On a minor point: is it normal now in Germany to use first-names in speeches like Osborne's? I was surprised to see him refer to 'Wolfgang' rather than 'Dr Schäuble'? If so it's a big change from just a few years ago.
You are, of course, absolutely right. As the US basically showed, there is no limit to the extent of government support that can be offered by a solvent sovereign in extremis.
*snip for word count*
Thinking about it a bit more, I suspect, that the French and Germans would have propped up their banks in the event of Spain or Portugal defaulting. (Italy is a little different, as the vast bulk of Italian debt is owned by Italian banks, insurance companies and pension funds; a consequence of the fact that Italy was not a "capital importer" like the other peripheral European countries.)
I have always said that the EMU government should have just let their banks go to the way and stepped in only to guarantee customer deposits. Guaranteeing the bond holders was a disaster policy that has held Europe back for the last five years. The Germans in trying to protect German banks have sacrificed growth and employment across the whole continent. Europe is stagnating and it is directly related to the dysfunctional banking sector which is now all about protecting bond holders above all else.
It is odd that the Left have been so keen on the EU given all this. Essentially they have gone along with a policy of austerity for people in order to help out banks and bond-holders, not one would have thought the obvious groups for the Left to care about. Now there may be good economic reasons for doing all this but it's nonetheless an odd political position for the Left to take.
They have (and not only them) put their belief in/love for the EU above the actual practical consequences of what the EU is doing for the citizens they profess to care about. No wonder people are so disillusioned with politicians.
The EU was historically not a left-right issue. Many on the left were and are hostile to the EU, and many on the right enthusiastic; most of our inbound steps were under Conservative governments.
Surprisingly (not really), the blue-->red switch in enthusiasm ran parallel with the EU's transmogrification from common market to socialist bureaucracy.
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I think you're exaggerating with "most". The vast bulk of CDOs and CDSs were US mortgage related and either stayed in the US or went to specialist funds that were created for the express purpose of investing in them. (There's a certain UK based hedge fund who's biggest "product" was simply a repository for synthethic debt instruments, which was then levered up to give fabulous and "consistent" returns.)
It would be more accurate to say that the German banks owned tonnes of peripheral debt, and then your paragraph would be quite accurate.
Not commenting on the absolute amounts, because I'm sure you're accurate. But it's equally clear that the Landesbanken, for well known reasons, were desperate for these investments and were often seen as soft touches by aggressive young salesmen who had forgotten that bankers exist to serve their clients
I have to race off to a meeting in a second (I'm in sunny Ottawa), but you are absolutely right that the German Landesbank were seen by many as "patsies". However, if we're going to get all technical about it , I would point out that CDOs and CDSs are not really in the same category at all (the first are synthetic bonds, the second is default insurance), and if European institutions had been buying CDSs they would have made out like banditos.
I would also like to point out that the Germans *did* let a number of banks go bust. And the largest "bad banks" in Europe are the run-off portfolios of these bust banks.
So all this conveniently timed anti German rhetoric is rubbish then?
George Galloway could start an argument in an empty room. It would be amazing if he might want to get back inside a party where he would have to listen to a voice other than his own. It seems from his reticence actually to apply to rejoin that he might have come to the same conclusion.
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
I thought he had said that he would rejoin Labour in a heartbeat if Corbyn were elected. Has Labour - gasp! - rejected him? Or has George not actually applied to join?
He wants them to withdraw his dismissal from the party, saying he should never have been expelled
If he was back in the fold he'd be a good candidate here
I know what you mean but there is nothing "good" about George Galloway. IMO. I cheered when he lost his seat in May. The highlight for me.
He and his type are the purveyors of a particularly poisonous form of politics, which should have no place in this country.
I know it's dangerous to write off his political career (finally), but that was quite a pasting he took at the General Election.
On a minor point: is it normal now in Germany to use first-names in speeches like Osborne's? I was surprised to see him refer to 'Wolfgang' rather than 'Dr Schäuble'? If so it's a big change from just a few years ago.
I find the level of informality in Brazil rather staggering. For eight years they had a president known by his nickname 'Lula' - or squid, as it would be in English.
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I'm not surprised. I'm not saying we're perfect here in the UK - we have our own corruption. But Germany seems to have it much worse.
I mean, what can you say about a country where this sort of thing was thought to be a good idea by a major institution?
Worth remembering that in Germany insider dealing was only made a criminal offence relatively recently, certainly later than in the UK. And it takes quite a long time after that before those in the business really understand that it is wrong and a bit longer after that before they act on that understanding.
And even now I'm not sure all get it.
Last time a young man in one of the local City bars was heard saying: "It's not crooked. It's smart."
Oh dear........
Last night a young man was heard..... etc .....not last time. Typing is abysmal these days.
As soon as you try to justify that something is "not crooked" a red flag should go up in your head!
Well, quite. I hope said young man doesn't work in the same place I do. I really do.
He might find out how pleasant your questioning style is last night! I suspect you could be pretty terrifying if you want to.
It's a question that has always intrigued me though: arguably there is a case that a regulated person overhearing such a conversation has a duty to report it, even if it outside their place of work. I'd be interested in your thoughts?
Which probabt won't happen, unless it's a very close Remain and the EU backtracks around about the time of the Tory leadership election.
I could see a victorious May or Gove (big "ifs") pledging that for GE2020 if it starts to look dicey, and perhaps throwing in one or two more renegotiation demands if things really do start to head south.
I was saying what *should* happen, not what *will* happen.
If Mr Cameron is recommending something that is contingent on future treaty changes, then there needs to be some mechanism for ensuring the treaty says what was in the Memorandum of Understanding. That could be a cross-party committee, or a proper second referendum. Otherwise, there is the very possible issue that the treaty looks very little like the MoU - especially as a number of the Eurozone governments that need to sign such a treaty are likely to change between now and any final treaty.
Cameron has said a number of times he would be seeking treaty change. In fact he has said, "proper, full-on treaty change" would be needed. This is one of the very few things he has been concrete about. Anything less would obviously be a failure of renegotiation.
What is it about Germany and corruption at the moment? VW, football, Siemens etc.
Why are you surprised? It was German banks which bought much of the rubbish CDOs and CDSs pumped out by the US and UK banks. Then to get those banks out of the hole they had dug themselves into Merkel et al when round browbeating the Irish and others on fiscal responsibility. She wasn't trying to save the euro or Europe or whatever other high-minded rubbish she came out with. She was trying to save her banks from their own stupidity and failure to ask any (or any intelligent) questions and her own regulators from the consequences of their ineptness at their job.
I think you're exaggerating with "most". The vast bulk of CDOs and CDSs were US mortgage related and either stayed in the US or went to specialist funds that were created for the express purpose of investing in them. (There's a certain UK based hedge fund who's biggest "product" was simply a repository for synthethic debt instruments, which was then levered up to give fabulous and "consistent" returns.)
It would be more accurate to say that the German banks owned tonnes of peripheral debt, and then your paragraph would be quite accurate.
Not commenting on the absolute amounts, because I'm sure you're accurate. But it's equally clear that the Landesbanken, for well known reasons, were desperate for these investments and were often seen as soft touches by aggressive young salesmen who had forgotten that bankers exist to serve their clients
I have to race off to a meeting in a second (I'm in sunny Ottawa), but you are absolutely right that the German Landesbank were seen by many as "patsies". However, if we're going to get all technical about it , I would point out that CDOs and CDSs are not really in the same category at all (the first are synthetic bonds, the second is default insurance), and if European institutions had been buying CDSs they would have made out like banditos.
I would also like to point out that the Germans *did* let a number of banks go bust. And the largest "bad banks" in Europe are the run-off portfolios of these bust banks.
So all this conveniently timed anti German rhetoric is rubbish then?
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
We need a new name. Clearly it is not new labour. And its pretty far removed from old labour as well. CND-Labour?
@MaxPB The whole system is broken and holding back growth as you say. Pension funds HAVING to hold Gov't debt at ANY price is another broken part.
That's Basle rules on capital adequacy, not EU rules.
I've not been paying too much attention, but anecdotal and selected hearing of results/reorgs/re-caps at banks suggest the sector is shedding profit and capital at the moment. Is that a fair representation?
No.
Across Europe (including Switzerland, Norway and the UK), tier one capital ratios have increased from sub 5% before the Global Financial Crisis to 10-12% now.
This has been achieved in two ways: firstly, there were substantial equity raises (often with governments reaching into their own pockets - see RBS), secondly, banks largely stopped paying dividends.
We are now beginning to see bank balance sheets bolstered to a level where dividends are now being reintroduced. Commerzbank in Germany just reinstated its dividend. BNP in France now pays one. The Spanish banks, who were most aggressive in writing off bad loans and recapitalising themselves, now almost all pay dividends.
I think he is talking about the last couple of years rather than the post 2010 trend of increasing capital ratios.
I should have been clearer - I mean in the last quarter.
I think 2Q numbers were reasonably good for European banks. BNP (which I think is the Eurozone's biggest bank) in particular had good numbers.
