gh for a bureaucrat. But I have no problem with him claiming a bus ticket.
In principle I have no problem with him claiming legitimate travel expenses, but I question the mindset of somebody taking the trouble to claim £1.40. Its this entitlement culture that irks me.
I claimed last week for £2.30 in tube tickets.
The mindset is that I dumped a bunch of receipts on my assistant's desk and asked her to process them.
You make my point nicely, a minion employed to steal from the taxpayer because you believe you're entitled to it.
You'll be the one that cheers when tax credits are cut.
1. My assistant is a qualified, highly professional individual; she is not a minion 2. It is not stealing, because legitimate business expenses are permitted expense (in this case it was the tube to Paddington to catch the train to Heathrow) 3. I don't work for the public sector; the tax payer has nothing to do with this 4. Entitlement doesn't come into it: my employer is getting a free loan from me when I fund expenses and I am just arranging for repayment (without interest) 5. I won't cheer when tax credits are cut. I think it is necessary, but it's going to be painful for a lot of people.
But apart from that... yes, I made your point nicely.
My reply to you is the same as mine to Rob, if you work in the private sector expenses are nobody else's business.
But without the apology, to me or my assistant.
But do you think that public servants shouldn't take buses if that's the most efficient way to do their jobs?
gh for a bureaucrat. But I have no problem with him claiming a bus ticket.
In principle I have no problem with him claiming legitimate travel expenses, but I question the mindset of somebody taking the trouble to claim £1.40. Its this entitlement culture that irks me.
I claimed last week for £2.30 in tube tickets.
The mindset is that I dumped a bunch of receipts on my assistant's desk and asked her to process them.
You make my point nicely, a minion employed to steal from the taxpayer because you believe you're entitled to it.
You'll be the one that cheers when tax credits are cut.
1. My assistant is a qualified, highly professional individual; she is not a minion 2. It is not stealing, because legitimate business expenses are permitted expense (in this case it was the tube to Paddington to catch the train to Heathrow) 3. I don't work for the public sector; the tax payer has nothing to do with this 4. Entitlement doesn't come into it: my employer is getting a free loan from me when I fund expenses and I am just arranging for repayment (without interest) 5. I won't cheer when tax credits are cut. I think it is necessary, but it's going to be painful for a lot of people.
But apart from that... yes, I made your point nicely.
My reply to you is the same as mine to Rob, if you work in the private sector expenses are nobody else's business.
But without the apology, to me or my assistant.
But do you think that public servants shouldn't take buses if that's the most efficient way to do their jobs?
Now you're being silly. I can't imagine a bus ride costing £1.40 isn't easier to walk.
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
What pisses off the private sector is when there is a perfectly good standard class transport option, but instead public sector workers choose to go by sedan chair....
I may have noted this previously but for the want of doubt :
The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Will Never Leave The European Union Under David Cameron
TUKOGBANIWNLTEUUDC
Is that an official Euro-ARSE prediction? If so then I need to back out of my betfair position. The ARSE speaks of doom for the kippers and their fellow travellers.
Eight months is plenty of time, and spring is better than autumn for elections.
Weren't the eurosceptics calling for an early referendum not so long ago? And doubting that Cameron would call one?
Earlier on this year Farage wanted the referendum to be held in 2015 as a condition for a Con/UKIP coalition.
Those were the days when Kippers thought they'd have 102 MPs in May.
I'm minded to the view that the Prime Minister is awaiting for your magnum opus AV thread to be disposed of before committing to the EU Referendum else the nations attention will be completely diverted by the greatest political and literary sensation this century.
I'm attending an electoral reform society event in December.
Once I've been there I'll publish it. It just needs a final polish.
Sounds like the Great AV Thread will be coming down the chimney come Christmas morning accompanied by an aged white bearded gentleman in red outfit and matching red shoes.
You paint an image of OGH plundering TSE's footwear collection.
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
What pisses off the private sector is when there is a perfectly good standard class transport option, but instead public sector workers choose to go by sedan chair....
I work in the private sector and regularly travel on open first class train tickets.
Mr. Eagles, and how would that imperil the nation's security?
We'd become poorer and reduce tax revenues and cause defence spending to be cut.
It is a fact that the largest trading group that we are linked to has in recent years depressed our overall level of economic activity because its growth has been at negative rates compared to the rest of the world. Shackled to a failing economic model is not a bright future.
Before anyone has an aneurysm NATO is the primary reason we've not had another World War, and Yugoslavia, and Russian aggression a part peace in Europe for so long.
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
No public sector employees are necessary. When this country was great, MPs were volunteers. The decline began with the impeachment of Robert Clive, the most cost-effective public servant we've ever had.
If we shot all the lefties, we wouldn't need taxes or indeed a State apparatus of any sort...
Yikes - the Mail has quite a splash on public sector fat cats and payoff gags to whistleblowers
Greed of public sector fat cats: Mail reveals huge deals for council, police and NHS chiefs, how Town Hall heads are given private healthcare and one boss on £850k who claimed for £1.40 bus ticket
I wonder how many voters know how much the Chief Executive of their local Council is paid. I suspect the only ones who care are those who think taxation is theft.
That's a different issue. It seems far too high for a bureaucrat. But I have no problem with him claiming a bus ticket.
In principle I have no problem with him claiming legitimate travel expenses, but I question the mindset of somebody taking the trouble to claim £1.40. Its this entitlement culture that irks me.
Probably submitted with other expenses on the same trip. I've claimed for less for individual items on previous trips. If I hadn't done so, cumulatively I would be significantly out of pocket.
What have you claimed for that cost less than £1.40?
As in this case, fares on public transit.
If you're paying less than £1.40 why didn't you just walk? What right do you have to expect taxpayers to fund you sitting on a bus for 2 or 3 minutes?
A Kipper lecturing others on expenses. I've seen it all now.
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
No public sector employees are necessary. When this country was great, MPs were volunteers. The decline began with the impeachment of Robert Clive, the most cost-effective public servant we've ever had.
If we shot all the lefties, we wouldn't need taxes or indeed a State apparatus of any sort...
Now we're making progress. Some people still labour under the misapprehension that public employees pay tax.
If I head to the bank, I claim my £3.50 for the 7 mile round trip. Normally my asistant does it though.
£1.40 claimed for a bus trip isn't what is killing the public sector financially and sounds like a perfectly legitimate expense. Indeed I wish our engineers sometimes took the bus instead of a taxi !
I remember when I briefly worked for Rotherham Council/BT (RBT Connect), we had to provide our own coffee... but every Tom, Dick and Sally had to have their budgets spent. The entire accounts system was also about 50 million excel spreadsheets... I note it has now gone pop !
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
Never got why people expect to get meals paid for as expenses. I never did.
