that lead to this mess in the first place. Since we have burned once by this credulity, and possibly got off if we are very lucky, you would have hoped for slightly more than taking peoples word for it this time around. Those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Cameron will let us down on the EU and immigration but, to be fair, he's so far otherwise been pretty fair to his manifesto.
There's really no reason why measures like EVEL, and the Human Rights reform shouldn't pass. The Tories have a majority and 331 MPs.
It was in the manifesto. They should all be voting for it. I hope some three-line whips aren't far off.
I'm sure he will have a referendum. It's just that we will be voting on promises which risk turning out to be less than they seem and don't, at least as far as I'm concerned, carve out a proper settlement between the UK and the EU which reflects our divergent interests and those areas where we can and do work together. A bit of tinkering around those matters which currently worry the public is not enough given that the EU is going to change - possibly quite radically - and we need to be thinking about that.
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
We've just had six months' bitter tutorial on the utter folly of game theory. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to stay, stay. Don't vote X on the assumption that they will offer something better to tempt you to vote Y [EDIT: in a second vote]. In the present circumstances, nobody is in the mood for such aroundfucking.
I wonder if the Harriet Harman interview on welfare will be seen as a turning point of the Labour leadership contest: Corbyn has won 15 of 23 nominations since Sunday.
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
We've just had six months' bitter tutorial on the utter folly of game theory. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to stay, stay. Don't vote X on the assumption that they will offer something better to tempt you to vote Y. In the present circumstances, nobody is in the mood for such aroundfucking.
Maybe Alanbrooke was referring to the EU's tendency to ask countries to vote twice on the same matter (Ireland etc).
I don't know how the referendum will go. I would - now - guess that the result will likely be "In". But if it were "Out" that would be such a shock that I would not be surprised if there were attempts made - on both sides of the Channel - to reverse that decision.
I agree with you, thought, that one should vote as if there were only one referendum. Boris's suggestion is just plain silly.
Tata Steel has announced it will shed 720 jobs in its UK business, because of rising costs and a strong pound.
Most of the jobs will go from its steel bar-making plant in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.
In a statement, it said its steel bars business had been "underperforming" and unable to be as competitive as its European counterparts.
It also said it planned to "refocus" on "high-value" markets, such as the aerospace industry.
Tata added that of the jobs being lost, 35 would go from its steel operations in the West Midlands.
The firm said it would be working closely with those at risk of losing their jobs, as well as trade unions, to redeploy people and minimise compulsory redundancies.
"Energy is one of our largest costs at our speciality and bar business and we are disadvantaged by the UK's cripplingly high electricity costs," said Karl Koehler, chief executive of Tata Steel's European operations.
"And while the UK government announced helpful measures to reduce the impact of its high energy taxes a few years ago, these measures still haven't been introduced.
Methinks it is just like every other industrial contraction, which long predated green taxes.
Nope - in this case it is a pure cost of energy decision. The cost of energy is a serious problem across a range of industries. Good luck with 3D printing in metal in this country, for example.
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
We've just had six months' bitter tutorial on the utter folly of game theory. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to stay, stay. Don't vote X on the assumption that they will offer something better to tempt you to vote Y. In the present circumstances, nobody is in the mood for such aroundfucking.
Maybe Alanbrooke was referring to the EU's tendency to ask countries to vote twice on the same matter (Ireland etc).
I don't know how the referendum will go. I would - now - guess that the result will likely be "In". But if it were "Out" that would be such a shock that I would not be surprised if there were attempts made - on both sides of the Channel - to reverse that decision.
I agree with you, thought, that one should vote as if there were only one referendum. Boris's suggestion is just plain silly.
It's also dishonest of Boris. I am minded to vote "In", although I acknowledge (pun not intended) the valid points raised by JEO et al regarding capture of the EU by the EZ. But the "out"ers will also vote with equal sincerity, and may yet win. If that occurs, then they will be well entitled to be aggrieved if their "out" vote is used as an excuse to regain entry.
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
We've just had six months' bitter tutorial on the utter folly of game theory. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to stay, stay. Don't vote X on the assumption that they will offer something better to tempt you to vote Y. In the present circumstances, nobody is in the mood for such aroundfucking.
Maybe Alanbrooke was referring to the EU's tendency to ask countries to vote twice on the same matter (Ireland etc).
I don't know how the referendum will go. I would - now - guess that the result will likely be "In". But if it were "Out" that would be such a shock that I would not be surprised if there were attempts made - on both sides of the Channel - to reverse that decision.
I agree with you, thought, that one should vote as if there were only one referendum. Boris's suggestion is just plain silly.
It's also dishonest of Boris. I am minded to vote "In", although I acknowledge (pun not intended) the valid points raised by JEO et al regarding capture of the EU by the EZ. But the "out"ers will also vote with equal sincerity, and may yet win. If that occurs, then they will be well entitled to be aggrieved if their "out" vote is used as an excuse to regain entry.