Thanks Robert! Always very impressed with your level of commitment to the comment section.
New passport has 9 historical figures. Only two are women. Given the preponderance of chaps who were historically famous rather than women, this seems about right. It reflects historical reality, and neither justifies nor condones women being oppressed/marginalised/treated-like-crap for centuries.
Which probabt won't happen, unless it's a very close Remain and the EU backtracks around about the time of the Tory leadership election.
I could see a victorious May or Gove (big "ifs") pledging that for GE2020 if it starts to look dicey, and perhaps throwing in one or two more renegotiation demands if things really do start to head south.
I was saying what *should* happen, not what *will* happen.
If Mr Cameron is recommending something that is contingent on future treaty changes, then there needs to be some mechanism for ensuring the treaty says what was in the Memorandum of Understanding. That could be a cross-party committee, or a proper second referendum. Otherwise, there is the very possible issue that the treaty looks very little like the MoU - especially as a number of the Eurozone governments that need to sign such a treaty are likely to change between now and any final treaty.
Cameron has said a number of times he would be seeking treaty change. In fact he has said, "proper, full-on treaty change" would be needed. This is one of the very few things he has been concrete about. Anything less would obviously be a failure of renegotiation.
I agree 100%.
The issue is that - realistically - a new Eurozone Treaty (London?) will not be fully ratified by 2020.
There needs to be a mechanism for ensuring that the MoU (which is all we could possibly vote on in 2016/17) and the Treaty are essentially identical.
So we will be asked to vote on vague promises that might or might not be laid down in treaties at some point in the future.
It's one thing Cameron saying 'trust me' to the voters, but another I think to be saying 'trust whoever is PM/Reichskanzler/President of our European neighbours in several years' time'...
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
We need a new name. Clearly it is not new labour. And its pretty far removed from old labour as well. CND-Labour?
So we will be asked to vote on vague promises that might or might not be laid down in treaties at some point in the future.
It's one thing Cameron saying 'trust me' to the voters, but another I think to be saying 'trust whoever is PM/Reichskanzler/President of our European neighbours in several years' time'...
And yet another thing again to say 'trust person or persons unknown to negotiate with whoever is PM/Reichskanzler/President of our European neighbours a post-Brexit treaty, the outline of which is completely unknown, as well as new trade treaties with the US and other markets within two years'.
The future is uncertain either way. Voters will just have to make a judgement, as always. But clearly there is more uncertainty on the Leave side.
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
If only you provided your fact-checking rigour to your own assertions on Leave's behalf as vigorously as you do to anything associated with Remain.
Cameron warned he faces huge Brussels bill as the price for curbing migrant numbers to Britain
David Cameron warned he will have to agree to large increase to EU budget European Commission officials are drawing up plans to allow PM to stop citizens of new member states being able to work in UK for up to 20 years In exchange, Mr Cameron will be forced to agree to increase of EU budget It means Britain could be forced to fork out billions in extra contributions
New passport has 9 historical figures. Only two are women. Given the preponderance of chaps who were historically famous rather than women, this seems about right. It reflects historical reality, and neither justifies nor condones women being oppressed/marginalised/treated-like-crap for centuries.
* Who coined that phrase? It's super.
EDIT: Get with the programme, Francis
LOL. It is bollocks for the reasons you gave. It is a bit like saying why isn't there an equal number of people of different faiths.
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
We need a new name. Clearly it is not new labour. And its pretty far removed from old labour as well. CND-Labour?
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
I thought he had said that he would rejoin Labour in a heartbeat if Corbyn were elected. Has Labour - gasp! - rejected him? Or has George not actually applied to join?
He wants them to withdraw his dismissal from the party, saying he should never have been expelled
If he was back in the fold he'd be a good candidate here
I know what you mean but there is nothing "good" about George Galloway. IMO. I cheered when he lost his seat in May. The highlight for me.
He and his type are the purveyors of a particularly poisonous form of politics, which should have no place in this country.
On the EU renegotiation, I suspect the Government/civil servants (and it's the latter who are probably making all the running on this not Cameron and Osborne on their various EU tours) have a plan and believe the outcome they desire is achievable. We just don't really know what it is. But I suspect they know it needs to be something fairly concrete and not some wishy washy statement of intent. Which would be manna from heaven for the Out brigade. I think there WILL be something reining in free movement, or making it not as absolute as it is now if member states can objectively justify such limitations.
However, I do think the vote is in danger of being hijacked as a referendum on the Government, and Cameron particularly. As it is inevitable, as with the Scottish referendum, that defeat would lead to Cameron's immediate resignation, and as he'll have been PM for 7 years or so by then and continuing to increase his unpopularity amongst those who never liked him anyway, I imagine "Leave" has a lot in its favour. Plus the evidence from various other EU state referendums of getting concessions if you vote against the EU.
So I do think it will be very close to call, even if I suspect the deal we get might actually be not all that bad on paper. Of course I speak from a broadly pro-EU perspective, albeit I rather wish the EU wasn't constituted or having the range of competences as it currently is/does.
And if it is hijacked as a "Cameron out" staging post, then ironically the "Leave" vote in Scotland might well not be out of line with the rest of the UK....
recognition that ever closer union is not for everyone;
agreement that freedom of movement is freedom to move for work, not to claim benefits.
Protection for non EZ countries in the Treaties.
A bigger role for national Parliaments.
A more integrated market for services.
Less EU bureaucracy
Its interesting. I just wonder if there is enough time left before our referendum to get most of that.
But the devil will be in the detail: we won't know what it means by the time we vote.
A lot of that could be claimed as a success by making an agreement to change paper treaties at a specified/unspecified point in the future.
We have no idea whether it'd be honoured by the EU or all other member states, watered down so it's pretty meaningless, or just ignored.
I agree, that is the problem.
For me, and I fully appreciate that this is a minority interest, the key is protection from dominance by the EZ voting bloc. If we can't get that we can't stay in.
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
If only you provided your fact-checking rigour to your own assertions on Leave's behalf as vigorously as you do to anything associated with Remain.
Which bit is factually incorrect? If you can provide some evidence that what VoteLeave has is incorrect, I'm willing to hear it.
It is odd that the Left have been so keen on the EU given all this. Essentially they have gone along with a policy of austerity for people in order to help out banks and bond-holders, not one would have thought the obvious groups for the Left to care about. Now there may be good economic reasons for doing all this but it's nonetheless an odd political position for the Left to take.
They have (and not only them) put their belief in/love for the EU above the actual practical consequences of what the EU is doing for the citizens they profess to care about. No wonder people are so disillusioned with politicians.
I disagree. It's exactly like being in London Labour after a Tory election win. Do we like it? Of course not. Do we seek to form a separate state? No, because it'd be silly. Do we emigrate? No, it's still home, warts and all. We grit our teeth and hope for better times.
For me, and I fully appreciate that this is a minority interest, the key is protection from dominance by the EZ voting bloc. If we can't get that we can't stay in.
It seems to be Osborne's main interest as well, together with measures to improve competitiveness (but those don't require treaty change).
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
If only you provided your fact-checking rigour to your own assertions on Leave's behalf as vigorously as you do to anything associated with Remain.
Which bit is factually incorrect? If you can provide some evidence that what VoteLeave has is incorrect, I'm willing to hear it.
It is odd that the Left have been so keen on the EU given all this. Essentially they have gone along with a policy of austerity for people in order to help out banks and bond-holders, not one would have thought the obvious groups for the Left to care about. Now there may be good economic reasons for doing all this but it's nonetheless an odd political position for the Left to take.
They have (and not only them) put their belief in/love for the EU above the actual practical consequences of what the EU is doing for the citizens they profess to care about. No wonder people are so disillusioned with politicians.
I disagree. It's exactly like being in London Labour after a Tory election win. Do we like it? Of course not. Do we seek to form a separate state? No, because it'd be silly. Do we emigrate? No, it's still home, warts and all. We grit our teeth and hope for better times.
Don't grit them too hard, or they'll be worn away to nothing, long before the better times post Corbyn arrive.
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
We need a new name. Clearly it is not new labour. And its pretty far removed from old labour as well. CND-Labour?
END-Labour?
The Anti-Tory Resistance!
We are the Tories. Lower your shields and surrender your chips (to Eric Pickles). We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own (no we won't - had our fingers crossed behind our backs). Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
We need a new name. Clearly it is not new labour. And its pretty far removed from old labour as well. CND-Labour?
END-Labour?
The Anti-Tory Resistance!
We are the Tories. Lower your shields and surrender your chips (to Eric Pickles). We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own (no we won't - had our fingers crossed behind our backs). Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Cameron warned he faces huge Brussels bill as the price for curbing migrant numbers to Britain
David Cameron warned he will have to agree to large increase to EU budget European Commission officials are drawing up plans to allow PM to stop citizens of new member states being able to work in UK for up to 20 years In exchange, Mr Cameron will be forced to agree to increase of EU budget It means Britain could be forced to fork out billions in extra contributions
Cameron said just last year that we'd maintain the downward pressure on the EU budget, and our manifesto this year said we would press for lower EU spending. That's a non-starter.