Yikes - the Mail has quite a splash on public sector fat cats and payoff gags to whistleblowers
Greed of public sector fat cats: Mail reveals huge deals for council, police and NHS chiefs, how Town Hall heads are given private healthcare and one boss on £850k who claimed for £1.40 bus ticket
I wonder how many voters know how much the Chief Executive of their local Council is paid. I suspect the only ones who care are those who think taxation is theft.
That's a different issue. It seems far too high for a bureaucrat. But I have no problem with him claiming a bus ticket.
In principle I have no problem with him claiming legitimate travel expenses, but I question the mindset of somebody taking the trouble to claim £1.40. Its this entitlement culture that irks me.
Probably submitted with other expenses on the same trip. I've claimed for less for individual items on previous trips. If I hadn't done so, cumulatively I would be significantly out of pocket.
What have you claimed for that cost less than £1.40?
As in this case, fares on public transit.
If you're paying less than £1.40 why didn't you just walk? What right do you have to expect taxpayers to fund you sitting on a bus for 2 or 3 minutes?
A Kipper lecturing others on expenses. I've seen it all now.
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
No public sector employees are necessary. When this country was great, MPs were volunteers. The decline began with the impeachment of Robert Clive, the most cost-effective public servant we've ever had.
If we shot all the lefties, we wouldn't need taxes or indeed a State apparatus of any sort...
Now we're making progress. Some people still labour under the misapprehension that public employees pay tax.
Soldiers and coppers do. Social "workers" don't. Have I got this straight?
Yikes - the Mail has quite a splash on public sector fat cats and payoff gags to whistleblowers
Greed of public sector fat cats: Mail reveals huge deals for council, police and NHS chiefs, how Town Hall heads are given private healthcare and one boss on £850k who claimed for £1.40 bus ticket
I wonder how many voters know how much the Chief Executive of their local Council is paid. I suspect the only ones who care are those who think taxation is theft.
That's a different issue. It seems far too high for a bureaucrat. But I have no problem with him claiming a bus ticket.
In principle I have no problem with him claiming legitimate travel expenses, but I question the mindset of somebody taking the trouble to claim £1.40. Its this entitlement culture that irks me.
Probably submitted with other expenses on the same trip. I've claimed for less for individual items on previous trips. If I hadn't done so, cumulatively I would be significantly out of pocket.
What have you claimed for that cost less than £1.40?
As in this case, fares on public transit.
A Kipper lecturing others on expenses. I've seen it all now.
Eight months is plenty of time, and spring is better than autumn for elections.
Weren't the eurosceptics calling for an early referendum not so long ago? And doubting that Cameron would call one?
But it's not eight months. Cameron will not be presenting the renegotiation plans until December. By the time the renegotiation is agreed and we know what we are voting on, it will likely be February or even later.
I don't see what relevance a different argument made by other people at another time is. We should have a big national debate about this topic, as was done in Scotland. Why do the Scots deserve more time for their political debate than the rest of us?
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
Never got why people expect to get meals paid for as expenses. I never did.
Because eating at home is a fraction of the cost of eating at a restaurant. You aren't exactly gaining much by claiming the cost of the meal back, and not having to pay to eat at home.
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
No public sector employees are necessary. When this country was great, MPs were volunteers. The decline began with the impeachment of Robert Clive, the most cost-effective public servant we've ever had.
If we shot all the lefties, we wouldn't need taxes or indeed a State apparatus of any sort...
Now we're making progress. Some people still labour under the misapprehension that public employees pay tax.
Soldiers and coppers do. Social "workers" don't. Have I got this straight?
Sorry I disagree, if a copper's salary if £40,000 (I don't know what it is) the govt doesn't receive 25% in tax, it costs the govt £40,000 less the deductions. We need soldiers and coppers, what we don't need is the thousands of non jobs and people claiming £1.40 in bus fares.
Eight months is plenty of time, and spring is better than autumn for elections.
Weren't the eurosceptics calling for an early referendum not so long ago? And doubting that Cameron would call one?
Earlier on this year Farage wanted the referendum to be held in 2015 as a condition for a Con/UKIP coalition.
Those were the days when Kippers thought they'd have 102 MPs in May.
I'm minded to the view that the Prime Minister is awaiting for your magnum opus AV thread to be disposed of before committing to the EU Referendum else the nations attention will be completely diverted by the greatest political and literary sensation this century.
I'm attending an electoral reform society event in December.
Once I've been there I'll publish it. It just needs a final polish.
Sounds like the Great AV Thread will be coming down the chimney come Christmas morning accompanied by an aged white bearded gentleman in red outfit and matching red shoes.
And we can merrily sing 'All I want for Christmas is an AV thread' and 'I wish it could be AV every day' etc
If your perverse pronouncements on classical history weren't so deranged it'd be easier to tell when you're not being serious regarding current events
Mr. Antifrank, the sanctions are international, the military response has been zero (and would be a matter for NATO, not the EU, in any event).
Entirely off-topic: PS4 owner, so won't be getting Rise of the Tomb Raider for a while, but it looks really rather good.
That's exactly my point. Sanctions against Russia have been organised at an EU-wide level (and appear to have been fairly effective without the need for military responses as yet). If a major European country leaves the EU, organising effective sanctions becomes that bit more complicated.
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
It is difficult to see how it could be more fragmented. France and Germany aren't even engaged in the rapid reaction force in Eastern Europe as it is. As we saw in Iraq and Libya, foreign policy co-ordination seems to largely happen completely outside of EU mechanisms.
Eight months is plenty of time, and spring is better than autumn for elections.
Weren't the eurosceptics calling for an early referendum not so long ago? And doubting that Cameron would call one?
Earlier on this year Farage wanted the referendum to be held in 2015 as a condition for a Con/UKIP coalition.
Those were the days when Kippers thought they'd have 102 MPs in May.
I'm minded to the view that the Prime Minister is awaiting for your magnum opus AV thread to be disposed of before committing to the EU Referendum else the nations attention will be completely diverted by the greatest political and literary sensation this century.
I'm attending an electoral reform society event in December.
Once I've been there I'll publish it. It just needs a final polish.
Sounds like the Great AV Thread will be coming down the chimney come Christmas morning accompanied by an aged white bearded gentleman in red outfit and matching red shoes.
And we can merrily sing 'All I want for Christmas is an AV thread' and 'I wish it could be AV every day' etc
We may be getting to the point where we are bigging up the thread a tad too much...
The scale of the pay in the public sector highlighted by the Mail is eye-boggling. I was astonished at some of them
We can reveal the chief executive of South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Tricia Hart, 59, (far left) has a £1.26m pay package. Former Cumbria County Council chief Jill Stannard, 57, (second left) earned £411,025 a year - 16 times the local wage, while Joanna Simons, 56, of Oxfordshire Council (centre) presided over a sex grooming scandal and has a £590,501 package.