Agreed - and much may change between now and 2017. So I may take a different view then.
Incidentally, I get the impression that Boris is - if not now, on the way to being - a busted flush.
According to the Mail 'Farron claimed that he sought advice from God before deciding whether to put his name forward', good to know the almighty takes such an interest in the fate of the LDs
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
We've just had six months' bitter tutorial on the utter folly of game theory. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to stay, stay. Don't vote X on the assumption that they will offer something better to tempt you to vote Y. In the present circumstances, nobody is in the mood for such aroundfucking.
Maybe Alanbrooke was referring to the EU's tendency to ask countries to vote twice on the same matter (Ireland etc).
I don't know how the referendum will go. I would - now - guess that the result will likely be "In". But if it were "Out" that would be such a shock that I would not be surprised if there were attempts made - on both sides of the Channel - to reverse that decision.
I agree with you, thought, that one should vote as if there were only one referendum. Boris's suggestion is just plain silly.
It's also dishonest of Boris. I am minded to vote "In", although I acknowledge (pun not intended) the valid points raised by JEO et al regarding capture of the EU by the EZ. But the "out"ers will also vote with equal sincerity, and may yet win. If that occurs, then they will be well entitled to be aggrieved if their "out" vote is used as an excuse to regain entry.
Agreed - and much may change between now and 2017. So I may take a different view then.
Incidentally, I get the impression that Boris is - if not now, on the way to being - a busted flush.
I wonder if the Harriet Harman interview on welfare will be seen as a turning point of the Labour leadership contest: Corbyn has won 15 of 23 nominations since Sunday.
Whether it turns the result or not - for which we will have to wait and see - there's no doubt it has pushed the others leftwards. Kendall is looking increasingly isolated, bless her.
It doesn't matter whether the Eurozone is acting legally without integrity or politically without integrity. It is acting without integrity.
I am coming round to the view that the EU Referendum ought to be decided on the question "Do we value integrity?" If we do, the EU isn't for us. (I do.)
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
We've just had six months' bitter tutorial on the utter folly of game theory. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to stay, stay. Don't vote X on the assumption that they will offer something better to tempt you to vote Y [EDIT: in a second vote]. In the present circumstances, nobody is in the mood for such aroundfucking.
Leaving aside 'game theory' (is it not surely just negotiation?), this conclusion seems rather infantile. Negotiation requires leverage. The Greeks had no leverage, because they were never going to leave. Germany didn't impose such awful bailout terms because they were jolly cross with the Greeks for holding a referendum, they did it because they could. If your theory held any water, Margaret Thatcher would have been our least successful EU negotiator and Tony Blair our most successful.
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
We've just had six months' bitter tutorial on the utter folly of game theory. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to stay, stay. Don't vote X on the assumption that they will offer something better to tempt you to vote Y [EDIT: in a second vote]. In the present circumstances, nobody is in the mood for such aroundfucking.
Leaving aside 'game theory' (is it not surely just negotiation?), this conclusion seems rather infantile. Negotiation requires leverage. The Greeks had no leverage, because they were never going to leave. Germany didn't impose such awful bailout terms because they were jolly cross with the Greeks for holding a referendum, they did it because they could. If your theory held any water, Margaret Thatcher would have been our least successful EU negotiator and Tony Blair our most successful.
I'm not contradicting you. I am pointing out that "give us jelly otherwise we will leave the party" is different to "we will leave the party to make them give us jelly". The former is negotiation (and quite right too). The latter is infantile. [EDIT: I was condemning the latter, not the former]
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
We've just had six months' bitter tutorial on the utter folly of game theory. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to stay, stay. Don't vote X on the assumption that they will offer something better to tempt you to vote Y [EDIT: in a second vote]. In the present circumstances, nobody is in the mood for such aroundfucking.
This is not game theory , its Realpoilitik and if you don't take them to the cliffs edge and offer to push them off you get nothing.
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
We've just had six months' bitter tutorial on the utter folly of game theory. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to stay, stay. Don't vote X on the assumption that they will offer something better to tempt you to vote Y [EDIT: in a second vote]. In the present circumstances, nobody is in the mood for such aroundfucking.
This is not game theory , its Realpoilitik and if you don't take them to the cliffs edge and offer to push them off you get nothing.
I think you misunderstand my stance. I refer you to my reply to Luckyguy1983 below.
Just vote out, the follow on referendum will be the one that counts.
We've just had six months' bitter tutorial on the utter folly of game theory. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to stay, stay. Don't vote X on the assumption that they will offer something better to tempt you to vote Y. In the present circumstances, nobody is in the mood for such aroundfucking.
Maybe Alanbrooke was referring to the EU's tendency to ask countries to vote twice on the same matter (Ireland etc).