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
If only you provided your fact-checking rigour to your own assertions on Leave's behalf as vigorously as you do to anything associated with Remain.
Which bit is factually incorrect? If you can provide some evidence that what VoteLeave has is incorrect, I'm willing to hear it.
Whoooooosh...
Do you have an argument? Because juvenile noises don't tend to be very persuasive.
Cameron warned he faces huge Brussels bill as the price for curbing migrant numbers to Britain
David Cameron warned he will have to agree to large increase to EU budget European Commission officials are drawing up plans to allow PM to stop citizens of new member states being able to work in UK for up to 20 years In exchange, Mr Cameron will be forced to agree to increase of EU budget It means Britain could be forced to fork out billions in extra contributions
Cameron said just last year that we'd maintain the downward pressure on the EU budget, and our manifesto this year said we would press for lower EU spending. That's a non-starter.
New passport has 9 historical figures. Only two are women. Given the preponderance of chaps who were historically famous rather than women, this seems about right. It reflects historical reality, and neither justifies nor condones women being oppressed/marginalised/treated-like-crap for centuries.
* Who coined that phrase? It's super.
EDIT: Get with the programme, Francis
LOL. It is bollocks for the reasons you gave. It is a bit like saying why isn't there an equal number of people of different faiths.
No there are real problems. First, why did no-one spot there'd be a row about there being only two women? Don't they teach common sense at Oxbridge?
Second, the women are Ada Lovelace and, according to the BBC, Elizabeth Scott (architect) for whom the nearest match on Wikipedia is an Elisabeth Scott who designed a theatre. I demand full DNA testing of whoever chose Scott because surely they must be related.
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
If only you provided your fact-checking rigour to your own assertions on Leave's behalf as vigorously as you do to anything associated with Remain.
Which bit is factually incorrect? If you can provide some evidence that what VoteLeave has is incorrect, I'm willing to hear it.
Do you really believe that, for example, the BBC takes EU money to push pro-EU views back to us?
New passport has 9 historical figures. Only two are women. Given the preponderance of chaps who were historically famous rather than women, this seems about right. It reflects historical reality, and neither justifies nor condones women being oppressed/marginalised/treated-like-crap for centuries.
* Who coined that phrase? It's super.
EDIT: Get with the programme, Francis
Edith Cavell would have been a nice addition. The statue to her opposite the NPG always makes me stop for a moment.
Her last words "Patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone" is a motto I try to live by.
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
If only you provided your fact-checking rigour to your own assertions on Leave's behalf as vigorously as you do to anything associated with Remain.
Which bit is factually incorrect? If you can provide some evidence that what VoteLeave has is incorrect, I'm willing to hear it.
Do you really believe that, for example, the BBC takes EU money to push pro-EU views back to us?
Cameron warned he faces huge Brussels bill as the price for curbing migrant numbers to Britain
David Cameron warned he will have to agree to large increase to EU budget European Commission officials are drawing up plans to allow PM to stop citizens of new member states being able to work in UK for up to 20 years In exchange, Mr Cameron will be forced to agree to increase of EU budget It means Britain could be forced to fork out billions in extra contributions
Cameron warned he faces huge Brussels bill as the price for curbing migrant numbers to Britain
David Cameron warned he will have to agree to large increase to EU budget European Commission officials are drawing up plans to allow PM to stop citizens of new member states being able to work in UK for up to 20 years In exchange, Mr Cameron will be forced to agree to increase of EU budget It means Britain could be forced to fork out billions in extra contributions
Cameron said just last year that we'd maintain the downward pressure on the EU budget, and our manifesto this year said we would press for lower EU spending. That's a non-starter.
If we do manage to get to some sort of two-speed set-up, we could have two budgets - one for those of us on the periphery which won't go up (but where we might pay a greater pro-rata contribution towards the things we'd still be paying for then than we do into that pot now) and the big spending socialist eurozone centralists who can spunk as much money up the wall as they desire as long as we're nothing to do with it - but the arrangement means we're not threatening to veto their big-spending schemes because we won't be part of it. So they might be content with that.
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
If only you provided your fact-checking rigour to your own assertions on Leave's behalf as vigorously as you do to anything associated with Remain.
Which bit is factually incorrect? If you can provide some evidence that what VoteLeave has is incorrect, I'm willing to hear it.
Do you really believe that, for example, the BBC takes EU money to push pro-EU views back to us?
New passport has 9 historical figures. Only two are women. Given the preponderance of chaps who were historically famous rather than women, this seems about right. It reflects historical reality, and neither justifies nor condones women being oppressed/marginalised/treated-like-crap for centuries.
* Who coined that phrase? It's super.
EDIT: Get with the programme, Francis
LOL. It is bollocks for the reasons you gave. It is a bit like saying why isn't there an equal number of people of different faiths.
No there are real problems. First, why did no-one spot there'd be a row about there being only two women? Don't they teach common sense at Oxbridge?
Second, the women are Ada Lovelace and, according to the BBC, Elizabeth Scott (architect) for whom the nearest match on Wikipedia is an Elisabeth Scott who designed a theatre. I demand full DNA testing of whoever chose Scott because surely they must be related.
Cameron warned he faces huge Brussels bill as the price for curbing migrant numbers to Britain
David Cameron warned he will have to agree to large increase to EU budget European Commission officials are drawing up plans to allow PM to stop citizens of new member states being able to work in UK for up to 20 years In exchange, Mr Cameron will be forced to agree to increase of EU budget It means Britain could be forced to fork out billions in extra contributions
Cameron said just last year that we'd maintain the downward pressure on the EU budget, and our manifesto this year said we would press for lower EU spending. That's a non-starter.
If we do manage to get to some sort of two-speed set-up, we could have two budgets - one for those of us on the periphery which won't go up (but where we might pay a greater pro-rata contribution towards the things we'd still be paying for then than we do into that pot now) and the big spending socialist eurozone centralists who can spunk as much money up the wall as they desire as long as we're nothing to do with it - but the arrangement means we're not threatening to veto their big-spending schemes because we won't be part of it. So they might be content with that.
Agreed. I don't care how much other countries want to fork over to the EU, as long as we're not spending a penny more. Our contribution has already gone up by billions in the last few years, despite Cameron's budget cap. And then there was the backdated bill for the last two decades. We can't justify handing over any more to Brussels when the NHS is bursting at the seems.
recognition that ever closer union is not for everyone;
agreement that freedom of movement is freedom to move for work, not to claim benefits.
Protection for non EZ countries in the Treaties.
A bigger role for national Parliaments.
A more integrated market for services.
Less EU bureaucracy
Its interesting. I just wonder if there is enough time left before our referendum to get most of that.
But the devil will be in the detail: we won't know what it means by the time we vote.
A lot of that could be claimed as a success by making an agreement to change paper treaties at a specified/unspecified point in the future.
We have no idea whether it'd be honoured by the EU or all other member states, watered down so it's pretty meaningless, or just ignored.
I agree, that is the problem.
For me, and I fully appreciate that this is a minority interest, the key is protection from dominance by the EZ voting bloc. If we can't get that we can't stay in.
David, still not seen your acceptance that your reading of the EEA agreement was completely wrong the other day. Are you too ashamed to admit you made an honest mistake?
Perhaps the debate on the UK EU deal is missing some context. The possibility that Europe will explode in a fury of right wing voter protest between now and the referendum.
New passport has 9 historical figures. Only two are women. Given the preponderance of chaps who were historically famous rather than women, this seems about right. It reflects historical reality, and neither justifies nor condones women being oppressed/marginalised/treated-like-crap for centuries.
* Who coined that phrase? It's super.
EDIT: Get with the programme, Francis
LOL. It is bollocks for the reasons you gave. It is a bit like saying why isn't there an equal number of people of different faiths.
No there are real problems. First, why did no-one spot there'd be a row about there being only two women? Don't they teach common sense at Oxbridge?
Second, the women are Ada Lovelace and, according to the BBC, Elizabeth Scott (architect) for whom the nearest match on Wikipedia is an Elisabeth Scott who designed a theatre. I demand full DNA testing of whoever chose Scott because surely they must be related.
For me, and I fully appreciate that this is a minority interest, the key is protection from dominance by the EZ voting bloc. If we can't get that we can't stay in.
It seems to be Osborne's main interest as well, together with measures to improve competitiveness (but those don't require treaty change).
For me, what the EU is at any point in time, either now or after the negotiation, is simply not the point. The EU has always and will always continue to evolve and adapt to the challenges the Member States face at any point in time.
What is much, much more important is the rules of the game, how the next evolution is voted on or selected. At the moment there is simply too great a risk that those developments will not be to our advantage. That needs to change.
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
If only you provided your fact-checking rigour to your own assertions on Leave's behalf as vigorously as you do to anything associated with Remain.
Which bit is factually incorrect? If you can provide some evidence that what VoteLeave has is incorrect, I'm willing to hear it.