Eight months is plenty of time, and spring is better than autumn for elections.
Weren't the eurosceptics calling for an early referendum not so long ago? And doubting that Cameron would call one?
Earlier on this year Farage wanted the referendum to be held in 2015 as a condition for a Con/UKIP coalition.
Those were the days when Kippers thought they'd have 102 MPs in May.
I'm minded to the view that the Prime Minister is awaiting for your magnum opus AV thread to be disposed of before committing to the EU Referendum else the nations attention will be completely diverted by the greatest political and literary sensation this century.
I'm attending an electoral reform society event in December.
Once I've been there I'll publish it. It just needs a final polish.
Sounds like the Great AV Thread will be coming down the chimney come Christmas morning accompanied by an aged white bearded gentleman in red outfit and matching red shoes.
And we can merrily sing 'All I want for Christmas is an AV thread' and 'I wish it could be AV every day' etc
We may be getting to the point where we are bigging up the thread a tad too much...
If your perverse pronouncements on classical history weren't so deranged it'd be easier to tell when you're not being serious regarding current events
Mr. Antifrank, the sanctions are international, the military response has been zero (and would be a matter for NATO, not the EU, in any event).
Entirely off-topic: PS4 owner, so won't be getting Rise of the Tomb Raider for a while, but it looks really rather good.
That's exactly my point. Sanctions against Russia have been organised at an EU-wide level (and appear to have been fairly effective without the need for military responses as yet). If a major European country leaves the EU, organising effective sanctions becomes that bit more complicated.
The UK is not party to the common foreign and security policy of the EU as it is.
I see no trouble at all in us agreeing sanctions against Russia with the EU from outside of it.
Eight months is plenty of time, and spring is better than autumn for elections.
Weren't the eurosceptics calling for an early referendum not so long ago? And doubting that Cameron would call one?
Earlier on this year Farage wanted the referendum to be held in 2015 as a condition for a Con/UKIP coalition.
Those were the days when Kippers thought they'd have 102 MPs in May.
I'm minded to the view that the Prime Minister is awaiting for your magnum opus AV thread to be disposed of before committing to the EU Referendum else the nations attention will be completely diverted by the greatest political and literary sensation this century.
I'm attending an electoral reform society event in December.
Once I've been there I'll publish it. It just needs a final polish.
Sounds like the Great AV Thread will be coming down the chimney come Christmas morning accompanied by an aged white bearded gentleman in red outfit and matching red shoes.
And we can merrily sing 'All I want for Christmas is an AV thread' and 'I wish it could be AV every day' etc
We may be getting to the point where we are bigging up the thread a tad too much...
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
Its the way that you tell them... the EU made things so much better in the Ukraine after all.
Mr. Eagles, and how would that imperil the nation's security?
We'd become poorer and reduce tax revenues and cause defence spending to be cut.
So TSE, in the unlikely event that Cameron recommends OUT how will you vote?
I'm currently leaning to voting Out so it would turn a possibility into a probability.
You may be leaning that way but you know full well voting OUT contributes to Cameron's demise, you'll do what's best for him.
No I'll be voting for what I consider to be in the best interests of the country.
The Tory party isn't a cult (sic) of leadership like UKIP and Farage.
So I know who and what I'm going to be debating with in the coming months, perhaps you'd like to outline your criteria.
Inter alia, economically will we be better off leaving the EU?
Will we get protection for the UK's financial services industry and the City of London?
Will we obtain protection from the Eurozone, which is going to need deeper integration and ever closer union to work and inevitability become a behemoth inside the EU?
If your perverse pronouncements on classical history weren't so deranged it'd be easier to tell when you're not being serious regarding current events
Mr. Antifrank, the sanctions are international, the military response has been zero (and would be a matter for NATO, not the EU, in any event).
Entirely off-topic: PS4 owner, so won't be getting Rise of the Tomb Raider for a while, but it looks really rather good.
That's exactly my point. Sanctions against Russia have been organised at an EU-wide level (and appear to have been fairly effective without the need for military responses as yet). If a major European country leaves the EU, organising effective sanctions becomes that bit more complicated.
I'm not convinced that is right.
I'm unaware that there are any major impediments in shipping product to Russia. It just travels through a different point of entry (Latvia, Estonia, Serbia etc).
The real lever that has acted as a sanction against Russia is the collapse of the Rouble over the last 12 months.
From a military perspective NATO is of more use than the EU, as it is not encumbered and neutered by having France as a member.
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
Yes, it's a real mystery how Norway has managed to remain a fundamental part of European defence strategy, by guarding NATO's northern flank for over 60 years, from outside the EU.
Mr. Eagles, and how would that imperil the nation's security?
We'd become poorer and reduce tax revenues and cause defence spending to be cut.
So TSE, in the unlikely event that Cameron recommends OUT how will you vote?
I'm currently leaning to voting Out so it would turn a possibility into a probability.
You may be leaning that way but you know full well voting OUT contributes to Cameron's demise, you'll do what's best for him.
No I'll be voting for what I consider to be in the best interests of the country.
The Tory party isn't a cult (sic) of leadership like UKIP and Farage.
So I know who and what I'm going to be debating with in the coming months, perhaps you'd like to outline your criteria.
Inter alia, economically will we be better off leaving the EU?
Will we get protection for the UK's financial services industry and the City of London?
Will we obtain protection from the Eurozone, which is going to need deeper integration and ever closer union to work and inevitability become a behemoth inside the EU?
We almost certainly won't get meaningful protection for those INSIDE the EU either. The proposed "handbrake" is only the very smallest of fig-leafs on what otherwise amounts to being told to piss off on those issues.
If your perverse pronouncements on classical history weren't so deranged it'd be easier to tell when you're not being serious regarding current events
Mr. Antifrank, the sanctions are international, the military response has been zero (and would be a matter for NATO, not the EU, in any event).
Entirely off-topic: PS4 owner, so won't be getting Rise of the Tomb Raider for a while, but it looks really rather good.
That's exactly my point. Sanctions against Russia have been organised at an EU-wide level (and appear to have been fairly effective without the need for military responses as yet). If a major European country leaves the EU, organising effective sanctions becomes that bit more complicated.
I'm not convinced that is right.
I'm unaware that there are any major impediments in shipping product to Russia. It just travels through a different point of entry (Latvia, Estonia, Serbia etc).
The real lever that has acted as a sanction against Russia is the collapse of the Rouble over the last 12 months.
From a military perspective NATO is of more use than the EU, as it is not encumbered and neutered by having France as a member.
