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...
The real point is if this man is so important that he's paid £16,000 a week, why is he wasting his 'valuable' time travelling on a bus, when he could be working productively in a private car?
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.
Standard is fine.
Nice put down Charles
TBF, I do think Premium Economy or the intermediate level (business standard?)) on Eurostar is worth the extra cost.
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
It certainly will.
However, the Leave campaign is yet to explain in any even vaguely coherent form how leaving the EU would make the slightest difference to our position in respect of immigration.
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...
The real point is if this man is so important that he's paid £16,000 a week, why is he wasting his 'valuable' time travelling on a bus, when he could be working in a private car?
Maybe he'd finished his day, or was travelling with 5 colleagues, or intended to walk but walked out into a monsoon without a brolly, or was going to his mistress' house and didn't want to alert his driver
The usual subjects would have been up in arms is he had a private driver. "Who does he think he is, the #&%king President" etc etc.
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...
The real point is if this man is so important that he's paid £16,000 a week, why is he wasting his 'valuable' time travelling on a bus, when he could be working productively in a private car?
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
It certainly will.
However, the Leave campaign is yet to explain in any even vaguely coherent form how leaving the EU would make the slightest difference to our position in respect of immigration.
Well, it will make it easier to tell the frothers who think we should bail out Merkel where to go
Well, it will make it easier to tell the frothers who think we should bail out Merkel where to go
True. OTOH Ms Merkel is surely headed for a massive U-turn, or failing that, a defenestration. As the old saying goes, if something is unsustainable, it won't be sustained.
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
It certainly will.
However, the Leave campaign is yet to explain in any even vaguely coherent form how leaving the EU would make the slightest difference to our position in respect of immigration.
Your argument for Remain seems to be, in essence, Britain is f*cked whichever way it votes, so we might as well stick with the status quo.
What sad, pathetic, boring, and sheltered lives these two outers have led.
The duo posed as businessmen to gain access to the conference on behalf of Students for Britain which is 'pushing for fundamental reform of Britain’s relationship with the European Union'.
Mr Lyon later told Sky News said it was 'one of the most terrifying things I've done in my life'.
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.
Once again we agree.
For me, the EU debate comes down to whether you think it's worth it for the UK to remain to exert internal influence and steer over the future of the single market, putting up with all the political and economic constraints that go with it.
Personally, that equation tipped for me about 10 years ago and, given the economic benefits of membership are very finely balanced, pushes me decisively towards Leave.
But I appreciate others may have a different view.
It's blowing a gale here. I can't open the windows as they're snapped back on their hinges. Don't know if you see The Times at home but Matt Ridley has a superb column on coal power, wind and HMG failure.
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.
When I was travelling HMG issued travellers' cheques in advance to the value of the per diems in each city you were visiting (the FCO had a big book with just about every city and island listed along with the going rate depending on your grade and the marker hotel). Some of the rates were very generous, or at least seemed that way to me
For example Miami in 1995 was nearly $200 a day and the marker hotel was the Sheraton on Brickell Avenue. However, the Sheraton, like many US hotels, had a "government rate" which we Brits had blagged our way onto. A luxury room cost $75 plus $10 for a magnificent all you could eat breakfast buffet. Allowing for cost of laundry and a daily phone call home, even I couldn't eat and drink my way through $100 a day, especially as business expenses such as taxi fares and official entertaining were chargeable, with receipts and explanation, on top. For some places the daily rate was not as generous and prices were higher (e.g. some the Caribbean Islands) but on every trip I always returned home with a wodge of travellers' cheques, sometimes amounting to several hundred dollars, which I gave to my wife as a present.
As for standard class being good enough, well I suppose sometimes it can be, but when travelling on business I refused to use it for any journey lasting more than about an hour. I took the view that my employer wanted me to go to these places and therefore they could stand the cost of me being as reasonably comfortable in the process as if I was at home. If I was having my body clocked scrambled for their sake I was not going to do it crammed into a seat too small for me.