Do you really believe that, for example, the BBC takes EU money to push pro-EU views back to us?
OK, I'll file you under paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Two facts for you to consider.
1) Last year the BBC received just under £4 billion in licence fee money. 2) Grants from the EU in the same period to the BBC have been a few million.
How likely is it that the BBC would risk its reputation for neutrality so cheaply, given its own wherewithal?
The fact you are having to resort to second-guessing the BBC's motivations shows you are unable to address the actual facts. Why don't you tell me which of the facts in the article is untrue?
- Are you claiming the "Great European Disaster movie" was not a pro-EU piece? - Are you claiming the "Great European Disaster movie" did not receive EU funding?
To be honest, I'm not expecting you to answer, given how you desperately avoided answering the question about Norway paying more per capita than the UK.
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
If only you provided your fact-checking rigour to your own assertions on Leave's behalf as vigorously as you do to anything associated with Remain.
Which bit is factually incorrect? If you can provide some evidence that what VoteLeave has is incorrect, I'm willing to hear it.
Do you really believe that, for example, the BBC takes EU money to push pro-EU views back to us?
OK, I'll file you under paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Two facts for you to consider.
1) Last year the BBC received just under £4 billion in licence fee money. 2) Grants from the EU in the same period to the BBC have been a few million.
How likely is it that the BBC would risk its reputation for neutrality so cheaply, given its own wherewithal?
The fact you are having to resort to second-guessing the BBC's motivations shows you are unable to address the actual facts. Why don't you tell me which of the facts in the article is untrue?
- Are you claiming the "Great European Disaster movie" was not a pro-EU piece? - Are you claiming the "Great European Disaster movie" did not receive EU funding?
To be honest, I'm not expecting you to answer, given how you desperately avoided answering the question about Norway paying more per capita than the UK.
1) I haven't seen the work in question so cannot sensibly comment. 2) Having done a two minute google, it looks conceivably possible that a production company - not the BBC - received EU funding. There is no evidence that the BBC itself was aware of that and it appears that the funding in question may have been to assist in translation services.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theory but don't expect me to subscribe to your newsletters on the subject.
Last night a young man was heard..... etc .....not last time. Typing is abysmal these days.
As soon as you try to justify that something is "not crooked" a red flag should go up in your head!
Well, quite. I hope said young man doesn't work in the same place I do. I really do.
He might find out how pleasant your questioning style is last night! I suspect you could be pretty terrifying if you want to.
It's a question that has always intrigued me though: arguably there is a case that a regulated person overhearing such a conversation has a duty to report it, even if it outside their place of work. I'd be interested in your thoughts?
Funnily enough I have at the moment just such a case (and have had quite a lot of similar cases. It's not that unusual). I once received a whistleblowing from someone hearing something bad about an employee in a social situation. The investigation revealed bad stuff and the employee is no more. I myself have reported matters to the authorities where I have taken the view that this is something the authorities would want to know about or should know about. The test I apply is: if this were to come out later and it were to come out that I knew or suspected and did nothing, would I be criticised? How would I justify it to myself substantively i.e. not by saying that I had no legal duty to do so.
I think if you become aware of something like this e.g. someone saying in an interview that they front run client orders, for instance, I would want to raise it informally with the right authorities. It may be boasting or someone saying something silly in a bar but - in vino veritas and all that - equally it might not.
What the legal duty is only takes you so far. The real question to my mind is what is the right thing to do.
As for last night the young man was walking away, no idea who he was or where he worked so let's hope that he was talking out of his a*se, eh!
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
If only you provided your fact-checking rigour to your own assertions on Leave's behalf as vigorously as you do to anything associated with Remain.
Which bit is factually incorrect? If you can provide some evidence that what VoteLeave has is incorrect, I'm willing to hear it.
Do you really believe that, for example, the BBC takes EU money to push pro-EU views back to us?
OK, I'll file you under paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Two facts for you to consider.
1) Last year the BBC received just under £4 billion in licence fee money. 2) Grants from the EU in the same period to the BBC have been a few million.
How likely is it that the BBC would risk its reputation for neutrality so cheaply, given its own wherewithal?
The fact you are having to resort to second-guessing the BBC's motivations shows you are unable to address the actual facts. Why don't you tell me which of the facts in the article is untrue?
- Are you claiming the "Great European Disaster movie" was not a pro-EU piece? - Are you claiming the "Great European Disaster movie" did not receive EU funding?
To be honest, I'm not expecting you to answer, given how you desperately avoided answering the question about Norway paying more per capita than the UK.
1) I haven't seen the work in question so cannot sensibly comment. 2) Having done a two minute google, it looks conceivably possible that a production company - not the BBC - received EU funding. There is no evidence that the BBC itself was aware of that and it appears that the funding in question may have been to assist in translation services.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theory but don't expect me to subscribe to your newsletters on the subject.
"There is no evidence" is one of the great non denial denials..
Cameron warned he faces huge Brussels bill as the price for curbing migrant numbers to Britain
David Cameron warned he will have to agree to large increase to EU budget European Commission officials are drawing up plans to allow PM to stop citizens of new member states being able to work in UK for up to 20 years In exchange, Mr Cameron will be forced to agree to increase of EU budget It means Britain could be forced to fork out billions in extra contributions
Cameron said just last year that we'd maintain the downward pressure on the EU budget, and our manifesto this year said we would press for lower EU spending. That's a non-starter.
If we do manage to get to some sort of two-speed set-up, we could have two budgets - one for those of us on the periphery which won't go up (but where we might pay a greater pro-rata contribution towards the things we'd still be paying for then than we do into that pot now) and the big spending socialist eurozone centralists who can spunk as much money up the wall as they desire as long as we're nothing to do with it - but the arrangement means we're not threatening to veto their big-spending schemes because we won't be part of it. So they might be content with that.
Agreed. I don't care how much other countries want to fork over to the EU, as long as we're not spending a penny more. Our contribution has already gone up by billions in the last few years, despite Cameron's budget cap. And then there was the backdated bill for the last two decades. We can't justify handing over any more to Brussels when the NHS is bursting at the seems.
1) I haven't seen the work in question so cannot sensibly comment. 2) Having done a two minute google, it looks conceivably possible that a production company - not the BBC - received EU funding. There is no evidence that the BBC itself was aware of that and it appears that the funding in question may have been to assist in translation services.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theory but don't expect me to subscribe to your newsletters on the subject.
Ok, so you accept a production company could have taken money from the EU for the documentary. That documentary then appeared on the BBC. So the tentacles of EU funding did indeed reach into the BBC's output, which is what I said.
And there was no need for your childish name-calling to even get there.
Cameron warned he faces huge Brussels bill as the price for curbing migrant numbers to Britain
David Cameron warned he will have to agree to large increase to EU budget European Commission officials are drawing up plans to allow PM to stop citizens of new member states being able to work in UK for up to 20 years In exchange, Mr Cameron will be forced to agree to increase of EU budget It means Britain could be forced to fork out billions in extra contributions
Cameron said just last year that we'd maintain the downward pressure on the EU budget, and our manifesto this year said we would press for lower EU spending. That's a non-starter.
We want to opt out of resolving the very major problems some members of the EU have with mass immigration by taking immigrants from the camps. We want to do that because (a) we don't want more immigration on top of what we have already and (b) we think that resolving the problem in the camps only means that the next set of camps will have to be bigger.
So there is now a major EU problem of building fences, security centres, holding facilities, courts or tribunals to winnow out the economic migrants, resettlement costs and all the associated health and social care that comes with this. Do you really think we can simply say, not our problem? I mean really?
The EU budget will increase to help some of the poorest members, such as Greece, cope with this humanitarian catastrophe. And we will pay our share. As we should. The best we can argue is that this means there is no additional money or maybe not even the same money for everything else.
1) I haven't seen the work in question so cannot sensibly comment. 2) Having done a two minute google, it looks conceivably possible that a production company - not the BBC - received EU funding. There is no evidence that the BBC itself was aware of that and it appears that the funding in question may have been to assist in translation services.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theory but don't expect me to subscribe to your newsletters on the subject.
Ok, so you accept a production company could have taken money from the EU for the documentary. That documentary then appeared on the BBC. So the tentacles of EU funding did indeed reach into the BBC's output, which is what I said.
And there was no need for your childish name-calling to even get there.
We'll try again.
EU grants: millions. Licence fees: billions.
Likelihood of the BBC selling itself for EU grants...?
For me, what the EU is at any point in time, either now or after the negotiation, is simply not the point. The EU has always and will always continue to evolve and adapt to the challenges the Member States face at any point in time.
What is much, much more important is the rules of the game, how the next evolution is voted on or selected. At the moment there is simply too great a risk that those developments will not be to our advantage. That needs to change.
Yes, I agree with that. My only proviso would be that it remains true if we leave - for example, after Brexit the EU might more easily introduce regulations which damaged the City.
