OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted in a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
It's got to be somewhere massive. Russia?
We have a winner!
Yes, I was amazed as well
Russian Federation 274,700 Germany 173,100 USA 121,000 Turkey 87,800 Sweden 75,100
In addition, however, the UNHCR registered 245,700 directly
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
It's got to be somewhere massive. Russia?
We have a winner!
Yes, I was amazed as well
Russian Federation 274,700 Germany 173,100 USA 121,000 Turkey 87,800 Sweden 75,100
In addition, however, the UNHCR registered 245,700 directly
How many of those were ethnic Russians fleeing Ukraine after Russia started a war there?
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
It's got to be somewhere massive. Russia?
We have a winner!
Yes, I was amazed as well
Russian Federation 274,700 Germany 173,100 USA 121,000 Turkey 87,800 Sweden 75,100
In addition, however, the UNHCR registered 245,700 directly
Half of them will be Ukrainian and the other half will be Edward Snowden in different handwriting!
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
It's got to be somewhere massive. Russia?
We have a winner!
Yes, I was amazed as well
Russian Federation 274,700 Germany 173,100 USA 121,000 Turkey 87,800 Sweden 75,100
In addition, however, the UNHCR registered 245,700 directly
How many of those were ethnic Russians fleeing Ukraine after Russia started a war there?
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
It's got to be somewhere massive. Russia?
We have a winner!
Yes, I was amazed as well
Russian Federation 274,700 Germany 173,100 USA 121,000 Turkey 87,800 Sweden 75,100
In addition, however, the UNHCR registered 245,700 directly
Half of them will be Ukrainian and the other half will be Edward Snowden in different handwriting!
I know, I know. I fully expect one of those rare outbreaks of football unity for the next round of matches involving English teams, perhaps involving sarcastically loud and operatic, fist on club badge, mock North Korean style patriotic 'aahing' of the anthem.
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
It's got to be somewhere massive. Russia?
We have a winner!
Yes, I was amazed as well
Russian Federation 274,700 Germany 173,100 USA 121,000 Turkey 87,800 Sweden 75,100
In addition, however, the UNHCR registered 245,700 directly
Half of them will be Ukrainian and the other half will be Edward Snowden in different handwriting!
Mr. Eagles, hmm. And if the migration business settles down?
Others here have made similar journeys (perhaps to a greater or lesser extent), but my feeling is that when the vote comes, the status quo will win. Recent events have been helpful for Out, of course.
I'm not fussed about the migrant crisis/immigration.
My view has always been down to pure economics.
It is unlikely that we'll get protection for the City of London nor our financial services industry, add in I'm expecting deeper integration in the Eurozone which I suspect will be bad for us, that's what has switched my vote.
Owen Paterson gave an excellent interview to Sky News on leaving the EU. A real positive case for leaving with little negativity. Well worth checking out.
'What I meant was that the people of Germany are hardly going to stand for a constant flux - 500,000/year or more - of migrants from Syria and the Middle East. We have already seen a revolt in the CSU. It is no more popular for millions of migrants from the Middle East to arrive in Germany as it is in the UK. And if something is highly unpopular with the people then it will not continue.'
What we may well see (and the start of it was last weekend) is the EU and Merkel in particular cutting a deal with Turkey to try and stem the flood. The deal will include a visa waiver for Turks and the mass immigration will continue but this time with Turks instead of Syrians,Afghans etc.
Mr. Zims, that could still have electoral implications for Merkel, given the situation with Gastarbeiter [may've calmed down since I looked at that when at school, though].
OK, here's your Pub Quiz question on migration (no Googling!):
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
It's got to be somewhere massive. Russia?
We have a winner!
Yes, I was amazed as well
Russian Federation 274,700 Germany 173,100 USA 121,000 Turkey 87,800 Sweden 75,100
In addition, however, the UNHCR registered 245,700 directly
How many of those were ethnic Russians fleeing Ukraine after Russia started a war there?
Probably most of them, I'd have thought.
I understand that a lot of Russian gay people successfully claim asylum on that basis in the West.
EDIT: Oh, the number was going the other way. Never mind.