Your argument for Remain seems to be, in essence, Britain is f*cked whichever way it votes, so we might as well stick with the status quo.
No, not at all. Membership of the EU has advantages and disadvantages. Cameron is attempting, admittedly from a very weak negotiating position bequeathed to him by previous governments, to ameliorate the disdvantages whilst retaining the advantages. Alternatively, we can leave, but it we do so we need to be crystal-clear and realistic about exactly what disadvantages we are trying to address and how we can minimise the disruption and any economic cost in doing so.
Pat McFadden put it very well:
A referendum is a choice between two futures, not an opinion poll on one. “Brexit” campaigners might try to run away from every version of Out, claiming they have never advocated the Norwegian model or the Swiss model, or any model. But they cannot run from them all. And the more the options for leaving are examined, the less attractive they become.
Now, maybe there is a coherent alternative future. I'm still waiting for someone to argue for it. The Leave side have wasted the last three years trying to sabotage the referendum, rather than address the points which the Remain side make.
I don't think it's very helpful, Richard. At the very least you risk tarring everyone with the same brush, and causing offence.
I'd have more sympathy with that argument if posters supporting the Leave side stopped accusing me, Cameron, and everyone else who takes a nuanced view, of being dishonest.
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
It certainly will.
However, the Leave campaign is yet to explain in any even vaguely coherent form how leaving the EU would make the slightest difference to our position in respect of immigration.
Even in the EEA the UK could apply an emergeny brake and limit welfare benefits to residents of many years standing only, and restrict freedom of movement to workers only.
In EFTA, or via a bespoke bilateral deal, we could potentially negotiate the 75k annual cap that David Goodhart has argued for, although this may affect a trade off with the level of single market access.
Even in the EEA the UK could apply an emergeny brake and limit welfare benefits to residents of many years standing only, and restrict freedom of movement to workers only..
I don't want to go through all that again, but that's simply not true. It's the identical directive which applies both to the EEA and the EU.
I don't think it's very helpful, Richard. At the very least you risk tarring everyone with the same brush, and causing offence.
I'd have more sympathy with that argument if posters supporting the Leave side stopped accusing me, Cameron, and everyone else who takes a nuanced view, of being dishonest.
You may be taking a nuanced view, Cameron isn't. He's going through a charade of supposed negotiation followed by recommendation but we all know he'll be IN regardless.
I've considered Cameron to be duplicitous for years, his stance at the moment confirms my view.
Even in the EEA the UK could apply an emergeny brake and limit welfare benefits to residents of many years standing only, and restrict freedom of movement to workers only..
I don't want to go through all that again, but that's simply not true. It's the identical directive which applies both to the EEA and the EU.
I've asked an academic to write a piece on what EEA membership means for the UK.
That thread will be like the AV debates on steroids.
For no obvious reason, my carbon monoxide alarm started shouting at midnight. I thought it was the smoke alarm battery going dead and farted about for an hour pressing reset and trying to prise the cover off, whilst stood on a chair.
After that seemed to work, went back to bed and all hell broke loose. It went bonkers and eventually I shut it up with brutal force before it woke the dead.
I've now become paranoid that something other than equipment failure is the cause, hence windows... It's stupid.
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
It certainly will.
However, the Leave campaign is yet to explain in any even vaguely coherent form how leaving the EU would make the slightest difference to our position in respect of immigration.
I should have thought that it was very simple, just look at the situation pre 1973. Before joining the EU the UK had full control of its borders, who came in and who got slung out. It seemed to work reasonably well then and, I should think that it could work reasonably well again.
Just as a reminder we did in those far off days manage to trade with European countries, we also managed, if we wanted and they wanted us, to buy property and live in European countries. The additional paperwork was trivial even in non-democratic countries such as Spain and Portugal.