Obviously the devil is in the detail either way. On balance, if we can achieve protection built into formal treaties to which we are signatories, that looks more reliable than relying on the goodwill of an organisation of which we are no longer members. The abject failure of the Leave side to even admit that this issue exists, let alone propose a plausible way of dealing with it, is one of my main concerns about Brexit.
New passport has 9 historical figures. Only two are women. Given the preponderance of chaps who were historically famous rather than women, this seems about right. It reflects historical reality, and neither justifies nor condones women being oppressed/marginalised/treated-like-crap for centuries.
* Who coined that phrase? It's super.
EDIT: Get with the programme, Francis
LOL. It is bollocks for the reasons you gave. It is a bit like saying why isn't there an equal number of people of different faiths.
No there are real problems. First, why did no-one spot there'd be a row about there being only two women? Don't they teach common sense at Oxbridge?
Second, the women are Ada Lovelace and, according to the BBC, Elizabeth Scott (architect) for whom the nearest match on Wikipedia is an Elisabeth Scott who designed a theatre. I demand full DNA testing of whoever chose Scott because surely they must be related.
New passport has 9 historical figures. Only two are women. Given the preponderance of chaps who were historically famous rather than women, this seems about right. It reflects historical reality, and neither justifies nor condones women being oppressed/marginalised/treated-like-crap for centuries.
* Who coined that phrase? It's super.
EDIT: Get with the programme, Francis
LOL. It is bollocks for the reasons you gave. It is a bit like saying why isn't there an equal number of people of different faiths.
No there are real problems. First, why did no-one spot there'd be a row about there being only two women? Don't they teach common sense at Oxbridge?
No. Common-sense far from common, alas. Academics have it beaten out of them, assuming they had any in the first place.
1) I haven't seen the work in question so cannot sensibly comment. 2) Having done a two minute google, it looks conceivably possible that a production company - not the BBC - received EU funding. There is no evidence that the BBC itself was aware of that and it appears that the funding in question may have been to assist in translation services.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theory but don't expect me to subscribe to your newsletters on the subject.
Ok, so you accept a production company could have taken money from the EU for the documentary. That documentary then appeared on the BBC. So the tentacles of EU funding did indeed reach into the BBC's output, which is what I said.
And there was no need for your childish name-calling to even get there.
We'll try again.
EU grants: millions. Licence fees: billions.
Likelihood of the BBC selling itself for EU grants...?
I didn't say the BBC sold itself for EU grants. I said EU funding reached into the BBC. You seem to have just accepted that EU funds co-funded a pro-EU programme on the BBC. You can repeat your previous line as if the last exchange didn't happen, but it won't make it any more persuasive.
We want to opt out of resolving the very major problems some members of the EU have with mass immigration by taking immigrants from the camps. We want to do that because (a) we don't want more immigration on top of what we have already and (b) we think that resolving the problem in the camps only means that the next set of camps will have to be bigger.
So there is now a major EU problem of building fences, security centres, holding facilities, courts or tribunals to winnow out the economic migrants, resettlement costs and all the associated health and social care that comes with this. Do you really think we can simply say, not our problem? I mean really?
The EU budget will increase to help some of the poorest members, such as Greece, cope with this humanitarian catastrophe. And we will pay our share. As we should. The best we can argue is that this means there is no additional money or maybe not even the same money for everything else.
It's not a matter of wanting to opt-out. We've already opted-out many years ago. When it came to considering integration of EU immigration, we said "no thanks". That means we have no more responsibility for the rest of the EU's immigration issues as we do for Australia's or the United States'. Given that the cost is only so high because they ignored our advice and went to do the diametric opposite, they can indeed pay for it themselves.
Do you really think we can simply say, not our problem? I mean really?
This kind of irrational emotionalism is being rejected out of hand by electorates across the board.
It would be our problem if we had a say in how the policy was formulated. It would be our problem if we had a sanction against those who implemented the policy - ie voting them out.
We don't.
For the umpteenth time, the European issue is not about refugees, mercy, or little Englanders. It is about control and accountability. It is about the fact that huge future social cheques for the UK's account are being written in Germany and elsewhere.
recognition that ever closer union is not for everyone;
agreement that freedom of movement is freedom to move for work, not to claim benefits.
Protection for non EZ countries in the Treaties.
A bigger role for national Parliaments.
A more integrated market for services.
Less EU bureaucracy
Its interesting. I just wonder if there is enough time left before our referendum to get most of that.
But the devil will be in the detail: we won't know what it means by the time we vote.
A lot of that could be claimed as a success by making an agreement to change paper treaties at a specified/unspecified point in the future.
We have no idea whether it'd be honoured by the EU or all other member states, watered down so it's pretty meaningless, or just ignored.
I agree, that is the problem.
For me, and I fully appreciate that this is a minority interest, the key is protection from dominance by the EZ voting bloc. If we can't get that we can't stay in.
David, still not seen your acceptance that your reading of the EEA agreement was completely wrong the other day. Are you too ashamed to admit you made an honest mistake?
Richard it was not wrong but I really don't want to discuss this with you any more. Look beyond article 100 to the whole part of the treaty that follows and the associated agreements. Look at the mechanisms set up to ensure compliance by EU and EFTA countries. Look at the powers that those compliance bodies are given, both the right to impose fines on member states and to take interim measures to protect those that are adversely affected. In respect of EFTA and EU countries that body is the European Commission. They can take a country that does not comply to the CJE. It can impose interim measures. That includes the power to suspend a country's right to take part in the single market.
Please don' t reply to this post. If you do I will not respond further.
It is odd that the Left have been so keen on the EU given all this. Essentially they have gone along with a policy of austerity for people in order to help out banks and bond-holders, not one would have thought the obvious groups for the Left to care about. Now there may be good economic reasons for doing all this but it's nonetheless an odd political position for the Left to take.
They have (and not only them) put their belief in/love for the EU above the actual practical consequences of what the EU is doing for the citizens they profess to care about. No wonder people are so disillusioned with politicians.
I disagree. It's exactly like being in London Labour after a Tory election win. Do we like it? Of course not. Do we seek to form a separate state? No, because it'd be silly. Do we emigrate? No, it's still home, warts and all. We grit our teeth and hope for better times.
But why isn't the Left arguing for a European view which accords with what are meant to be their values? That's what's been missing for the last few years.
1) I haven't seen the work in question so cannot sensibly comment. 2) Having done a two minute google, it looks conceivably possible that a production company - not the BBC - received EU funding. There is no evidence that the BBC itself was aware of that and it appears that the funding in question may have been to assist in translation services.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theory but don't expect me to subscribe to your newsletters on the subject.
Ok, so you accept a production company could have taken money from the EU for the documentary. That documentary then appeared on the BBC. So the tentacles of EU funding did indeed reach into the BBC's output, which is what I said.
And there was no need for your childish name-calling to even get there.
We'll try again.
EU grants: millions. Licence fees: billions.
Likelihood of the BBC selling itself for EU grants...?
I didn't say the BBC sold itself for EU grants. I said EU funding reached into the BBC. You seem to have just accepted that EU funds co-funded a pro-EU programme on the BBC. You can repeat your previous line as if the last exchange didn't happen, but it won't make it any more persuasive.
I have accepted nothing. I've done a two minute google and the most that I would say is that it appears that EU funding might - might - have been used by a production company on a programme ultimately broadcast by the BBC concerning the EU. You have produced not a scintilla of evidence that the EU had any part in the production or agenda of the programme. And this is the basis of your argument that the BBC pushes out pro-EU views in return for funding from the EU. It's laughable.
I appreciate that the Leave camp is desperate to silence anyone who says anything inconvenient to it. It ain't going to happen.
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
I thought he had said that he would rejoin Labour in a heartbeat if Corbyn were elected. Has Labour - gasp! - rejected him? Or has George not actually applied to join?
He wants them to withdraw his dismissal from the party, saying he should never have been expelled
If he was back in the fold he'd be a good candidate here
I know what you mean but there is nothing "good" about George Galloway. IMO. I cheered when he lost his seat in May. The highlight for me.
He and his type are the purveyors of a particularly poisonous form of politics, which should have no place in this country.
Well the British American Football fan isn't going to be short of options to watch a live NFL game over the next few years. Wembley, White Hart Line and now Twickers.
Some Labour posters on here were adamant that this wasn't happening and that even if it was the Tories have bet on the wrong minority because the growth rate of Muslims is much higher than it is for other minorities, but 2015 has thrown up enough results against the grain for there to be any doubt remaining that Indian voters (either from East Africa or from India) are increasingly voting Tory regardless of their religion. That, IMO, is a cultural difference of people coming from a nation which is comfortable with success vs people from Pakistan/Bangladesh where the culture is of perpetual victim status, which plays into Labour's hands.
MaxPB said:
Some Labour posters on here were adamant that this wasn't happening and that even if it was the Tories have bet on the wrong minority because the growth rate of Muslims is much higher than it is for other minorities, but 2015 has thrown up enough results against the grain for there to be any doubt remaining that Indian voters (either from East Africa or from India) are increasingly voting Tory regardless of their religion. That, IMO, is a cultural difference of people coming from a nation which is comfortable with success vs people from Pakistan/Bangladesh where the culture is of perpetual victim status, which plays into Labour's hands.