One of the things i like about NATO that there is no ambiguity/compromise about leadership.
SACEUR is always an American and the Secretary-General is always a European.
Crimea is Russian, and Russian forces haven't withdrawn from the east of Ukraine either.
The US isn't in the EU yet somehow managed to be included in sanctions.
Also, that's an economic response, not a military one.
It's not cheating to use economic sanctions rather than military sanctions. Some of our most effective weapons are found in the City and Canary Wharf.
The US and the EU clearly co-ordinated about sanctions but so far as Europe was concerned, they were set at an EU level.
Russia hasn't withdrawn from Crimea or east Ukraine, no. Set against that, the Ukrainian government has not been deposed and the separatists have been contained geographically for now in a way that seemed unlikely until the sanctions were ramped up.
The desperation for some Leavers to deny that the EU has done any good at all leads them to some pretty silly places. If you want to know whether the sanctions have been effective, look at how keen the Russians are to have them withdrawn. That should tell you everything.
Mr. Eagles, and how would that imperil the nation's security?
We'd become poorer and reduce tax revenues and cause defence spending to be cut.
So TSE, in the unlikely event that Cameron recommends OUT how will you vote?
I'm currently leaning to voting Out so it would turn a possibility into a probability.
You may be leaning that way but you know full well voting OUT contributes to Cameron's demise, you'll do what's best for him.
No I'll be voting for what I consider to be in the best interests of the country.
The Tory party isn't a cult (sic) of leadership like UKIP and Farage.
So I know who and what I'm going to be debating with in the coming months, perhaps you'd like to outline your criteria.
Inter alia, economically will we be better off leaving the EU?
Will we get protection for the UK's financial services industry and the City of London?
Will we obtain protection from the Eurozone, which is going to need deeper integration and ever closer union to work and inevitability become a behemoth inside the EU?
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
Yes, it's a real mystery how Norway has managed to remain a fundamental part of European defence strategy, by guarding NATO's northern flank for over 60 years, from outside the EU.
With respect, @Antifrank I think this is a nonsense. If Norway was invaded by Russia, I'd fully expect article 5 to be complied with. It is NATO that is our security, not the EU.
Mr. Eagles, and how would that imperil the nation's security?
We'd become poorer and reduce tax revenues and cause defence spending to be cut.
So TSE, in the unlikely event that Cameron recommends OUT how will you vote?
I'm currently leaning to voting Out so it would turn a possibility into a probability.
You may be leaning that way but you know full well voting OUT contributes to Cameron's demise, you'll do what's best for him.
No I'll be voting for what I consider to be in the best interests of the country.
The Tory party isn't a cult (sic) of leadership like UKIP and Farage.
So I know who and what I'm going to be debating with in the coming months, perhaps you'd like to outline your criteria.
Inter alia, economically will we be better off leaving the EU?
Will we get protection for the UK's financial services industry and the City of London?
Will we obtain protection from the Eurozone, which is going to need deeper integration and ever closer union to work and inevitability become a behemoth inside the EU?
We almost certainly won't get meaningful protection for those INSIDE the EU either. The proposed "handbrake" is only the very smallest of fig-leafs on what otherwise amounts to being told to piss off on those issues.
Well I live in Hope. Well I live in Dore, which isn't that far from Hope.
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
Yes, it's a real mystery how Norway has managed to remain a fundamental part of European defence strategy, by guarding NATO's northern flank for over 60 years, from outside the EU.
With respect, @Antifrank I think this is a nonsense. If Norway was invaded by Russia, I'd fully expect article 5 to be complied with. It is NATO that is our security, not the EU.
You are missing the point completely. Of course if Norway were invaded by Russia*, article 5 would be complied with. Not all wars are fought with guns. Some require economic heft. By fragmenting European economic heft, we weaken those wars that are fought in that way.
To ignore different ways in which our security can be protected is blockheaded.
*Subject to Jeremy Corbyn not being Prime Minister.
But do you think that public servants shouldn't take buses if that's the most efficient way to do their jobs?
Now you're being silly. I can't imagine a bus ride costing £1.40 isn't easier to walk.
Well a tube ride in London (zone 1) costs £2.30 so we can use that (not very different) number if you prefer.
But I google what (I think!) should be a fairly archetypal English county town: Northampton. In April 2014 you could buy a monthly ticket for the entire area for the equivalent of £1.51 per day. Clearly single trips will be more expensive, but if they can make £1.51 for unlimited travel work, I'm sure that a £1.40 fare would be a relatively long distance.
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
What desperate stuff
It's complete twoddle. Actually, it's worse than that. Antifrank is scaremongering.
The EU would probably make matters worse. Their meddling in the Ukraine/Russia conflict created all manner of problems.
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
What pisses off the private sector is when there is a perfectly good standard class transport option, but instead public sector workers choose to go by sedan chair....
I work in the private sector and regularly travel on open first class train tickets.
In pleb class you find the great unwashed.
Why?
Below 4 hours on the train I go standard. Below 3 hours on a plane I go economy.
Mr. Eagles, and how would that imperil the nation's security?
We'd become poorer and reduce tax revenues and cause defence spending to be cut.
So TSE, in the unlikely event that Cameron recommends OUT how will you vote?
I'm currently leaning to voting Out so it would turn a possibility into a probability.
You may be leaning that way but you know full well voting OUT contributes to Cameron's demise, you'll do what's best for him.
No I'll be voting for what I consider to be in the best interests of the country.
The Tory party isn't a cult (sic) of leadership like UKIP and Farage.
So I know who and what I'm going to be debating with in the coming months, perhaps you'd like to outline your criteria.
Inter alia, economically will we be better off leaving the EU?
Will we get protection for the UK's financial services industry and the City of London?
Will we obtain protection from the Eurozone, which is going to need deeper integration and ever closer union to work and inevitability become a behemoth inside the EU?
TSE Leading the PB REMAIN Campaign
I have to admit I loved campaigning last May in West Yorkshire.
Want to do it again soon.
Disappointed Dave hasn't given me a peerage for my hard work.
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
What pisses off the private sector is when there is a perfectly good standard class transport option, but instead public sector workers choose to go by sedan chair....
I work in the private sector and regularly travel on open first class train tickets.
In pleb class you find the great unwashed.
Why?
Below 4 hours on the train I go standard. Below 3 hours on a plane I go economy.
I'm a poor flyer plus my sarcasm doesn't appeal to airport security.
Mr. Eagles, and how would that imperil the nation's security?
We'd become poorer and reduce tax revenues and cause defence spending to be cut.
So TSE, in the unlikely event that Cameron recommends OUT how will you vote?
I'm currently leaning to voting Out so it would turn a possibility into a probability.