I rather think that the people who are having trouble explaining in any vaguely coherent form immigration policy are those that who want us to stay in.
Even in the EEA the UK could apply an emergeny brake and limit welfare benefits to residents of many years standing only, and restrict freedom of movement to workers only..
I don't want to go through all that again, but that's simply not true. It's the identical directive which applies both to the EEA and the EU.
I've asked an academic to write a piece on what EEA membership means for the UK.
That thread will be like the AV debates on steroids.
It will read like the transcription of an Extreme Noise Terror single, but about 500 times as long.
For no obvious reason, my carbon monoxide alarm started shouting at midnight. I thought it was the smoke alarm battery going dead and farted about for an hour pressing reset and trying to prise the cover off, whilst stood on a chair.
After that seemed to work, went back to bed and all hell broke loose. It went bonkers and eventually I shut it up with brutal force before it woke the dead.
I've now become paranoid that something other than equipment failure is the cause, hence windows... It's stupid.
Still ok to have the window's just open on the ventilation thingummyjig, though the blind's swaying like a drunken sailor.
Energy policy has been pathetic since at least 1997.
I think it's pretty unusual to have false alarms from CO detectors, unlike smoke detectors which can go off sometimes when the toast is a bit overdone. I think you need to investigate further.
What sad, pathetic, boring, and sheltered lives these two outers have led.
The duo posed as businessmen to gain access to the conference on behalf of Students for Britain which is 'pushing for fundamental reform of Britain’s relationship with the European Union'.
Mr Lyon later told Sky News said it was 'one of the most terrifying things I've done in my life'.
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
It certainly will.
However, the Leave campaign is yet to explain in any even vaguely coherent form how leaving the EU would make the slightest difference to our position in respect of immigration.
I should have thought that it was very simple, just look at the situation pre 1973. Before joining the EU the UK had full control of its borders, who came in and who got slung out. It seemed to work reasonably well then and, I should think that it could work reasonably well again.
Just as a reminder we did in those far off days manage to trade with European countries, we also managed, if we wanted and they wanted us, to buy property and live in European countries. The additional paperwork was trivial even in non-democratic countries such as Spain and Portugal.
I rather think that the people who are having trouble explaining in any vaguely coherent form immigration policy are those that who want us to stay in.
In more important news, it'd be nice to have a day where the weather wasn't atrocious.
Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised? Fire up the coal-fired power stations, pronto!
Yes, at present Wales is presenting us with a varied diet - either pissing it down or pouring it down. The dogs are cowering every time we head for the front door.
The momentous events of the day are immaterial; bring on the climate change!
It's blowing a gale here. I can't open the windows as they're snapped back on their hinges. Don't know if you see The Times at home but Matt Ridley has a superb column on coal power, wind and HMG failure.
Following complaints made to the International rugby board about the All Blacks being allowed to motivate themselves by performing the 'Haka' before their games, other nations were asked to suggest pre-match rituals of their own.
The IRB Committee has now agreed to the following pre-match displays:
1.. The England team will chat about the weather, wave hankies in the air and attach bells to their ankles before moaning about how they invented the game and gave it to the world, and how it's not fair that everyone still thinks New Zealand are the best team in the world.
2. The Scotland team will chant "You lookin' at me Jimmy?" before smashing an Iron Bru bottle over their opponents' heads.
3.. The Ireland team will split into two, with the Southern half performing a Riverdance, while the Northerners march the Traditional route from their dressing room to the pitch, via their opponents dressing room.
4.. Argentina will unexpectedly invade a small part of opposition territory, claim it as their own "Las In-Goals-Areas" and then be forcibly removed by the match stewards.
5.. Two members of the South African team will claim to be more important than the other 13 whom they will imprison between the posts whilst they claim the rest of the pitch for themselves.
6.. The Americans will not attend until almost full time. In future years they will amend the records to show that they were in fact the most important team in the tournament and Hollywood will make a film called 'Saving No.8 Lyle'.