'What I meant was that the people of Germany are hardly going to stand for a constant flux - 500,000/year or more - of migrants from Syria and the Middle East. We have already seen a revolt in the CSU. It is no more popular for millions of migrants from the Middle East to arrive in Germany as it is in the UK. And if something is highly unpopular with the people then it will not continue.'
What we may well see (and the start of it was last weekend) is the EU and Merkel in particular cutting a deal with Turkey to try and stem the flood. The deal will include a visa waiver for Turks and the mass immigration will continue but this time with Turks instead of Syrians,Afghans etc.
Not needing a visa is not the same as having the right to work.
I don't need a visa to visit the US, but I don't have the right to work there.
I understand your point, but I believe 1.5 million are estimated to arrive in Germany this year. They do not yet seem minded to turn them away. Therefore, I think it's reasonable getting about 0.5 mill before they start doing that. Even when they start doing that, so many people are already on route that many will still be sneaking in beyond that and yet still successfully getting asylum once in (e.g. like the channel tunnel refugees). I could easily see 2.5 million getting to Germany, with maybe half getting passports.
We could easily see ten times as many as Cameron decided to accept if we don't get protection from it.
I understand your point, but I believe 1.5 million are estimated to arrive in Germany this year. They do not yet seem minded to turn them away. Therefore, I think it's reasonable getting about 0.5 mill before they start doing that. Even when they start doing that, so many people are already on route that many will still be sneaking in beyond that and yet still successfully getting asylum once in (e.g. like the channel tunnel refugees). I could easily see 2.5 million getting to Germany, with maybe half getting passports.
We could easily see ten times as many as Cameron decided to accept if we don't get protection from it.
I speak to a few Germans through various forums and I have no reason to believe they are anything other than normal, law-abiding, working people, not particularly politically committed one way or another. They are all absolutely furious at the migration that they see as being forced on them.
Straws in the wind, anecdote not data and all the rest of it.
Mr. Eagles, hmm. And if the migration business settles down?
Others here have made similar journeys (perhaps to a greater or lesser extent), but my feeling is that when the vote comes, the status quo will win. Recent events have been helpful for Out, of course.
I'm not fussed about the migrant crisis/immigration.
My view has always been down to pure economics.
It is unlikely that we'll get protection for the City of London nor our financial services industry, add in I'm expecting deeper integration in the Eurozone which I suspect will be bad for us, that's what has switched my vote.
Owen Paterson gave an excellent interview to Sky News on leaving the EU. A real positive case for leaving with little negativity. Well worth checking out.
He's wrong on most things even badgers. "the badgers have moved the goalposts."
Plus City fans think Uefa have been lenient towards racist chants at their players by other teams.
Plus UEFA ludicrously made CSKA play behind closed doors due to their fans poor behaviour - after City fans had already bought tickets and accommodation. So City fans were punished for the sins of CSKA fans.
It would be fairly toxic if British citizens vote to leave the EU, but are kept in by foreign nationals.
Commonwealth citizens living in the UK are entitled to vote in General Elections, so why not the EU referendum?
Whether they should be allowed to vote in General Elections is another matter but that should be reformed for all or for none, not just one referendum.
EU citizens OTOH are not entitled to vote in General Elections, so can't vote in the referendum. Quite rightly too.
@JamesClayton5: SNP source says it's "very, very likely" that they'll use their next opposition day (24th Nov) to vote on Trident. Massive prob for Labour
Mr. 1983, either that, or I was making a joke on the internet.
Mr. JEO, seems rather obvious. I thought the vote was being limited in that way already.
Speaking of which, saw a minute or two of last night's Sky paper review, and both people on it (Jacqui Smith and an ex-adviser to John Major, I think) reckoned 16 year olds should be allowed to vote. Daft sods. Of course, both were also pro-EU.
Isn’t it about time the SNP started investigating those in their ranks who are behind the worst abuses, and, if they are revealed to be members, start expelling them or at least issuing meaningful warnings. Isn’t proper action by Nicola Sturgeon – who is much more reasonable and sensible than the ego-maniac Alex Salmond – overdue, to clean up her party?
This problem now cuts across party or ideological lines, threatening basic freedoms and eroding civic norms that were taken for granted until the madness and bitterness of the referendum period.
Mr. Eagles, hmm. And if the migration business settles down?