You may be leaning that way but you know full well voting OUT contributes to Cameron's demise, you'll do what's best for him.
No I'll be voting for what I consider to be in the best interests of the country.
The Tory party isn't a cult (sic) of leadership like UKIP and Farage.
So I know who and what I'm going to be debating with in the coming months, perhaps you'd like to outline your criteria.
Inter alia, economically will we be better off leaving the EU?
Will we get protection for the UK's financial services industry and the City of London?
Will we obtain protection from the Eurozone, which is going to need deeper integration and ever closer union to work and inevitability become a behemoth inside the EU?
TSE Leading the PB REMAIN Campaign
I have to admit I loved campaigning last May in West Yorkshire.
Want to do it again soon.
Disappointed Dave hasn't given me a peerage for my hard work.
Is 'Disappointed Dave' going to be his new moniker post-EUref?
The desperation for some Leavers to deny that the EU has done any good at all leads them to some pretty silly places. If you want to know whether the sanctions have been effective, look at how keen the Russians are to have them withdrawn. That should tell you everything.
I am not sure why we bother with these threads. We have FoxinsockEU and Antifrank ramping the EU for all it's worth while shamelessly criticising the Leavers for doing the same from their side. A group of Leavers that don't see anything good about the EU, although to be fair you have to look quite hard. Then of course there is the CCHQ "undecided" brigade that are leaning toward OUT but will vote IN because Dave tells them to, or for party unity. Not forgetting a large selection from the left almost exploding in cognitive dissonance as they try and justify voting for the mercantilist and corporatist EU that now has only a passing familiarity with their socialist ideals.
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
Yes, it's a real mystery how Norway has managed to remain a fundamental part of European defence strategy, by guarding NATO's northern flank for over 60 years, from outside the EU.
With respect, @Antifrank I think this is a nonsense. If Norway was invaded by Russia, I'd fully expect article 5 to be complied with. It is NATO that is our security, not the EU.
You are missing the point completely. Of course if Norway were invaded by Russia*, article 5 would be complied with. Not all wars are fought with guns. Some require economic heft. By fragmenting European economic heft, we weaken those wars that are fought in that way.
To ignore different ways in which our security can be protected is blockheaded.
*Subject to Jeremy Corbyn not being Prime Minister.
We don't need to be part of political union to cooperate on economic sanctions with our European neighbours.
The difference between the G7 and EU on effectiveness in these matters is minuscule and, if anything, I'd credit the former with greater weight.
Mr. Eagles, and how would that imperil the nation's security?
We'd become poorer and reduce tax revenues and cause defence spending to be cut.
So TSE, in the unlikely event that Cameron recommends OUT how will you vote?
I'm currently leaning to voting Out so it would turn a possibility into a probability.
You may be leaning that way but you know full well voting OUT contributes to Cameron's demise, you'll do what's best for him.
No I'll be voting for what I consider to be in the best interests of the country.
The Tory party isn't a cult (sic) of leadership like UKIP and Farage.
So I know who and what I'm going to be debating with in the coming months, perhaps you'd like to outline your criteria.
Inter alia, economically will we be better off leaving the EU?
Will we get protection for the UK's financial services industry and the City of London?
Will we obtain protection from the Eurozone, which is going to need deeper integration and ever closer union to work and inevitability become a behemoth inside the EU?
I'm looking forward to a three or month campaign post renegotiation. I didn't see any value in the length of the SIndy arguing - it just became overtly divisive.
We can debate substantive issues rather than all the tedious speculation/making things up to suit one side or another.
The desperation for some Leavers to deny that the EU has done any good at all leads them to some pretty silly places. If you want to know whether the sanctions have been effective, look at how keen the Russians are to have them withdrawn. That should tell you everything.
I am not sure why we bother with these threads. We have FoxinsockEU and Antifrank ramping the EU for all it's worth while shamelessly criticising the Leavers for doing the same from their side. A group of Leavers that don't see anything good about the EU, although to be fair you have to look quite hard. Then of course there is the CCHQ "undecided" brigade that are leaning toward OUT but will vote IN because Dave tells them to, or for party unity. Not forgetting a large selection from the left almost exploding in cognitive dissonance as they try and justify voting for the mercantilist and corporatist EU that now has only a passing familiarity with their socialist ideals.
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
Never got why people expect to get meals paid for as expenses. I never did.
The argument is that if you are traveling on business you are likely to spend more because you can't grab a sandwich but usually end up in a restaurant.
I almost invariably underspend my per diem though.
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
Yes, it's a real mystery how Norway has managed to remain a fundamental part of European defence strategy, by guarding NATO's northern flank for over 60 years, from outside the EU.
With respect, @Antifrank I think this is a nonsense. If Norway was invaded by Russia, I'd fully expect article 5 to be complied with. It is NATO that is our security, not the EU.
You are missing the point completely. Of course if Norway were invaded by Russia*, article 5 would be complied with. Not all wars are fought with guns. Some require economic heft. By fragmenting European economic heft, we weaken those wars that are fought in that way.
To ignore different ways in which our security can be protected is blockheaded.
*Subject to Jeremy Corbyn not being Prime Minister.
We don't need to be part of political union to cooperate on economic sanctions with our European neighbours.
The difference between the G7 and EU on effectiveness in these matters is minuscule and, if anything, I'd credit the former with greater weight.
No, we don't need to be part of the EU to co-operate on economic sanctions with it. However, it's much easier if the structures that are already in place can be called upon. I'd have thought that was obvious. But it's amazing what intelligent people can deny when the obvious is inconvenient.
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
What desperate stuff
It's complete twoddle. Actually, it's worse than that. Antifrank is scaremongering.
The EU would probably make matters worse. Their meddling in the Ukraine/Russia conflict created all manner of problems.
It's not twoddle. I think antifrank is making a perfectly reasonable argument. Personally, I disagree with it, but this is exactly the sort of practical discussion that's informative. Leavers do themselves no favours at all when pretending that every criticism of Leave is unfair.
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
What pisses off the private sector is when there is a perfectly good standard class transport option, but instead public sector workers choose to go by sedan chair....
I work in the private sector and regularly travel on open first class train tickets.
In pleb class you find the great unwashed.
Why?
Below 4 hours on the train I go standard. Below 3 hours on a plane I go economy.
I'm a poor flyer plus my sarcasm doesn't appeal to airport security.
Virgin first class trains rock.
Sure, but they are ludicrously expensive for what you get.
Mr. Eagles, and how would that imperil the nation's security?
We'd become poorer and reduce tax revenues and cause defence spending to be cut.
So TSE, in the unlikely event that Cameron recommends OUT how will you vote?
I'm currently leaning to voting Out so it would turn a possibility into a probability.