7.. Five of the Canadian team will sing La Marseillaise and hold the rest of the team to ransom.
8.. The Italian team will arrive in Armani gear, sexually harass the female stewards and then run away.
9.. The Spanish will sneak into the other half of the pitch, mow it and then claim that it was all in line with European "grass quotas". They will then curl up under the posts and have a kip until half time, when their appeal for compensation against the UK Government will be heard.
10.. The Japanese will attempt to strengthen their team by offering good salaries to the key opposition players and then run around the pitch at high speed in a highly efficient manner before buying the ground (with a subsidy from the UK Government).
11.. The French will declare they have new scientific evidence that the opposition are in fact all mad. They will then park lorries across the halfway line, let sheep loose in the opposition half (much to the delight of the WELSH) and burn the officials.
12.. The Australians will have a barbie before negotiating lucrative singing and TV contracts in the UK. They will then invite all their mates to come and live with them in Shepherds Bush."
13.. Unfortunately the Committee were unable to accept the Welsh suggestion following representations from the RSPCA.
I should have thought that it was very simple, just look at the situation pre 1973. Before joining the EU the UK had full control of its borders, who came in and who got slung out. It seemed to work reasonably well then and, I should think that it could work reasonably well again.
Just as a reminder we did in those far off days manage to trade with European countries, we also managed, if we wanted and they wanted us, to buy property and live in European countries.
You can't wind the clock back to 1973. The EU exists as it is now, with the Euro and all that guff.
Also, you probably have no direct experience of international trading. I do. My small company was exporting to European countries in the early 1980s. It was a nightmare, because at that point the Single Market was much less developed. The real killer was the paperwork on things like spare parts, where you didn't know in advance if the part was going to be left permanently with the customer or not be needed and so come back to the UK. And the cost, not in terms of tariffs but paying customs agents to sort out the mess, was very high.
For no obvious reason, my carbon monoxide alarm started shouting at midnight. I thought it was the smoke alarm battery going dead and farted about for an hour pressing reset and trying to prise the cover off, whilst stood on a chair.
After that seemed to work, went back to bed and all hell broke loose. It went bonkers and eventually I shut it up with brutal force before it woke the dead.
I've now become paranoid that something other than equipment failure is the cause, hence windows... It's stupid.
Still ok to have the window's just open on the ventilation thingummyjig, though the blind's swaying like a drunken sailor.
Energy policy has been pathetic since at least 1997.
Miss. P., Eliminate the obvious first. Slip out and by a new CO detector. If that goes off as well you have a real problem and should go and stay in a hotel until it is sorted. If it doesn't then the problem is solved.
For no obvious reason, my carbon monoxide alarm started shouting at midnight. I thought it was the smoke alarm battery going dead and farted about for an hour pressing reset and trying to prise the cover off, whilst stood on a chair.
After that seemed to work, went back to bed and all hell broke loose. It went bonkers and eventually I shut it up with brutal force before it woke the dead.
I've now become paranoid that something other than equipment failure is the cause, hence windows... It's stupid.
Still ok to have the window's just open on the ventilation thingummyjig, though the blind's swaying like a drunken sailor.
Energy policy has been pathetic since at least 1997.
I think it's pretty unusual to have false alarms from CO detectors, unlike smoke detectors which can go off sometimes when the toast is a bit overdone. I think you need to investigate further.
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
It certainly will.
However, the Leave campaign is yet to explain in any even vaguely coherent form how leaving the EU would make the slightest difference to our position in respect of immigration.
I should have thought that it was very simple, just look at the situation pre 1973. Before joining the EU the UK had full control of its borders, who came in and who got slung out. It seemed to work reasonably well then and, I should think that it could work reasonably well again.
Just as a reminder we did in those far off days manage to trade with European countries, we also managed, if we wanted and they wanted us, to buy property and live in European countries. The additional paperwork was trivial even in non-democratic countries such as Spain and Portugal.