My understanding is that the Gujarati community is pretty solidly Tory and has been for a long time. In part this is due to their work ethic (they are a lot of small shopkeepers and particularly pharmacists) and in part due to the fact that Heath gave a lot of them passports to flee Idi Amin.
Do we have any evidence or should we just file these posts as unfortunate racial stereotyping and file in the excrement pile?
We want to opt out of resolving the very major problems some members of the EU have with mass immigration by taking immigrants from the camps. We want to do that because (a) we don't want more immigration on top of what we have already and (b) we think that resolving the problem in the camps only means that the next set of camps will have to be bigger.
So there is now a major EU problem of building fences, security centres, holding facilities, courts or tribunals to winnow out the economic migrants, resettlement costs and all the associated health and social care that comes with this. Do you really think we can simply say, not our problem? I mean really?
The EU budget will increase to help some of the poorest members, such as Greece, cope with this humanitarian catastrophe. And we will pay our share. As we should. The best we can argue is that this means there is no additional money or maybe not even the same money for everything else.
It's not a matter of wanting to opt-out. We've already opted-out many years ago. When it came to considering integration of EU immigration, we said "no thanks". That means we have no more responsibility for the rest of the EU's immigration issues as we do for Australia's or the United States'. Given that the cost is only so high because they ignored our advice and went to do the diametric opposite, they can indeed pay for it themselves.
Helping out allies is the sensible thing to do. We help ourselves by doing so. That will cost money. But, they've got to be prepared to help themselves. It's rather like helping a friend with a gambling addiction. You may pay off their debts, but you don't want that to be a pretext for them to start gambling again.
You have produced not a scintilla of evidence that the EU had any part in the production or agenda of the programme. And this is the basis of your argument that the BBC pushes out pro-EU views in return for funding from the EU. It's laughable.
It's not only laughable, it's counter-productive. There's a very good case to be made that the BBC is institutionally very pro-EU (this is one reason why I think a Leave result is near-unattainable). That's because of their general liberal-left-metropolitan-prosperous-internationalist mindset. The idea that it's because the corporation was possibly paid tuppence ha'penny for involvement in some programme which almost no-one has ever watched is completely out with the fairies. They don't need to be paid to reflect the values of most of their staff.
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
I thought he had said that he would rejoin Labour in a heartbeat if Corbyn were elected. Has Labour - gasp! - rejected him? Or has George not actually applied to join?
He wants them to withdraw his dismissal from the party, saying he should never have been expelled
If he was back in the fold he'd be a good candidate here
I know what you mean but there is nothing "good" about George Galloway. IMO. I cheered when he lost his seat in May. The highlight for me.
He and his type are the purveyors of a particularly poisonous form of politics, which should have no place in this country.
New passport has 9 historical figures. Only two are women. Given the preponderance of chaps who were historically famous rather than women, this seems about right. It reflects historical reality, and neither justifies nor condones women being oppressed/marginalised/treated-like-crap for centuries.
As a Conservative in Essex I spend quite a lot of time fighting UKIP. But in this particular seat at this time it would be good if they won it. It would certainly concentrate Cameron and Osborne's minds on not rolling over in the renegotiations.
Last night a young man was heard..... etc .....not last time. Typing is abysmal these days.
As soon as you try to justify that something is "not crooked" a red flag should go up in your head!
Well, quite. I hope said young man doesn't work in the same place I do. I really do.
He might find out how pleasant your questioning style is last night! I suspect you could be pretty terrifying if you want to.
It's a question that has always intrigued me though: arguably there is a case that a regulated person overhearing such a conversation has a duty to report it, even if it outside their place of work. I'd be interested in your thoughts?
Funnily enough I have at the moment just such a case (and have had quite a lot of similar cases. It's not that unusual). I once received a whistleblowing from someone hearing something bad about an employee in a social situation. The investigation revealed bad stuff and the employee is no more. I myself have reported matters to the authorities where I have taken the view that this is something the authorities would want to know about or should know about. The test I apply is: if this were to come out later and it were to come out that I knew or suspected and did nothing, would I be criticised? How would I justify it to myself substantively i.e. not by saying that I had no legal duty to do so.
I think if you become aware of something like this e.g. someone saying in an interview that they front run client orders, for instance, I would want to raise it informally with the right authorities. It may be boasting or someone saying something silly in a bar but - in vino veritas and all that - equally it might not.
What the legal duty is only takes you so far. The real question to my mind is what is the right thing to do.
As for last night the young man was walking away, no idea who he was or where he worked so let's hope that he was talking out of his a*se, eh!
I'd probably agree. I once encountered someone going into a bank in Switzerland who I strongly suspected had no legitimate reason to be depositing money there. But I had no evidence... and the Swiss don't like people asking questions about their banking industry
On topic, are we all sure that there's not going to be Galloway or one of his mob involved in this by-election? The large Pakistani community would make it a perfect seat for him to challenge the new Labour party.
Why would Galloway want to challenge the new Labour party?
I thought he had said that he would rejoin Labour in a heartbeat if Corbyn were elected. Has Labour - gasp! - rejected him? Or has George not actually applied to join?
He wants them to withdraw his dismissal from the party, saying he should never have been expelled
If he was back in the fold he'd be a good candidate here
I know what you mean but there is nothing "good" about George Galloway. IMO. I cheered when he lost his seat in May. The highlight for me.
He and his type are the purveyors of a particularly poisonous form of politics, which should have no place in this country.
1) I haven't seen the work in question so cannot sensibly comment. 2) Having done a two minute google, it looks conceivably possible that a production company - not the BBC - received EU funding. There is no evidence that the BBC itself was aware of that and it appears that the funding in question may have been to assist in translation services.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theory but don't expect me to subscribe to your newsletters on the subject.
Ok, so you accept a production company could have taken money from the EU for the documentary. That documentary then appeared on the BBC. So the tentacles of EU funding did indeed reach into the BBC's output, which is what I said.
And there was no need for your childish name-calling to even get there.
We'll try again.
EU grants: millions. Licence fees: billions.
Likelihood of the BBC selling itself for EU grants...?
I didn't say the BBC sold itself for EU grants. I said EU funding reached into the BBC. You seem to have just accepted that EU funds co-funded a pro-EU programme on the BBC. You can repeat your previous line as if the last exchange didn't happen, but it won't make it any more persuasive.
I have accepted nothing. I've done a two minute google and the most that I would say is that it appears that EU funding might - might - have been used by a production company on a programme ultimately broadcast by the BBC concerning the EU. You have produced not a scintilla of evidence that the EU had any part in the production or agenda of the programme. And this is the basis of your argument that the BBC pushes out pro-EU views in return for funding from the EU. It's laughable.
I appreciate that the Leave camp is desperate to silence anyone who says anything inconvenient to it. It ain't going to happen.
1) The EU gave out money to a production company for a TV programme. 2) That programme depicts Europe falling apart because of the collapse of an EU. 3) That programme is then shown on the BBC.
Taken together, it is pretty clear that those three statements can be combined to say the tentacles of EU funding reached into the BBC for pro-EU views to be pushed.
You keep on arguing against strawman arguments I haven't said, like the BBC bidding for EU grants, or the EU being involved creatively in the programme. Those things are irrelevant. The only things you need to believe for my statement to be true are points 1 through 3. And you openly admit you don't know at least two of those points. But despite not knowing the facts, you insult someone that does know the facts for the conclusion that results from them.
Why does everyone think that the asian vote will automatically vote Lab?
If I was a recent immigrant perhaps, but any older generation I would vote Cons to aspire or UKIP to haul up the ladder behind me.
I don't think anyone has trouble finding immigrants of all flavours being at least as much and often more anti-new-immigrant than anyone else.
Plus all this new (small "n") Lab class war stuff means nothing to immigrants as indeed it means nothing to anyone sensible.
Asian voters are becoming more likely to vote Conservative. That's bad news for Labour of course in this seat.
When have Hindi voters ever NOT been Tories? As far as I can see that cohort has always been strongly Tory. I'd expect most Sikhs are Tories too although this may not always have been the case.
The majority of Hindu/Sikh voters have been Labour, but are trending away.
The packaging of ethnic minorities/migrants/race as one group defined by skin colour has increasingly been dismantled post 9/11 and also by EU expansion.
Hindu and Sikh voters are now majority Conservative, but in the 80s and 90s many didn't feel welcome by certain elements of the party (many of which have left for purple pastures). Back then Indians had nowhere else to go. I would also add that the Muslim vote is not monolithic, Muslims from India and East Africa tend to be more Conservative as well, while those from Pakistan and Bangladesh are very, very Labour. It's as much a culture thing as well as religious.
Hindu and Sikh voters may be majority Conservative in Harrow and Barnet but not overall, IMO. I would estimate the Conservative vote share would probably be c.35% with those groups.