Others here have made similar journeys (perhaps to a greater or lesser extent), but my feeling is that when the vote comes, the status quo will win. Recent events have been helpful for Out, of course.
I'm not fussed about the migrant crisis/immigration.
My view has always been down to pure economics.
It is unlikely that we'll get protection for the City of London nor our financial services industry, add in I'm expecting deeper integration in the Eurozone which I suspect will be bad for us, that's what has switched my vote.
Owen Paterson gave an excellent interview to Sky News on leaving the EU. A real positive case for leaving with little negativity. Well worth checking out.
He's wrong on most things even badgers. "the badgers have moved the goalposts."
That may be true but what he discussed on Sky News was correct - Spinelli and Five Presidents reports providing a clear indication of where the EU is heading, retaking our seat at the top tables (UNECE, Codex, etc.), etc.
I had survived many months without attracting the attention of The National, the SNP's American-owned propaganda sheet. But then, like buses, two from The National turned up at the same time.
a second bus sped into the terminus with Cat Boyd at the wheel, she being a tribune of the nationalist movement no more forgiving than the one who had earlier in the week instructed Joanne and Muriel to fuck off over the border.
The idea that I'm a member of the Scottish establishment, and that somehow I represent it in a nutshell, will take some time to get used to; I may have to dine out on it for years before the risible laughter all around me finally subsides. Ms Boyd forgets that the Scottish establishment – the new establishment – consists of people like herself.
But, more seriously, I must also get used to the idea that I am now officially an enemy of Miss Sturgeon's one-party state.
@JamesClayton5: SNP source says it's "very, very likely" that they'll use their next opposition day (24th Nov) to vote on Trident. Massive prob for Labour
Fantastic. *Gets popcorn*
Like the tax credits vote this week, watch for all the Tory MPs to turn up for the vote. Embarrassing the SNP and Labour at the same time is known as killing two birds with one stone.
You might want to check out Southwark Crown Court where a number of them are currently on trial, with more to come. One has just been sentenced to 14 years in prison and another is out after being convicted of the UK's biggest fraud.
Our maximum sentence for fraud is too low and the sentences which are given are also too low. But it's not the case that nothing is happening.
@JamesClayton5: SNP source says it's "very, very likely" that they'll use their next opposition day (24th Nov) to vote on Trident. Massive prob for Labour
Fantastic. *Gets popcorn*
Like the tax credits vote this week, watch for all the Tory MPs to turn up for the vote. Embarrassing the SNP and Labour at the same time is known as killing two birds with one stone.
Why would the SNP be embarrassed (Unless 3 in a bed MacNeil locks himself in the loo again :P ) ?
Isn’t it about time the SNP started investigating those in their ranks who are behind the worst abuses, and, if they are revealed to be members, start expelling them or at least issuing meaningful warnings. Isn’t proper action by Nicola Sturgeon – who is much more reasonable and sensible than the ego-maniac Alex Salmond – overdue, to clean up her party?
This problem now cuts across party or ideological lines, threatening basic freedoms and eroding civic norms that were taken for granted until the madness and bitterness of the referendum period.
LOL, they will want Stasi rounding up suspected SNP supporters soon. Cannot beat them at the ballot box so let us just put them in gulags, UK democracy you just got to love the loyalist unionists chutzpah.
It would be fairly toxic if British citizens vote to leave the EU, but are kept in by foreign nationals.
Commonwealth citizens living in the UK are entitled to vote in General Elections, so why not the EU referendum?
Whether they should be allowed to vote in General Elections is another matter but that should be reformed for all or for none, not just one referendum.
EU citizens OTOH are not entitled to vote in General Elections, so can't vote in the referendum. Quite rightly too.
They should probably be removed for both, but I think it's especially important for a referendum which will determine things not just for the next five years, but for the next thirty.
@JamesClayton5: SNP source says it's "very, very likely" that they'll use their next opposition day (24th Nov) to vote on Trident. Massive prob for Labour
Fantastic. *Gets popcorn*
Like the tax credits vote this week, watch for all the Tory MPs to turn up for the vote. Embarrassing the SNP and Labour at the same time is known as killing two birds with one stone.
Why would the SNP be embarrassed (Unless 3 in a bed MacNeil locks himself in the loo again :P ) ?