You may be leaning that way but you know full well voting OUT contributes to Cameron's demise, you'll do what's best for him.
No I'll be voting for what I consider to be in the best interests of the country.
The Tory party isn't a cult (sic) of leadership like UKIP and Farage.
So I know who and what I'm going to be debating with in the coming months, perhaps you'd like to outline your criteria.
Inter alia, economically will we be better off leaving the EU?
Will we get protection for the UK's financial services industry and the City of London?
Will we obtain protection from the Eurozone, which is going to need deeper integration and ever closer union to work and inevitability become a behemoth inside the EU?
The question is not will we get 'protection' but precisely what protection we get, and would it be effective in practical terms. If we get a promise for careful second review of financial topics, that isn't likely to count for much in practice. If we get a veto over financial regulation, that would be extremely effective.
In all likelihood, we will get something in the middle, and we will need various analyses and counter-analyses to be done by think tanks to understand the practical effects of it all. That is why we need more than a few months to digest the renegotiation, and why it's a disservice to the nation to rush it, as Osborne is pushing for.
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
What pisses off the private sector is when there is a perfectly good standard class transport option, but instead public sector workers choose to go by sedan chair....
I work in the private sector and regularly travel on open first class train tickets.
In pleb class you find the great unwashed.
Why?
Below 4 hours on the train I go standard. Below 3 hours on a plane I go economy.
I'm a poor flyer plus my sarcasm doesn't appeal to airport security.
Virgin first class trains rock.
Sure, but they are ludicrously expensive for what you get.
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
Yes, it's a real mystery how Norway has managed to remain a fundamental part of European defence strategy, by guarding NATO's northern flank for over 60 years, from outside the EU.
With respect, @Antifrank I think this is a nonsense. If Norway was invaded by Russia, I'd fully expect article 5 to be complied with. It is NATO that is our security, not the EU.
You are missing the point completely. Of course if Norway were invaded by Russia*, article 5 would be complied with. Not all wars are fought with guns. Some require economic heft. By fragmenting European economic heft, we weaken those wars that are fought in that way.
To ignore different ways in which our security can be protected is blockheaded.
*Subject to Jeremy Corbyn not being Prime Minister.
We don't need to be part of political union to cooperate on economic sanctions with our European neighbours.
The difference between the G7 and EU on effectiveness in these matters is minuscule and, if anything, I'd credit the former with greater weight.
No, we don't need to be part of the EU to co-operate on economic sanctions with it. However, it's much easier if the structures that are already in place can be called upon. I'd have thought that was obvious. But it's amazing what intelligent people can deny when the obvious is inconvenient.
Sorry, I'm in denial because I disagree with you? Or could it be that you are struggling to find the evidence to back your point of view so you are resorting to pompous condescension instead?
I don't think it's easier for the EU to agree at all on matters of foreign policy, including common attitudes to sanctions. It's contemporary history is littered with examples of where it has failed to do so, and individual nations within it have been required to take their own initiatives.
Good morning all. I'm going to wait until I see the substance of Cameron's renegotiation before I start my frothery . When the referendum actually occurs is not particularly important.
Events in Europe (e.g. Eurozone shenanigans, immigration, Eurocrats pontificating unwisely) are more likely to influence the electorate than either domestic campaign. I hope the country will vote to leave, but accept that it's more likely that we'll stay.
It isn't hard to imagine that if Britain were to leave the EU that the response of European countries to, say, aggression by Russia would be more fragmented, leading to less security in our geographical neighbourhood.
Yes, it's a real mystery how Norway has managed to remain a fundamental part of European defence strategy, by guarding NATO's northern flank for over 60 years, from outside the EU.
With respect, @Antifrank I think this is a nonsense. If Norway was invaded by Russia, I'd fully expect article 5 to be complied with. It is NATO that is our security, not the EU.
You are missing the point completely. Of course if Norway were invaded by Russia*, article 5 would be complied with. Not all wars are fought with guns. Some require economic heft. By fragmenting European economic heft, we weaken those wars that are fought in that way.
To ignore different ways in which our security can be protected is blockheaded.
*Subject to Jeremy Corbyn not being Prime Minister.
We don't need to be part of political union to cooperate on economic sanctions with our European neighbours.
The difference between the G7 and EU on effectiveness in these matters is minuscule and, if anything, I'd credit the former with greater weight.
No, we don't need to be part of the EU to co-operate on economic sanctions with it. However, it's much easier if the structures that are already in place can be called upon. I'd have thought that was obvious. But it's amazing what intelligent people can deny when the obvious is inconvenient.
How did the negotiations between the US and EU on sanctions work? Did the EU come to a joint position first, or was there a round table where different EU countries and the US negotiated all together?
Eight months is plenty of time, and spring is better than autumn for elections.
Weren't the eurosceptics calling for an early referendum not so long ago? And doubting that Cameron would call one?
Earlier on this year Farage wanted the referendum to be held in 2015 as a condition for a Con/UKIP coalition.
Those were the days when Kippers thought they'd have 102 MPs in May.
I'm minded to the view that the Prime Minister is awaiting for your magnum opus AV thread to be disposed of before committing to the EU Referendum else the nations attention will be completely diverted by the greatest political and literary sensation this century.
I'm attending an electoral reform society event in December.
Once I've been there I'll publish it. It just needs a final polish.
Sounds like the Great AV Thread will be coming down the chimney come Christmas morning accompanied by an aged white bearded gentleman in red outfit and matching red shoes.
And we can merrily sing 'All I want for Christmas is an AV thread' and 'I wish it could be AV every day' etc
We may be getting to the point where we are bigging up the thread a tad too much...
Eight months is plenty of time, and spring is better than autumn for elections.
Weren't the eurosceptics calling for an early referendum not so long ago? And doubting that Cameron would call one?
Earlier on this year Farage wanted the referendum to be held in 2015 as a condition for a Con/UKIP coalition.
Those were the days when Kippers thought they'd have 102 MPs in May.
I'm minded to the view that the Prime Minister is awaiting for your magnum opus AV thread to be disposed of before committing to the EU Referendum else the nations attention will be completely diverted by the greatest political and literary sensation this century.
I'm attending an electoral reform society event in December.
Once I've been there I'll publish it. It just needs a final polish.
Sounds like the Great AV Thread will be coming down the chimney come Christmas morning accompanied by an aged white bearded gentleman in red outfit and matching red shoes.
And we can merrily sing 'All I want for Christmas is an AV thread' and 'I wish it could be AV every day' etc
We may be getting to the point where we are bigging up the thread a tad too much...
Pressures on, TSE
All this pressure isn't helping my writer's block
The equivalent of Oscar Pistorius complaining of itchy feet
Sorry, I'm in denial because I disagree with you? Or could it be that you are struggling to find the evidence to back your point of view so you are resorting to pompous condescension instead?