I rather think that the people who are having trouble explaining in any vaguely coherent form immigration policy are those that who want us to stay in.
That's because the policies for the EU (and the EEA) have changed since 1973.
For no obvious reason, my carbon monoxide alarm started shouting at midnight. I thought it was the smoke alarm battery going dead and farted about for an hour pressing reset and trying to prise the cover off, whilst stood on a chair.
After that seemed to work, went back to bed and all hell broke loose. It went bonkers and eventually I shut it up with brutal force before it woke the dead.
I've now become paranoid that something other than equipment failure is the cause, hence windows... It's stupid.
Still ok to have the window's just open on the ventilation thingummyjig, though the blind's swaying like a drunken sailor.
Energy policy has been pathetic since at least 1997.
I would not say this lightly. Please leave the house immediately and get your carbon monoxide levels checked. If you have CO poisoning your logical thinking can be eroded, and you are risking your life.
Even in the EEA the UK could apply an emergeny brake and limit welfare benefits to residents of many years standing only, and restrict freedom of movement to workers only..
I don't want to go through all that again, but that's simply not true. It's the identical directive which applies both to the EEA and the EU.
I've asked an academic to write a piece on what EEA membership means for the UK.
That thread will be like the AV debates on steroids.
It will read like the transcription of an Extreme Noise Terror single, but about 500 times as long.
The thought is filling me to the brim with girlish glee.
I should have thought that it was very simple, just look at the situation pre 1973. Before joining the EU the UK had full control of its borders, who came in and who got slung out. It seemed to work reasonably well then and, I should think that it could work reasonably well again.
Just as a reminder we did in those far off days manage to trade with European countries, we also managed, if we wanted and they wanted us, to buy property and live in European countries.
You can't wind the clock back to 1973. The EU exists as it is now, with the Euro and all that guff.
Also, you probably have no direct experience of international trading. I do. My small company was exporting to European countries in the early 1980s. It was a nightmare, because at that point the Single Market was much less developed. The real killer was the paperwork on things like spare parts, where you didn't know in advance if the part was going to be left permanently with the customer or not be needed and so come back to the UK. And the cost, not in terms of tariffs but paying customs agents to sort out the mess, was very high.
If companies cannot export unless they are a member of a single market with their customers how on earth do UK companies managed to sell into the USA, China, Brazil, Australia, South Korea etc. etc.?
You asked a question about immigration when someone gives you an answer you respond by telling us about your experience with a different issue.
Anyway, if you will excuse me, Herself has gone out and I have a new book about the Black Death. The fourteenth century is calling.
Even in the EEA the UK could apply an emergeny brake and limit welfare benefits to residents of many years standing only, and restrict freedom of movement to workers only..
I don't want to go through all that again, but that's simply not true. It's the identical directive which applies both to the EEA and the EU.
I'm sorry, it is true - I wish you would stop accusing others of untruths when that is not the case. See p.57 here:
@Plato_Says If you order a CO alarm from Safelincs at the moment, it will take an age to arrive. Been waiting over 3 weeks for mine. I'm not panicking as I have a blue flame in the boiler and all, but the new landlord regs mean that they've sold all their stock. Mine should arrive shortly.
Amazon seem to have them in stock - this model features a CO level reading.
Even in the EEA the UK could apply an emergeny brake and limit welfare benefits to residents of many years standing only, and restrict freedom of movement to workers only..
I don't want to go through all that again, but that's simply not true. It's the identical directive which applies both to the EEA and the EU.
I've asked an academic to write a piece on what EEA membership means for the UK.
That thread will be like the AV debates on steroids.
It will read like the transcription of an Extreme Noise Terror single, but about 500 times as long.
What sad, pathetic, boring, and sheltered lives these two outers have led.
The duo posed as businessmen to gain access to the conference on behalf of Students for Britain which is 'pushing for fundamental reform of Britain’s relationship with the European Union'.