@JamesClayton5: SNP source says it's "very, very likely" that they'll use their next opposition day (24th Nov) to vote on Trident. Massive prob for Labour
Fantastic. *Gets popcorn*
Like the tax credits vote this week, watch for all the Tory MPs to turn up for the vote. Embarrassing the SNP and Labour at the same time is known as killing two birds with one stone.
Why would the SNP be embarrassed (Unless 3 in a bed MacNeil locks himself in the loo again :P ) ?
Sandpit is easily confused.
Who let MAlky, have the keys to the COSHH, cupboard? He's well into the Cillit Bang.
@JamesClayton5: SNP source says it's "very, very likely" that they'll use their next opposition day (24th Nov) to vote on Trident. Massive prob for Labour
Fantastic. *Gets popcorn*
Like the tax credits vote this week, watch for all the Tory MPs to turn up for the vote. Embarrassing the SNP and Labour at the same time is known as killing two birds with one stone.
Why would the SNP be embarrassed (Unless 3 in a bed MacNeil locks himself in the loo again :P ) ?
Sandpit is easily confused.
Confused that the "Party of Scotland" actively support the loss of several thousand Scottish jobs, yes.
“Nor is any documentation required, simply a declaration that the applicant is a Commonwealth or Irish citizen."
What documentation did you expect, Mr. JEO? What did you have to provide to get onto the electoral roll?
The most recent changes mean that at least a person has to declare themselves rather than having the "head of household" do it for them. Then, when it comes to actual voting, we can bimble along to the polling station say who we are, with no proof of identity required, and vote.
It may be that these somewhat relaxed arrangements might make a difference in one or two places, and may be the postal voting needs to be tightened up a little more, but generally speaking it seems to work OK.
''The explanation is that they will vote Remain but are using the opinion poll to register grumpiness with the EU, in particular over immigration, Calais and the mishandling of the migrant crisis generally. ''
I think, given what is going on in Germany, the misgivings are deeper than that.
They may be, but since the Leave side seem to be arguing for an EEA-style arrangement (or at least, as far as I can tell that's what's being suggested, but who knows?), whatever misgivings on immigration anyone may have should logically not impact on their decision as to whether we should leave or not.
Of course logic doesn't always apply, but at some point this message will begin to penetrate.
If we left, were in the EEA and Mrs Merton et al decided that all EU members had to share the burden of 1m migrants (refugees some call them), would we be able to say no or would we be in the same position as we are now?
We are able to say no now. There is no way the EU can force us to take one migrant we do not wish to take.
Even for countries that do not have the opt-outs we have, like Hungary, there is ultimately no way for Mrs Merkel to force countries to do things they don't want to do. Because if it is sufficiently unpopular, countries can (a) refuse, and (b) leave.
If we were in EFTA/EEA we would, obviously, have even more control.
But that won't be the case once these migrants start getting EU passports.
Do you think that issuing half a million German passports to Syrians and Iraqis and Afghanis would be popular in Berlin?
How long did it take the Turks living in Germany to become citizens ?
“Nor is any documentation required, simply a declaration that the applicant is a Commonwealth or Irish citizen."
What documentation did you expect, Mr. JEO? What did you have to provide to get onto the electoral roll?
The most recent changes mean that at least a person has to declare themselves rather than having the "head of household" do it for them. Then, when it comes to actual voting, we can bimble along to the polling station say who we are, with no proof of identity required, and vote.
It may be that these somewhat relaxed arrangements might make a difference in one or two places, and may be the postal voting needs to be tightened up a little more, but generally speaking it seems to work OK.
Giving goings on in places like Tower Hamlets, I don't have much faith in this process any more, especially with voters from parts of the world where voting is more corrupt.
@JamesClayton5: SNP source says it's "very, very likely" that they'll use their next opposition day (24th Nov) to vote on Trident. Massive prob for Labour
Fantastic. *Gets popcorn*
Like the tax credits vote this week, watch for all the Tory MPs to turn up for the vote. Embarrassing the SNP and Labour at the same time is known as killing two birds with one stone.
Why would the SNP be embarrassed (Unless 3 in a bed MacNeil locks himself in the loo again :P ) ?
Sandpit is easily confused.