We want to opt out of resolving the very major problems some members of the EU have with mass immigration by taking immigrants from the camps. We want to do that because (a) we don't want more immigration on top of what we have already and (b) we think that resolving the problem in the camps only means that the next set of camps will have to be bigger.
So there is now a major EU problem of building fences, security centres, holding facilities, courts or tribunals to winnow out the economic migrants, resettlement costs and all the associated health and social care that comes with this. Do you really think we can simply say, not our problem? I mean really?
The EU budget will increase to help some of the poorest members, such as Greece, cope with this humanitarian catastrophe. And we will pay our share. As we should. The best we can argue is that this means there is no additional money or maybe not even the same money for everything else.
It's not a matter of wanting to opt-out. We've already opted-out many years ago. When it came to considering integration of EU immigration, we said "no thanks". That means we have no more responsibility for the rest of the EU's immigration issues as we do for Australia's or the United States'. Given that the cost is only so high because they ignored our advice and went to do the diametric opposite, they can indeed pay for it themselves.
Helping out allies is the sensible thing to do. We help ourselves by doing so. That will cost money. But, they've got to be prepared to help themselves. It's rather like helping a friend with a gambling addiction. You may pay off their debts, but you don't want that to be a pretext for them to start gambling again.
I agree with that Sean. Merkel made a terrible mistake and is now expecting everyone else to pick up the tab for a (somewhat uncharacteristic) piece of virtue signalling on her part. But this is an EU problem, not a Greek or Hungary or Italy problem and we will need to help to clean up the mess. As you say it is in our interests to do so.
Of course forcing the French to address their obligations in respect of those at Calais really should be a part of that.
Well the British American Football fan isn't going to be short of options to watch a live NFL game over the next few years. Wembley, White Hart Line and now Twickers.
1) I haven't seen the work in question so cannot sensibly comment. 2) Having done a two minute google, it looks conceivably possible that a production company - not the BBC - received EU funding. There is no evidence that the BBC itself was aware of that and it appears that the funding in question may have been to assist in translation services.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theory but don't expect me to subscribe to your newsletters on the subject.
Ok, so you accept a production company could have taken money from the EU for the documentary. That documentary then appeared on the BBC. So the tentacles of EU funding did indeed reach into the BBC's output, which is what I said.
And there was no need for your childish name-calling to even get there.
We'll try again.
EU grants: millions. Licence fees: billions.
Likelihood of the BBC selling itself for EU grants...?
If it thinks it can get the former without jeopardising the latter, considerable.
Some Labour posters on here were adamant that this wasn't happening and that even if it was the Tories have bet on the wrong minority because the growth rate of Muslims is much higher than it is for other minorities, but 2015 has thrown up enough results against the grain for there to be any doubt remaining that Indian voters (either from East Africa or from India) are increasingly voting Tory regardless of their religion. That, IMO, is a cultural difference of people coming from a nation which is comfortable with success vs people from Pakistan/Bangladesh where the culture is of perpetual victim status, which plays into Labour's hands.
MaxPB said:
Some Labour posters on here were adamant that this wasn't happening and that even if it was the Tories have bet on the wrong minority because the growth rate of Muslims is much higher than it is for other minorities, but 2015 has thrown up enough results against the grain for there to be any doubt remaining that Indian voters (either from East Africa or from India) are increasingly voting Tory regardless of their religion. That, IMO, is a cultural difference of people coming from a nation which is comfortable with success vs people from Pakistan/Bangladesh where the culture is of perpetual victim status, which plays into Labour's hands.
My understanding is that the Gujarati community is pretty solidly Tory and has been for a long time. In part this is due to their work ethic (they are a lot of small shopkeepers and particularly pharmacists) and in part due to the fact that Heath gave a lot of them passports to flee Idi Amin.
Do we have any evidence or should we just file these posts as unfortunate racial stereotyping and file in the excrement pile?
I love you too, Roger
Mine is anecdotal evidence based on conversations I've had with members of that community plus half remembered newspaper articles (in quality papers).
So I may be wrong. But it's not "unfortunate racial stereotyping" and I rather resent the implications of your response.
Germany is richer than us. Why should we pay for their mistakes on immigration? Should we be paying for America's illegal immigration problem? They are a closer ally than Germany has ever been.
But why isn't the Left arguing for a European view which accords with what are meant to be their values? That's what's been missing for the last few years.
Not entirely. There has been lots of left-wing discussion about how Europe should evolve - if you subscribe to e.g. http://blogactiv.eu/ you'll get a vivid daily multilingual debate which crosses party but is predominantly centre-left. We don't see that much of it in Britain because Britain's Labour delegation to the European Parliament has been generally defensive, focusing on gradual gains in socialm employment and environmental legislation while taking a generally Eurosceptical line on integration, reflecting many of our voters. But that's specifically British - the left-wing debate across the continent is very much alive, not least in the context of what should be done with Greece.
There are broadly two strands of leftist thought - that Europe should integrate and become the world's leading activist welfare state, or that it should stand back, administer free trade and high minium labour standards, and let national governments explore left-wing options. The problem in the first is that it's not happening any time soon, and the problem in the second is that "socialism in one country" doesn't really work in a 28-country free market.
(Practising what I preach, I'm writing at City Airport, just off to the Netherlands and Brussels for two conferences, back Thursday.)
But this is an EU problem, not a Greek or Hungary or Italy problem and we will need to help to clean up the mess. As you say it is in our interests to do so.
It could come out of the aid budget, so it needn't mean a net increase in our spending.
'Mr. Roger, I fail to see what's racist about suggesting people might be grateful for having their lives saved.'
The part you refer to is just factually incorrect. There was almost rebellion in the Tory Party against taking in the Ugandan Asians. It was only pressure from Labour that forced the Tories kicking and screaming to very reluctantly do the decent thing. I hardly think there would be overwhelming gratitude for that sorry affair
It is odd that the Left have been so keen on the EU given all this. Essentially they have gone along with a policy of austerity for people in order to help out banks and bond-holders, not one would have thought the obvious groups for the Left to care about. Now there may be good economic reasons for doing all this but it's nonetheless an odd political position for the Left to take.
They have (and not only them) put their belief in/love for the EU above the actual practical consequences of what the EU is doing for the citizens they profess to care about. No wonder people are so disillusioned with politicians.
I disagree. It's exactly like being in London Labour after a Tory election win. Do we like it? Of course not. Do we seek to form a separate state? No, because it'd be silly. Do we emigrate? No, it's still home, warts and all. We grit our teeth and hope for better times.
But why isn't the Left arguing for a European view which accords with what are meant to be their values? That's what's been missing for the last few years.
I see the EU as the equivalent of permanent coalition with the LibDems. While it stops the Tories doing all of their nasty stuff, it also stops Labour from implementing proper Socialism. While this isn't a problem to Social Democrats on the right of Labour, it is a significant obstacle to those on the left of the party.
But this is an EU problem, not a Greek or Hungary or Italy problem and we will need to help to clean up the mess. As you say it is in our interests to do so.
It could come out of the aid budget, so it needn't mean a net increase in our spending.
It will mean a significant increase in EU spending. I agree our contribution to that could and should come out of our aid budget, just as our far more cost effective spending on camps in Turkey, Jordan, the Lebanon etc does.
But this is an EU problem, not a Greek or Hungary or Italy problem and we will need to help to clean up the mess. As you say it is in our interests to do so.
It could come out of the aid budget, so it needn't mean a net increase in our spending.
Given that it costs about five times more to help a refugee in Germany than one in the developing world, it would be very immoral to subvert the aid budget for this basis.
As for the argument that it's an "EU problem", well that means the whole principle of opt-outs is negated. We are only in the parts of the EU we chose to be in, and we shouldn't have to be responsible for the bits where we chose not to integrate. Especially since we gave our advice and the cost built up is entirely due to them doing the direct opposite!
Germany is a couple thousand dollars richer than us on a per capita basis. There is absolutely no reason why we should be handing over money for their mistakes until that changes.
Comments
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk
It's a question that has always intrigued me though: arguably there is a case that a regulated person overhearing such a conversation has a duty to report it, even if it outside their place of work. I'd be interested in your thoughts?
CND-Labour?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34710261
New passport has 9 historical figures. Only two are women. Given the preponderance of chaps who were historically famous rather than women, this seems about right. It reflects historical reality, and neither justifies nor condones women being oppressed/marginalised/treated-like-crap for centuries.
* Who coined that phrase? It's super.
EDIT: Get with the programme, Francis
Labour's shadow employment secretary Emily Thornberry told the BBC it was "exasperating".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34710261
If only it had had a white van man with an English flag....
The issue is that - realistically - a new Eurozone Treaty (London?) will not be fully ratified by 2020.
There needs to be a mechanism for ensuring that the MoU (which is all we could possibly vote on in 2016/17) and the Treaty are essentially identical.
It's one thing Cameron saying 'trust me' to the voters, but another I think to be saying 'trust whoever is PM/Reichskanzler/President of our European neighbours in several years' time'...