Mr Lyon later told Sky News said it was 'one of the most terrifying things I've done in my life'.
Even in the EEA the UK could apply an emergeny brake and limit welfare benefits to residents of many years standing only, and restrict freedom of movement to workers only..
I don't want to go through all that again, but that's simply not true. It's the identical directive which applies both to the EEA and the EU.
I've asked an academic to write a piece on what EEA membership means for the UK.
That thread will be like the AV debates on steroids.
It will read like the transcription of an Extreme Noise Terror single, but about 500 times as long.
The thought is filling me to the brim with girlish glee.
Andy Cooke, gent of this parish, once demonstrated how quoting Gilbert & Sullivan in a post is a sure sign of a mind in turmoil.
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...
Ah! The stench of the Rotten Boroughs, the corruption of the justice system, the money made by government officials doing favours for their friends. Yes, let's go back to the good old days and have a nice war with those Frenchies, Spaniards, Germans, Dutch, Danes, Russians and anyone else we fancy we could beat by sending in the Royal Navy.
Er! On second thoughts, what navy? Anyone seen ours recently?
Your argument for Remain seems to be, in essence, Britain is f*cked whichever way it votes, so we might as well stick with the status quo.
Pat McFadden put it very well:
A referendum is a choice between two futures, not an opinion poll on one. “Brexit” campaigners might try to run away from every version of Out, claiming they have never advocated the Norwegian model or the Swiss model, or any model. But they cannot run from them all. And the more the options for leaving are examined, the less attractive they become.
Now, maybe there is a coherent alternative future. I'm still waiting for someone to argue for it. The Leave side have wasted the last three years trying to sabotage the referendum, rather than address the points which the Remain side make.
Your argument for Remain seems to be, in essence, Britain is f*cked whichever way it votes, so we might as well stick with the status quo.
No, not at all. Membership of the EU has advantages and disadvantages. Cameron is attempting, admittedly from a very weak negotiating position bequeathed to him by previous governments, to ameliorate the disdvantages whilst retaining the advantages. Alternatively, we can leave, but it we do so we need to be crystal-clear and realistic about exactly what disadvantages we are trying to address and how we can minimise the disruption and any economic cost in doing so.
Pat McFadden put it very well:
A referendum is a choice between two futures, not an opinion poll on one. “Brexit” campaigners might try to run away from every version of Out, claiming they have never advocated the Norwegian model or the Swiss model, or any model. But they cannot run from them all. And the more the options for leaving are examined, the less attractive they become.
Now, maybe there is a coherent alternative future. I'm still waiting for someone to argue for it. The Leave side have wasted the last three years trying to sabotage the referendum, rather than address the points which the Remain side make.
To me, the choice between the two futures is fairly straightforward.
It's a choice between being self-governing, or not being self-governing.
If the former means that GDP per head is 1% lower than the latter, it's a very small price to pay.
Even in the EEA the UK could apply an emergeny brake and limit welfare benefits to residents of many years standing only, and restrict freedom of movement to workers only..
I don't want to go through all that again, but that's simply not true. It's the identical directive which applies both to the EEA and the EU.
I've asked an academic to write a piece on what EEA membership means for the UK.
That thread will be like the AV debates on steroids.
It will read like the transcription of an Extreme Noise Terror single, but about 500 times as long.
The thought is filling me to the brim with girlish glee.
Andy Cooke, gent of this parish, once demonstrated how quoting Gilbert & Sullivan in a post is a sure sign of a mind in turmoil.
Right now I really am off.
Sir, I demand satisfaction for that outrageous slur.
Quoting Gilbert and Sullivan is a sign of an erudite and cultured mind.