Confused that the "Party of Scotland" actively support the loss of several thousand Scottish jobs, yes.
The SNP line on Trident is just as clear as the Conservative line though diametrically opposed. Labour is the only party with a problem on it.
@davidtorrance: I agree with the SNP that EVEL is a nonsense, but the point remains that until 19 September 2014 it as a party had consistently supported it
@JamesClayton5: SNP source says it's "very, very likely" that they'll use their next opposition day (24th Nov) to vote on Trident. Massive prob for Labour
Fantastic. *Gets popcorn*
Like the tax credits vote this week, watch for all the Tory MPs to turn up for the vote. Embarrassing the SNP and Labour at the same time is known as killing two birds with one stone.
Why would the SNP be embarrassed (Unless 3 in a bed MacNeil locks himself in the loo again :P ) ?
Sandpit is easily confused.
Confused that the "Party of Scotland" actively support the loss of several thousand Scottish jobs, yes.
The few polls I've seen show that axing trident is hardly emphatically backed by people in Scotland.
For example this one, there's only a 6% lead for scrap.
This EVEL motion does not go anywhere near far enough. It is no more than English Veto for English Laws. We need English Votes for English Laws.
On issues where the Scots have decided to devolve matters out of Westminster there should be zero votes by Scottish MPs on those matters.
Entirely agree. This proposal does not deserve to be called English votes, when it is merely veto power.
I agree. What does confuse me is why a Conservative government has been so pusillanimous on this matter. It feels to me like Cameron is trying to fob us off with the minimum he thinks he can get away with rather than actually tackling a serious constitutional issue.
Now, my own view is that Cameron is a nasty PR spiv with not a principled bone in his body but people on here keep telling me he is proper Conservative who really does care about more than political power. Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man.
“Nor is any documentation required, simply a declaration that the applicant is a Commonwealth or Irish citizen."
What documentation did you expect, Mr. JEO? What did you have to provide to get onto the electoral roll?
The most recent changes mean that at least a person has to declare themselves rather than having the "head of household" do it for them. Then, when it comes to actual voting, we can bimble along to the polling station say who we are, with no proof of identity required, and vote.
It may be that these somewhat relaxed arrangements might make a difference in one or two places, and may be the postal voting needs to be tightened up a little more, but generally speaking it seems to work OK.
Giving goings on in places like Tower Hamlets, I don't have much faith in this process any more, especially with voters from parts of the world where voting is more corrupt.
Fair comment but surely the answer is to prosecute those who make false declarations and not to impose some ghastly bureaucratic burden on the 99% of the population who play by the rules.
This EVEL motion does not go anywhere near far enough. It is no more than English Veto for English Laws. We need English Votes for English Laws.
On issues where the Scots have decided to devolve matters out of Westminster there should be zero votes by Scottish MPs on those matters.
Entirely agree. This proposal does not deserve to be called English votes, when it is merely veto power.
I agree. What does confuse me is why a Conservative government has been so pusillanimous on this matter. It feels to me like Cameron is trying to fob us off with the minimum he thinks he can get away with rather than actually tackling a serious constitutional issue.
Now, my own view is that Cameron is a nasty PR spiv with not a principled bone in his body but people on here keep telling me he is proper Conservative who really does care about more than political power. Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man.
You are rather confused about your history. A proper Conservative is someone who takes a pragmatic and realistic view. Cameron is bang in the centre of the great tradition of Conservative Prime Ministers, doing the best that can be done in the circumstances. Of course it's a bit of a fudge - most things in the great unwritten British constitution, such as the Salisbury Convention or indeed our constitutional monarchy, are fudges, which gradually get honoured by tradition.
The key point is that it's a damned sight better than what was there before.
I think the conclusion towards the end is sound: she is the kind of intelligent, credible, reassuring figure who could make Brexit seem a lot less "dangerous".
This EVEL motion does not go anywhere near far enough. It is no more than English Veto for English Laws. We need English Votes for English Laws.
On issues where the Scots have decided to devolve matters out of Westminster there should be zero votes by Scottish MPs on those matters.
Entirely agree. This proposal does not deserve to be called English votes, when it is merely veto power.