Mr Rob, if you are employed in the private sector your expenses are nothing to do with anybody except you and your employer, I apologise.
So what is a legitimate expense for a public sector employee in your eyes? I assume they have to walk everywhere, and have to bring their own sandwiches to sustain them for the trip?
What pisses off the private sector is when there is a perfectly good standard class transport option, but instead public sector workers choose to go by sedan chair....
I work in the private sector and regularly travel on open first class train tickets.
In pleb class you find the great unwashed.
Why?
Below 4 hours on the train I go standard. Below 3 hours on a plane I go economy.
I'm a poor flyer plus my sarcasm doesn't appeal to airport security.
Virgin first class trains rock.
Sure, but they are ludicrously expensive for what you get.
Sorry, I'm in denial because I disagree with you? Or could it be that you are struggling to find the evidence to back your point of view so you are resorting to pompous condescension instead?
I don't think it's easier for the EU to agree at all on matters of foreign policy, including common attitudes to sanctions. It's contemporary history is littered with examples of where it has failed to do so, and individual nations within it have been required to take their own initiatives.
Like it or not (and I'm aware that you're a "not"), the EU provides established structures for reaching decisions between its 28 member states. If one of those leaves and its agreement is sought for a proposed course of action, that will require new structures that on the one hand reflect its status as a non-member and on the other hand involve it in decision-making. That can only make things more difficult and laborious and be more likely to lead to failures of effective and prompt collective action.
None of that seems difficult to me. It's something to weigh in the decision of In or Out. Many will feel that other benefits of Out are far more substantial than this benefit of In. But it's absurd to say that the consideration doesn't exist.
I do think that Autumn 2016 is the most likely date, because 2017 gets too caught up with the French and German elections.
I can understand why the French and German elections matter for the renegotiation, but I don't see why it matters for the timing of the referendum. Can't we agree the renegotiation terms by, say, May 2016, and then have a referendum in summer 2017? That solves all the issues: the Europeans have already signed off on the agreement, so they won't play hardball because elections are around the corner, while we still get a good year to process everything to make the right decision.
I can understand why the French and German elections matter for the renegotiation, but I don't see why it matters for the timing of the referendum. Can't we agree the renegotiation terms by, say, May 2016, and then have a referendum in summer 2017? That solves all the issues: the Europeans have already signed off on the agreement, so they won't play hardball because elections are around the corner, while we still get a good year to process everything to make the right decision.
I don't rhink that is realistic. In practice, the deal will be done at the last moment in some all-night negotiating session. Such deals always are. (And, before the frothers get going, this is not specific to the EU, it's equally true of international deals generally, and even contentious business deals like takeovers and re-financing).
Sorry, I'm in denial because I disagree with you? Or could it be that you are struggling to find the evidence to back your point of view so you are resorting to pompous condescension instead?
I don't think it's easier for the EU to agree at all on matters of foreign policy, including common attitudes to sanctions. It's contemporary history is littered with examples of where it has failed to do so, and individual nations within it have been required to take their own initiatives.
Like it or not (and I'm aware that you're a "not"), the EU provides established structures for reaching decisions between its 28 member states. If one of those leaves and its agreement is sought for a proposed course of action, that will require new structures that on the one hand reflect its status as a non-member and on the other hand involve it in decision-making. That can only make things more difficult and laborious and be more likely to lead to failures of effective and prompt collective action.
None of that seems difficult to me. It's something to weigh in the decision of In or Out. Many will feel that other benefits of Out are far more substantial than this benefit of In. But it's absurd to say that the consideration doesn't exist.
EU sanctions require unanimity amongst all member states through the Council of the European Union:
You can keep repeating the established structure point but I see that as no more advantageous than the UN security council or G8, existing bodies that also require unamimity (or no veto) to act. I think it's absurd to even consider that as a factor.
And don't forget the total absence of EU leadership on either Syria, Libya, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia or Afghanistan all of which requires bilateral initiatives by individual member states.
Passionate Remainers are much better sticking to influence within the single market if they want to play this card. You're on to a hiding with foreign policy and defence.
I can understand why the French and German elections matter for the renegotiation, but I don't see why it matters for the timing of the referendum. Can't we agree the renegotiation terms by, say, May 2016, and then have a referendum in summer 2017? That solves all the issues: the Europeans have already signed off on the agreement, so they won't play hardball because elections are around the corner, while we still get a good year to process everything to make the right decision.
(And, before the frothers get going, this is not specific to the EU, it's equally true of international deals generally, and even contentious business deals like takeovers and re-financing).
Why do EU supporters feel the need to be so rude to those who wish to Leave?
If your employer has asked that you travel to do your job, you are (in my opinion) entitled to do so in reasonable comfort and not at your own expense. After all, you're not making the trip for your own benefit. It is irrelevant whether your pay packet originates from the taxpayer or the private sector.
If it's hosing with rain, or freezing cold, or dark, or you have a sore foot, or you're exhausted, or need to get to school in time to pick up the kids, or for a host of other reasons, this applies to pretty much any journey. All it takes is a simple test of reasonableness - although admittedly this test is a little subjective.
And, besides, a £1.40 bus fare can take you a hell of a long way. Ironic that this wouldn't have been brought up if he's taken a £10 taxi...
Passionate Remainers are much better sticking to influence within the single market if they want to play this card. You're on to a hiding with foreign policy and defence.
Yes, I think that is right. Antifrank is right to the extent that EU sanctions are an important tool, but I can't see that there would be any difficulty in the UK cooperating closely with the EU on those, as indeed we cooperate with the US. On military and foreign policy issues, we already tend to work bilaterally with the French and the other large EU powers.
I hate to dirty the PB nose by mentioning immigration... I'm aware it is unfashionable to be critical of it, and it might make one seem less intelligent, but I still think that it will sway a few voters towards LEAVE, esp as it's the most important issue to the public
Comments
But without the apology, to me or my assistant.
But do you think that public servants shouldn't take buses if that's the most efficient way to do their jobs?
But do you think that public servants shouldn't take buses if that's the most efficient way to do their jobs?
Now you're being silly. I can't imagine a bus ride costing £1.40 isn't easier to walk.
What a Christmas that would be...
I've asked a few times, but you can't name a single mighty advantage we get (in security terms) from the EU that would be lost if we left.
You, I am afraid to say, are a banana.
In pleb class you find the great unwashed.
We've not had a world war since the EU was formed.
If we shot all the lefties, we wouldn't need taxes or indeed a State apparatus of any sort...
I think that was TSE's point.