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/revealed_the_cbi_receives_millions_from_the_eu_and_public_bodies
That might explain the 'pretty dodgy' polling.
I have to say, I'm pretty shocked just how far the tentacles of EU funding go: the BSE campaign, the CBI, the BBC, various charities. It seems very inappropriate for the EU to take taxpayers' money and then use it via various back channels to push pro-EU views back to us.
The future is uncertain either way. Voters will just have to make a judgement, as always. But clearly there is more uncertainty on the Leave side.
Hope you're ok after tests etc x
However, I do think the vote is in danger of being hijacked as a referendum on the Government, and Cameron particularly. As it is inevitable, as with the Scottish referendum, that defeat would lead to Cameron's immediate resignation, and as he'll have been PM for 7 years or so by then and continuing to increase his unpopularity amongst those who never liked him anyway, I imagine "Leave" has a lot in its favour. Plus the evidence from various other EU state referendums of getting concessions if you vote against the EU.
So I do think it will be very close to call, even if I suspect the deal we get might actually be not all that bad on paper. Of course I speak from a broadly pro-EU perspective, albeit I rather wish the EU wasn't constituted or having the range of competences as it currently is/does.
And if it is hijacked as a "Cameron out" staging post, then ironically the "Leave" vote in Scotland might well not be out of line with the rest of the UK....
For me, and I fully appreciate that this is a minority interest, the key is protection from dominance by the EZ voting bloc. If we can't get that we can't stay in.
Anything is better than seeing yet another rehearsal of entrenched positioning on here. I call them the Acronym Wars. Cameron said just last year that we'd maintain the downward pressure on the EU budget, and our manifesto this year said we would press for lower EU spending. That's a non-starter.
Second, the women are Ada Lovelace and, according to the BBC, Elizabeth Scott (architect) for whom the nearest match on Wikipedia is an Elisabeth Scott who designed a theatre. I demand full DNA testing of whoever chose Scott because surely they must be related.
Her last words "Patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone" is a motto I try to live by.
http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2015/08/the-bbc-denied-the-great-european-disaster-movie-was-eu-funded-that-was-untrue.html
If the Referendum becomes hijacked by the issue of "Who controls Britain's borders?", then LEAVE wins convincingly.
If we do manage to get to some sort of two-speed set-up, we could have two budgets - one for those of us on the periphery which won't go up (but where we might pay a greater pro-rata contribution towards the things we'd still be paying for then than we do into that pot now) and the big spending socialist eurozone centralists who can spunk as much money up the wall as they desire as long as we're nothing to do with it - but the arrangement means we're not threatening to veto their big-spending schemes because we won't be part of it. So they might be content with that.
Two facts for you to consider.
1) Last year the BBC received just under £4 billion in licence fee money.
2) Grants from the EU in the same period to the BBC have been a few million.
How likely is it that the BBC would risk its reputation for neutrality so cheaply, given its own wherewithal?
Agreed. I don't care how much other countries want to fork over to the EU, as long as we're not spending a penny more. Our contribution has already gone up by billions in the last few years, despite Cameron's budget cap. And then there was the backdated bill for the last two decades. We can't justify handing over any more to Brussels when the NHS is bursting at the seems.
Perhaps the debate on the UK EU deal is missing some context. The possibility that Europe will explode in a fury of right wing voter protest between now and the referendum.
http://www.radiolistings.co.uk/programmes/e/el/elizabeth_scott__architect.html
That being said, my great aunt was called Elizabeth Scott (of the famous George Gilbert Scott architectural family)...
What is much, much more important is the rules of the game, how the next evolution is voted on or selected. At the moment there is simply too great a risk that those developments will not be to our advantage. That needs to change.
- Are you claiming the "Great European Disaster movie" was not a pro-EU piece?
- Are you claiming the "Great European Disaster movie" did not receive EU funding?
To be honest, I'm not expecting you to answer, given how you desperately avoided answering the question about Norway paying more per capita than the UK.
2) Having done a two minute google, it looks conceivably possible that a production company - not the BBC - received EU funding. There is no evidence that the BBC itself was aware of that and it appears that the funding in question may have been to assist in translation services.
You're welcome to your conspiracy theory but don't expect me to subscribe to your newsletters on the subject.
I think if you become aware of something like this e.g. someone saying in an interview that they front run client orders, for instance, I would want to raise it informally with the right authorities. It may be boasting or someone saying something silly in a bar but - in vino veritas and all that - equally it might not.
What the legal duty is only takes you so far. The real question to my mind is what is the right thing to do.
As for last night the young man was walking away, no idea who he was or where he worked so let's hope that he was talking out of his a*se, eh!
Blair gave away our rebate.
Deleted the original draft of this post as it was a shade bad-tempered. Suffice to say I think some people have too much time on their hands.
Mr. JEO, on the BBC, worth noting they do sometimes make errors of judgement (cf Newsnight).
And there was no need for your childish name-calling to even get there.
We want to opt out of resolving the very major problems some members of the EU have with mass immigration by taking immigrants from the camps. We want to do that because (a) we don't want more immigration on top of what we have already and (b) we think that resolving the problem in the camps only means that the next set of camps will have to be bigger.
So there is now a major EU problem of building fences, security centres, holding facilities, courts or tribunals to winnow out the economic migrants, resettlement costs and all the associated health and social care that comes with this. Do you really think we can simply say, not our problem? I mean really?
The EU budget will increase to help some of the poorest members, such as Greece, cope with this humanitarian catastrophe. And we will pay our share. As we should. The best we can argue is that this means there is no additional money or maybe not even the same money for everything else.
EU grants: millions.
Licence fees: billions.
Likelihood of the BBC selling itself for EU grants...?
Obviously the devil is in the detail either way. On balance, if we can achieve protection built into formal treaties to which we are signatories, that looks more reliable than relying on the goodwill of an organisation of which we are no longer members. The abject failure of the Leave side to even admit that this issue exists, let alone propose a plausible way of dealing with it, is one of my main concerns about Brexit.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/03/ukip-eccentric-winston-mckenzie-quits-party-predictably-claims-racism/
This kind of irrational emotionalism is being rejected out of hand by electorates across the board.
It would be our problem if we had a say in how the policy was formulated. It would be our problem if we had a sanction against those who implemented the policy - ie voting them out.
We don't.
For the umpteenth time, the European issue is not about refugees, mercy, or little Englanders. It is about control and accountability. It is about the fact that huge future social cheques for the UK's account are being written in Germany and elsewhere.
Please don' t reply to this post. If you do I will not respond further.
But why isn't the Left arguing for a European view which accords with what are meant to be their values? That's what's been missing for the last few years.
I appreciate that the Leave camp is desperate to silence anyone who says anything inconvenient to it. It ain't going to happen.
Well the British American Football fan isn't going to be short of options to watch a live NFL game over the next few years. Wembley, White Hart Line and now Twickers.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ukip-oldham-candidate-nigel-farage-10378480#ICID=sharebar_twitter
Miss Cyclefree, best of luck.
2) That programme depicts Europe falling apart because of the collapse of an EU.
3) That programme is then shown on the BBC.
Taken together, it is pretty clear that those three statements can be combined to say the tentacles of EU funding reached into the BBC for pro-EU views to be pushed.
You keep on arguing against strawman arguments I haven't said, like the BBC bidding for EU grants, or the EU being involved creatively in the programme. Those things are irrelevant. The only things you need to believe for my statement to be true are points 1 through 3. And you openly admit you don't know at least two of those points. But despite not knowing the facts, you insult someone that does know the facts for the conclusion that results from them.
Of course forcing the French to address their obligations in respect of those at Calais really should be a part of that.
Mine is anecdotal evidence based on conversations I've had with members of that community plus half remembered newspaper articles (in quality papers).
So I may be wrong. But it's not "unfortunate racial stereotyping" and I rather resent the implications of your response.
There are broadly two strands of leftist thought - that Europe should integrate and become the world's leading activist welfare state, or that it should stand back, administer free trade and high minium labour standards, and let national governments explore left-wing options. The problem in the first is that it's not happening any time soon, and the problem in the second is that "socialism in one country" doesn't really work in a 28-country free market.
(Practising what I preach, I'm writing at City Airport, just off to the Netherlands and Brussels for two conferences, back Thursday.)
'Mr. Roger, I fail to see what's racist about suggesting people might be grateful for having their lives saved.'
The part you refer to is just factually incorrect. There was almost rebellion in the Tory Party against taking in the Ugandan Asians. It was only pressure from Labour that forced the Tories kicking and screaming to very reluctantly do the decent thing. I hardly think there would be overwhelming gratitude for that sorry affair
As for the argument that it's an "EU problem", well that means the whole principle of opt-outs is negated. We are only in the parts of the EU we chose to be in, and we shouldn't have to be responsible for the bits where we chose not to integrate. Especially since we gave our advice and the cost built up is entirely due to them doing the direct opposite!
Germany is a couple thousand dollars richer than us on a per capita basis. There is absolutely no reason why we should be handing over money for their mistakes until that changes.