I agree. What does confuse me is why a Conservative government has been so pusillanimous on this matter. It feels to me like Cameron is trying to fob us off with the minimum he thinks he can get away with rather than actually tackling a serious constitutional issue.
Now, my own view is that Cameron is a nasty PR spiv with not a principled bone in his body but people on here keep telling me he is proper Conservative who really does care about more than political power. Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man.
You are rather confused about your history. A proper Conservative is someone who takes a pragmatic and realistic view. Cameron is bang in the centre of the great tradition of Conservative Prime Ministers, doing the best that can be done in the circumstances. Of course it's a bit of a fudge - most things in the great unwritten British constitution, such as the Salisbury Convention, are.
Drivel, Mr. Nabavi, pure drivel. Very unusual from you but drivel nonetheless.
Edited extra bit: You edited and added to your post after I replied.
This EVEL motion does not go anywhere near far enough. It is no more than English Veto for English Laws. We need English Votes for English Laws.
On issues where the Scots have decided to devolve matters out of Westminster there should be zero votes by Scottish MPs on those matters.
Entirely agree. This proposal does not deserve to be called English votes, when it is merely veto power.
I agree. What does confuse me is why a Conservative government has been so pusillanimous on this matter. It feels to me like Cameron is trying to fob us off with the minimum he thinks he can get away with rather than actually tackling a serious constitutional issue.
Now, my own view is that Cameron is a nasty PR spiv with not a principled bone in his body but people on here keep telling me he is proper Conservative who really does care about more than political power. Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man.
You are rather confused about your history. A proper Conservative is someone who takes a pragmatic and realistic view. Cameron is bang in the centre of the great tradition of Conservative Prime Ministers, doing the best that can be done in the circumstances. Of course it's a bit of a fudge - most things in the great unwritten British constitution, such as the Salisbury Convention, are.
Drivel, Mr. Nabavi, pure drivel. Very unusual from you but drivel nonetheless.
So what's your definition of a 'proper Conservative' ?
Does anyone know what is happening re reversing the Lords amendment re 16 year olds voting in Local Elections?
Committee Stage in Commons was yesterday and I see no mention of it being reversed. One more day of Committee still to come but I can't see any sign of it on list of amendments.
''I think the conclusion towards the end is sound: she is the kind of intelligent, credible, reassuring figure who could make Brexit seem a lot less "dangerous"
Not great for tories though. PM going head to head with his own Home Secretary. Ugly.
''Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man. ''
To be honest, I'm struggling to think of a situation where more than a veto would be necessary.
Because there are two different scenarios where EV4EL may apply, and the current proposal only deals with one of those scenarios - that where there is a UK majority but not an English majority for a piece of legislation then the English PMs can 'Veto' it.
The scenario not covered by the proposal is that where there is a clear English majority in favour of something but not a UK majority, such as allowing fox hunting. The 'Veto' there doesn't work because it's the final vote (of all UK PMs) where the legislation will fail to pass.
The test would be could the Conservatives alone have got something through 2010-15, when they had an overall majority in England? A real English Parliament would also have allowed the Conservatives to propose legislation in England as the govt, even if in the UK they had been the opposition to a hypothetical rainbow coalition.
''I think the conclusion towards the end is sound: she is the kind of intelligent, credible, reassuring figure who could make Brexit seem a lot less "dangerous"
Not great for tories though. PM going head to head with his own Home Secretary. Ugly.
Are "full and frank" debates only allowed within Labour xD ?
That Harold Macmillan chap - he dismantled the Empire, so he certainly wasn't a proper Conservative. That R A Butler fellow must have been some kind of pinko, what with the 1944 Education Act and all that. Ted Heath was of course beyond the pale. Willie Whitelaw? Nah, far too wet. William Hague? No, he's a Cameroon.
Maggie, do I hear? What, the minister who presided over the closure of so many grammar schools?
This EVEL motion does not go anywhere near far enough. It is no more than English Veto for English Laws. We need English Votes for English Laws.
On issues where the Scots have decided to devolve matters out of Westminster there should be zero votes by Scottish MPs on those matters.
Entirely agree. This proposal does not deserve to be called English votes, when it is merely veto power.
I agree. What does confuse me is why a Conservative government has been so pusillanimous on this matter. It feels to me like Cameron is trying to fob us off with the minimum he thinks he can get away with rather than actually tackling a serious constitutional issue.