£1.40 claimed for a bus trip isn't what is killing the public sector financially and sounds like a perfectly legitimate expense. Indeed I wish our engineers sometimes took the bus instead of a taxi
I remember when I briefly worked for Rotherham Council/BT (RBT Connect), we had to provide our own coffee... but every Tom, Dick and Sally had to have their budgets spent. The entire accounts system was also about 50 million excel spreadsheets...
I note it has now gone pop !
If your perverse pronouncements on classical history weren't so deranged it'd be easier to tell when you're not being serious regarding current events
Mr. Antifrank, the sanctions are international, the military response has been zero (and would be a matter for NATO, not the EU, in any event).
Entirely off-topic: PS4 owner, so won't be getting Rise of the Tomb Raider for a while, but it looks really rather good.
So no one who supports a party that has had a member caught fiddling expenses is allowed to comment on the subject? I see!
Don't think I said that. They should however be prepared to be reminded about it.
I don't see what relevance a different argument made by other people at another time is. We should have a big national debate about this topic, as was done in Scotland. Why do the Scots deserve more time for their political debate than the rest of us?
The Tory party isn't a cult (sic) of leadership like UKIP and Farage.
Pressures on, TSE
Crimea is Russian, and Russian forces haven't withdrawn from the east of Ukraine either.
The US isn't in the EU yet somehow managed to be included in sanctions.
Also, that's an economic response, not a military one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/parliamentary-constituencies/ashton-under-lyne/11983331/Labour-MP-uses-Commons-notepaper-to-criticise-shoe-shop-for-failing-to-reserve-novelty-Star-Wars-shoes.html
Don't you know who I am?
I see no trouble at all in us agreeing sanctions against Russia with the EU from outside of it.
Will we get protection for the UK's financial services industry and the City of London?
Will we obtain protection from the Eurozone, which is going to need deeper integration and ever closer union to work and inevitability become a behemoth inside the EU?
I'm unaware that there are any major impediments in shipping product to Russia. It just travels through a different point of entry (Latvia, Estonia, Serbia etc).
The real lever that has acted as a sanction against Russia is the collapse of the Rouble over the last 12 months.
From a military perspective NATO is of more use than the EU, as it is not encumbered and neutered by having France as a member.
SACEUR is always an American and the Secretary-General is always a European.
The US and the EU clearly co-ordinated about sanctions but so far as Europe was concerned, they were set at an EU level.
Russia hasn't withdrawn from Crimea or east Ukraine, no. Set against that, the Ukrainian government has not been deposed and the separatists have been contained geographically for now in a way that seemed unlikely until the sanctions were ramped up.
The desperation for some Leavers to deny that the EU has done any good at all leads them to some pretty silly places. If you want to know whether the sanctions have been effective, look at how keen the Russians are to have them withdrawn. That should tell you everything.
What desperate stuff
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope,_Derbyshire
If we leave the EU, babies will be murdered in their beds, the sky will fall in and the world will end.
In more important news, who was voted off Strictly last night?
To ignore different ways in which our security can be protected is blockheaded.
*Subject to Jeremy Corbyn not being Prime Minister.
But I google what (I think!) should be a fairly archetypal English county town: Northampton. In April 2014 you could buy a monthly ticket for the entire area for the equivalent of £1.51 per day. Clearly single trips will be more expensive, but if they can make £1.51 for unlimited travel work, I'm sure that a £1.40 fare would be a relatively long distance.
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/stagecoach-to-put-up-northamptonshire-bus-fares-1-5986448
The EU would probably make matters worse. Their meddling in the Ukraine/Russia conflict created all manner of problems.
Below 4 hours on the train I go standard. Below 3 hours on a plane I go economy.
Want to do it again soon.
Disappointed Dave hasn't given me a peerage for my hard work.
Virgin first class trains rock.
https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/663647512448917504
The difference between the G7 and EU on effectiveness in these matters is minuscule and, if anything, I'd credit the former with greater weight.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/663657037897834496
We can debate substantive issues rather than all the tedious speculation/making things up to suit one side or another.
I almost invariably underspend my per diem though.
Standard is fine.
In all likelihood, we will get something in the middle, and we will need various analyses and counter-analyses to be done by think tanks to understand the practical effects of it all. That is why we need more than a few months to digest the renegotiation, and why it's a disservice to the nation to rush it, as Osborne is pushing for.
I don't think it's easier for the EU to agree at all on matters of foreign policy, including common attitudes to sanctions. It's contemporary history is littered with examples of where it has failed to do so, and individual nations within it have been required to take their own initiatives.
Events in Europe (e.g. Eurozone shenanigans, immigration, Eurocrats pontificating unwisely) are more likely to influence the electorate than either domestic campaign. I hope the country will vote to leave, but accept that it's more likely that we'll stay.
@ECB_cricket: Australia beat New Zealand in first Test since Ashes defeat in England
https://t.co/sVRxC92McM https://t.co/5CW1J7bAEt
Well that's certainly the usual pattern
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/why-an-eu-referendum-in-june-2016-is-unlikely-to-happen/
I do think that Autumn 2016 is the most likely date, because 2017 gets too caught up with the French and German elections.
Like it or not (and I'm aware that you're a "not"), the EU provides established structures for reaching decisions between its 28 member states. If one of those leaves and its agreement is sought for a proposed course of action, that will require new structures that on the one hand reflect its status as a non-member and on the other hand involve it in decision-making. That can only make things more difficult and laborious and be more likely to lead to failures of effective and prompt collective action.
None of that seems difficult to me. It's something to weigh in the decision of In or Out. Many will feel that other benefits of Out are far more substantial than this benefit of In. But it's absurd to say that the consideration doesn't exist.
http://eeas.europa.eu/cfsp/index_en.html
You can keep repeating the established structure point but I see that as no more advantageous than the UN security council or G8, existing bodies that also require unamimity (or no veto) to act. I think it's absurd to even consider that as a factor.
And don't forget the total absence of EU leadership on either Syria, Libya, Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia or Afghanistan all of which requires bilateral initiatives by individual member states.
Passionate Remainers are much better sticking to influence within the single market if they want to play this card. You're on to a hiding with foreign policy and defence.
If your employer has asked that you travel to do your job, you are (in my opinion) entitled to do so in reasonable comfort and not at your own expense. After all, you're not making the trip for your own benefit. It is irrelevant whether your pay packet originates from the taxpayer or the private sector.
If it's hosing with rain, or freezing cold, or dark, or you have a sore foot, or you're exhausted, or need to get to school in time to pick up the kids, or for a host of other reasons, this applies to pretty much any journey. All it takes is a simple test of reasonableness - although admittedly this test is a little subjective.
And, besides, a £1.40 bus fare can take you a hell of a long way. Ironic that this wouldn't have been brought up if he's taken a £10 taxi...
https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/663275671251193856