I don't know how the referendum will go. I would - now - guess that the result will likely be "In". But if it were "Out" that would be such a shock that I would not be surprised if there were attempts made - on both sides of the Channel - to reverse that decision.
I agree with you, thought, that one should vote as if there were only one referendum. Boris's suggestion is just plain silly.
It's also dishonest of Boris. I am minded to vote "In", although I acknowledge (pun not intended) the valid points raised by JEO et al regarding capture of the EU by the EZ. But the "out"ers will also vote with equal sincerity, and may yet win. If that occurs, then they will be well entitled to be aggrieved if their "out" vote is used as an excuse to regain entry.
Boris did do some waffle about this, but he was actually umming and aahing over a suggestion by a tory eurosceptic MP (whose name escapes me but he was being touted as leader of the OUT campaign at the time). But it was a silly suggestion.
Comments
Nevertheless dozens of Tory hopefuls were crushed under the jack-sandal of the Yellow by-election machine.
Most of the jobs will go from its steel bar-making plant in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.
In a statement, it said its steel bars business had been "underperforming" and unable to be as competitive as its European counterparts.
It also said it planned to "refocus" on "high-value" markets, such as the aerospace industry.
Tata added that of the jobs being lost, 35 would go from its steel operations in the West Midlands.
The firm said it would be working closely with those at risk of losing their jobs, as well as trade unions, to redeploy people and minimise compulsory redundancies.
"Energy is one of our largest costs at our speciality and bar business and we are disadvantaged by the UK's cripplingly high electricity costs," said Karl Koehler, chief executive of Tata Steel's European operations.
"And while the UK government announced helpful measures to reduce the impact of its high energy taxes a few years ago, these measures still haven't been introduced.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33550863
Behold the effect of the Green taxes
That's why we need to exercise the threat of Brexit to get a permanent change to protect the non-EZ - as Cameron as seeking. Getting one would be a remarkable victory.
Expecting retraction in 1 ... 2 ... never.
I took 9/1 on Mr Farron succeeding Clegg way back in late 2010. It was the only winner of around 15 long term politics bets placed with Mr. Chandler before he closed my account.
Ed balls never became labour leader (22/1) and neither did Alan Johnson (33/1). There was no election in 2011 (11/2) or 2012 (7/1). Oh, and Ron Paul never became president (100/1)!
Of all my pre-2011 bets, my winnings minus stakes only just left me in the green by about 4%. I think my advantage these days on long term politics bets is more like 30%.
Cudos to victor's risk department.
I might buy some vcbet shares.
If you care to give the lottery numbers with your imagined future though that'd be interesting.
What was that the Conservative Manifesto said again ? “We took Britain out of Eurozone bailouts, including for Greece – the first ever return of powers from Brussels.”.
Good, glad that is clear. Hysterical, what is agreed in the present, like the not using the Stability Fund was agreed in the present a while ago and now seems to be forgotten. I suppose you believe in Santa as well.
In your eyes this may be taking our money. In my eyes, they'd need to be taking our money to be taking our money *rolleyes*
Promise made, promise delivered.
In any event, your argument is like saying that a man is not liable for negligently running over pedestrians because he has car insurance. Cameron and Osborne promised that we would no longer be liable for the EFSM. We are so liable, whether or not they have managed to arrange a secondary mechanism to insulate us from liability by making the ECB our insurer.
Keep trying to spin all the BS fiction that you want. Lets see you find us actually paying money over rather than this crystal ball gazing saying we are going to do so when we're not.
Pretending something is going to happen doesn't mean it will. Unsurprised you're still headbanging and refusing to admit your crystal ball was broken when it said we would be made to pay when in fact "a cash fund, held by the European Central Bank, would cover any liabilities that would have fallen to British or other non-eurozone taxpayers".
The EU can't be all that bad if you have to make up your own fiction to attack it with rather than live in reality.
"It was ironic" is the go-to defence these days.
I was brought up to think if other people don't find your jokes funny, they are not funny.
Lots of EU countries have nationalised rail and mail.
I was brought up to think if other people don't find your jokes funny, they are not funny.
I found his joke funny. I was brought up to think that different people find different jokes funny, there is no universal standard or judge.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33556085
"Acknowledged" - so that's alright then.
Which wouldn't have happened if Cameron wasn't PM of course.
OK. You are right.
Still, if people do not find your jokes funny, you can't just tell them "It is a joke, it is funny".
There really isn't anything self-evidently non-earnest about "bearded socialist voter repellent". It's standard fare on the Conservative-leaning parts of the internet. (Similarly, "milk snatcher" may be imagery, but it is not non-earnest.)