Now, my own view is that Cameron is a nasty PR spiv with not a principled bone in his body but people on here keep telling me he is proper Conservative who really does care about more than political power. Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man.
You are rather confused about your history. A proper Conservative is someone who takes a pragmatic and realistic view. Cameron is bang in the centre of the great tradition of Conservative Prime Ministers, doing the best that can be done in the circumstances. Of course it's a bit of a fudge - most things in the great unwritten British constitution, such as the Salisbury Convention, are.
Drivel, Mr. Nabavi, pure drivel. Very unusual from you but drivel nonetheless.
So what's your definition of a 'proper Conservative' ?
Someone with principles to start with and as that knocks Cameron out there isn't much point, in the context of this discussion, in pushing further.
Anyway, I am glad you are on Mr. Jessop as I wanted to ask your advice. What do you know about outdoor clothing from a company called Regatta. I ask because there is a shop near me having a big sale and most of the Regatta stuff is being marked down by 50% (e.g. a pair of boots which was £90 is on offer for £45). I don't suppose I will ever do really serious walking again so I don't need top notch stuff, so do you think that the Regatta range will be suitable?
That Harold Macmillan chap - he dismantled the Empire, so he certainly wasn't a proper Conservative. That R A Butler fellow must have been some kind of pinko, what with the 1944 Education Act and all that. Ted Heath was of course beyond the pale. Willie Whitelaw? Nah, far too wet. William Hague? No, he's a Cameroon.
Maggie, do I hear? What, the minister who presided over the closure of so many grammar schools?
Margaret Thatcher was certainly much more consistently conservative than David Cameron. I disagree with HurstLlama. David Cameron I think is instinctively conservative, but more in the respect that he would never want to upset the apple cart, rather than in pushing for conservative principles to be upheld.
I think the conclusion towards the end is sound: she is the kind of intelligent, credible, reassuring figure who could make Brexit seem a lot less "dangerous".
If May backs the Out campaign, I think she would become favourite for the next Tory leader.
Comments
When people think of Basil they think of Basil Brush.
2014 was a record year for asylum applications worldwide. The largest number of applications submitted to a single country was 274,700. Which was that country?
Manchester City to be charged by Uefa after fans boo Champions League anthem before clash with Sevilla
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/11947651/Manchester-City-to-be-charged-by-Uefa-after-fans-boo-Champions-League-anthem-before-clash-with-Sevilla.html
This is now in line with most other polls - lead for "in" but not settled just yet
Yes, I was amazed as well
Russian Federation 274,700
Germany 173,100
USA 121,000
Turkey 87,800
Sweden 75,100
In addition, however, the UNHCR registered 245,700 directly
Splitter!!!!!! TPD!!!
Plus City fans think Uefa have been lenient towards racist chants at their players by other teams.
'What I meant was that the people of Germany are hardly going to stand for a constant flux - 500,000/year or more - of migrants from Syria and the Middle East. We have already seen a revolt in the CSU. It is no more popular for millions of migrants from the Middle East to arrive in Germany as it is in the UK. And if something is highly unpopular with the people then it will not continue.'
What we may well see (and the start of it was last weekend) is the EU and Merkel in particular cutting a deal with Turkey to try and stem the flood. The deal will include a visa waiver for Turks and the mass immigration will continue but this time with Turks instead of Syrians,Afghans etc.
EDIT: Oh, the number was going the other way. Never mind.
I don't need a visa to visit the US, but I don't have the right to work there.
In Soviet Russia, asylum claims YOU*!
*If you happen to leave in eastern Ukraine.
I understand your point, but I believe 1.5 million are estimated to arrive in Germany this year. They do not yet seem minded to turn them away. Therefore, I think it's reasonable getting about 0.5 mill before they start doing that. Even when they start doing that, so many people are already on route that many will still be sneaking in beyond that and yet still successfully getting asylum once in (e.g. like the channel tunnel refugees). I could easily see 2.5 million getting to Germany, with maybe half getting passports.
We could easily see ten times as many as Cameron decided to accept if we don't get protection from it.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/iceland-does-what-the-us-wont-26-top-bankers-sent-to-prison-for-role-in-financial-crisis/
Straws in the wind, anecdote not data and all the rest of it.
The Bankers in question were involved in a multimillion pound fraud. Not regulatory failings.
"the badgers have moved the goalposts."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11945477/Brexit-Block-non-UK-citizens-from-voting-in-EU-referendum-says-new-report.html
It would be fairly toxic if British citizens vote to leave the EU, but are kept in by foreign nationals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiya
“Nor is any documentation required, simply a declaration that the applicant is a Commonwealth or Irish citizen."
Whether they should be allowed to vote in General Elections is another matter but that should be reformed for all or for none, not just one referendum.
EU citizens OTOH are not entitled to vote in General Elections, so can't vote in the referendum. Quite rightly too.
Mr. JEO, seems rather obvious. I thought the vote was being limited in that way already.
Speaking of which, saw a minute or two of last night's Sky paper review, and both people on it (Jacqui Smith and an ex-adviser to John Major, I think) reckoned 16 year olds should be allowed to vote. Daft sods. Of course, both were also pro-EU.
Like the tax credits vote this week, watch for all the Tory MPs to turn up for the vote. Embarrassing the SNP and Labour at the same time is known as killing two birds with one stone.
Our maximum sentence for fraud is too low and the sentences which are given are also too low. But it's not the case that nothing is happening.
LOL, they will want Stasi rounding up suspected SNP supporters soon. Cannot beat them at the ballot box so let us just put them in gulags, UK democracy you just got to love the loyalist unionists chutzpah.
@OwenThompson: The Tories ended the union today - not SNP & not the people of Scotland - result of this will have huge consequences for whole UK #EVEL
On issues where the Scots have decided to devolve matters out of Westminster there should be zero votes by Scottish MPs on those matters.
The most recent changes mean that at least a person has to declare themselves rather than having the "head of household" do it for them. Then, when it comes to actual voting, we can bimble along to the polling station say who we are, with no proof of identity required, and vote.
It may be that these somewhat relaxed arrangements might make a difference in one or two places, and may be the postal voting needs to be tightened up a little more, but generally speaking it seems to work OK.
That leaves foxhunting and Human Rights reform as the trickiest votes to go - except EU ref natch.
For example this one, there's only a 6% lead for scrap.
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-trident-be-scrapped-or-maintained#table
Now, my own view is that Cameron is a nasty PR spiv with not a principled bone in his body but people on here keep telling me he is proper Conservative who really does care about more than political power. Actions, as always, speak louder than words and I am damned if I can see why I should shift my opinion of the man.
To be honest, I'm struggling to think of a situation where more than a veto would be necessary.
Edited.
The key point is that it's a damned sight better than what was there before.
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/is-theresa-may-gearing-up-to-lead-the-eu-no-campaign/
I think the conclusion towards the end is sound: she is the kind of intelligent, credible, reassuring figure who could make Brexit seem a lot less "dangerous".
Edited extra bit: You edited and added to your post after I replied.
Committee Stage in Commons was yesterday and I see no mention of it being reversed. One more day of Committee still to come but I can't see any sign of it on list of amendments.
Not great for tories though. PM going head to head with his own Home Secretary. Ugly.
The scenario not covered by the proposal is that where there is a clear English majority in favour of something but not a UK majority, such as allowing fox hunting. The 'Veto' there doesn't work because it's the final vote (of all UK PMs) where the legislation will fail to pass.
The test would be could the Conservatives alone have got something through 2010-15, when they had an overall majority in England? A real English Parliament would also have allowed the Conservatives to propose legislation in England as the govt, even if in the UK they had been the opposition to a hypothetical rainbow coalition.
Maggie, do I hear? What, the minister who presided over the closure of so many grammar schools?
Anyway, I am glad you are on Mr. Jessop as I wanted to ask your advice. What do you know about outdoor clothing from a company called Regatta. I ask because there is a shop near me having a big sale and most of the Regatta stuff is being marked down by 50% (e.g. a pair of boots which was £90 is on offer for £45). I don't suppose I will ever do really serious walking again so I don't need top notch stuff, so do you think that the Regatta range will be suitable?
GET IN ERIKSEN 17/2!
Does this mean UKIP might fancy their chances?