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/07/bush-leads-gop-field-in-virginia-but-clinton-ahead-for-general.html
vs. Clinton
Clinton 47%
Rubio 43%
Clinton 47%
Carson 43%
Clinton 47%
Walker 42%
Clinton 47%
Paul 42%
Clinton 45%
Christie 39%
Clinton 46%
Fiorina 39%
Clinton 48%
Cruz 41%
Clinton 46%
Bush 38%
Clinton 49%
Trump 39%
Clinton 49%
Huckabee 39%
Clinton 47%
Gilmore 35%
vs. Sanders
Rubio 40%
Sanders 38%
Bush 40%
Sanders 39%
Walker 39%
Sanders 38%
Sanders 43%
Trump 39%
It is true I have no time for Cameron and never had had, and, furthermore, events over the years have and continue to confirm my opinion of the man.
So, I have never made up any fiction about the EU, I merely state that the fact they have said they will do or not do something is no guarantee that they will. You, in the face of all the evidence, seem to believe that is their word is to be taken as gospel. However, there is no point in trying to discuss anything with a zealot so I shan't bother further.
In EU speak, for instance, the Germans have "acknowledged" the Greek referendum.
Or - in plain English - they've seen the result and it has made no difference to their actions.
That Treasury? Or some other Treasury?
TICIPM!
Cameron really is a genius, isn't he.
I admit I don't have much time for Cameron, he would be much happier wearing a yellow rosette than a blue one. We may or may not have covered ourselves against this bail out, but it was only the credulity of him and Osborne taking peoples word for it rather than getting it in the treaty when it was being changed that lead to this mess in the first place. Since we have burned once by this credulity, and possibly got off if we are very lucky, you would have hoped for slightly more than taking peoples word for it this time around. Those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
I ask because I think there's a difference in things like when does it comes into effect and which court you would use if there's a dispute.
Happy to be corrected if this is inaccurate.
That is, if the EZ took seriously the fact that we did not opt for the euro and therefore don't want to pay for it, instead of treating us a cash cow to be used to pay for something that we opposed, didn't join and were right about, and hoping either to sneak it past when we weren't looking or brazenly going ahead and then claiming that "things had changed".
The politicians may have been up all night and tired but there are plenty of lawyers and others within the EU bureaucracy who could perfectly well have sorted this out, without needing to get into a fight with Britain. Why not simply accept from the start that they could not access British money for this rescue?
It's this sense that the EU will always try it on and will only retreat if resistance is met, that is so wearying and dispiriting. It smacks of bad faith (at its worst) or (at best) a sort of weary/possibly even contemptuous indifference to us. We are not some minor statelet to be viewed in this way.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/an-independent-scotland-could-easily-have-been-the-next-greece/
https://twitter.com/michaellcrick
Look at how long it took Thatcher to get the refund in the first place. That's how much work and persistence and bloody mindedness is needed. Not this milksop "he's a good chap and we've shaken hands on it" nonsense coupled with OTT chest-beating for the papers.
such hostility to migrants
There's really no reason why measures like EVEL, and the Human Rights reform shouldn't pass. The Tories have a majority and 331 MPs.
It was in the manifesto. They should all be voting for it. I hope some three-line whips aren't far off.
I was tipping Farron as next Lib Dem leader a couple of years back on here. If anybody had followed my tip, they might have recouped a small percentage of the money they would have lost on my other tips ...
Why not a Cameron advertisement? Some people always post with an anti-Cameron pitch.
If memory serves, isn't this technique (mentioning that something exists) a handy way of getting a lot of legislation onto the books quickly?
Put it this way, if the EU made the promise, we acted on it by not insisting on a legally binding amendment, then it would be inequitable for the EU to renege on its promise and an English court could use the doctrine of equitable estoppel to stop the EU from reneging and causing us detriment.
But none of this applies in EU law. The arguments I and others have been making are a civilian echo of what is a familiar argument to English lawyers. It has resonance. It feels as if the EU is not playing fair: using promises when it suits and also getting legally pernickety when it suits. A sort of "tails I win, heads you lose" approach.
Of course the estimable LIAMT may tell me I'm wrong on all this........
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a sandal stamping on a tory face—for ever.”
I don't know how the referendum will go. I would - now - guess that the result will likely be "In". But if it were "Out" that would be such a shock that I would not be surprised if there were attempts made - on both sides of the Channel - to reverse that decision.
I agree with you, thought, that one should vote as if there were only one referendum. Boris's suggestion is just plain silly.
Mr. Viewcode, are you referring to the indefensible nonsense of Boris suggesting we vote Out and then negotiate better terms for staying in?
Incidentally, I get the impression that Boris is - if not now, on the way to being - a busted flush.
I think his time has passed.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3164093/Lib-Dems-elect-Tim-Farron-new-leader-former-party-president-scoops-56-vote.html#ixzz3g5IrFkXX
Mr. HYUFD, hmm.
Got a short story to write, but if I have time (and can think of anything) I might just have to pen a version of that...
What was that about 'perfidious Albion'?
new thread