CO poisoning is extremely dangerous. The first symptoms are often a slight headache, at concentrations around 15% COHb. As poisoning progresses, your headache gets worse and you begin to feel sick, dizzy and drowsy – a bit like flu, which makes it difficult to diagnose. If poisoning continues undetected, the results of even relatively low exposures over time can be permanent lung damage, heart damage, brain damage or death. Most victims die in their sleep from a strong leak – some in just minutes. The family pets tend to die first, then babies, small children or the elderly. Healthy adults tend to take longer to die, but they will be killed just the same.
Depending on the concentration of carbon monoxide, you can die in minutes, or in hours, or over several days. With low concentrations, there is a common effect where people's sense or urgency is deeply dulled, and they have next to no reaction to reading about severe warnings. 24 hours outside the house means the poisoning wears off and they suddenly realise how much danger they were in.
Your sense of logic can often be eroded: I read about one person who thought his landlord was leaving him nonsensical notes, but he was actually writing them himself and then passing out. He set up a webcam to catch the landlord doing it, but all he did was put an unplugged webcam on a shelf, and create an empty folder on his computer called "webcam". He then thought his landlord was deleting his recordings from the folder. Eventually, he was persuaded to get a proper detector, and found he had a reading that showed he was in extreme danger. He reacted very calmly and finished off other things in the flat before leaving. It turned out he was very close to death by the time he went to a hospital.
Please, please, leave the house immediately and go to a friend or family member. Get someone else to come back and check the levels with another alarm.
It's a theoretical difference, not a practical one - as your own link says:
The EEA Agreement does therefore include an emergency brake as a ‘nuclear option’, which could be used to bring the EU to the negotiating table rather than as an indefinite policy tool. The outcome of any such negotiations would ultimately be determined politically. Norway has never used the safeguard measures for this purpose
(The Liechtenstein example which follows predates the current EU directive, and in any case was a temporary thing).
In practical terms, leaving the EU and joining the EEA would make no discernible difference as regards immigration. Exactly the same directive applies. Anyone thinking of voting Leave on the basis that it woud make a difference to immigration even if we joined the EEA is kidding himself.
Also you said that under EEA rules we could restrict freedom of movement to workers only. Wrong. Directive 2004/38/EC applies identically.
If companies cannot export unless they are a member of a single market with their customers how on earth do UK companies managed to sell into the USA, China, Brazil, Australia, South Korea etc. etc.?
With more difficulty, expense and paperwork than when they sell to Germany or France.
@Plato_Says If you order a CO alarm from Safelincs at the moment, it will take an age to arrive. Been waiting over 3 weeks for mine. I'm not panicking as I have a blue flame in the boiler and all, but the new landlord regs mean that they've sold all their stock. Mine should arrive shortly.
Amazon seem to have them in stock - this model features a CO level reading.
What I don't understand is that 95% of people in the UK don't have any idea of what 95% of the EU does or is.
That means we are going to be swayed by soundbites and scare stories.
Lines of migrants marching straight to South Thanet on the one hand, or forecasts of doom if we leave on the other.
I am a soft-INer, despite the horlicks of the handling of the migrant crisis, but even for moi, it probably won't take many headlines along the lines of "EU tells UK no it can't....." to think sod it and sod them.
But if we are members and the EU says "no you can't do that" I can't imagine that if we are not members, then the EU will say "ok you can do that now" if it pertains to UK-EU dealings.
That comes back to @Richard_Nabavi's point about articulating what egregious injustice or imposition we will specifically be able to address if we leave.
If companies cannot export unless they are a member of a single market with their customers how on earth do UK companies managed to sell into the USA, China, Brazil, Australia, South Korea etc. etc.?
With more difficulty, expense and paperwork than when they sell to Germany or France.
This really isn't hard.
Not that much more paperwork or difficulty. Tariffs are probably the biggest complaint, but even then as the fifth largest economy I don't foresee many countries putting up barriers to trade with the UK if we left.
As Sean_F points out, if the cost of leaving the EU is 1-2% knocked of GDP then that is a price well worth paying for the return of our sovereignty. It would still leave us as the fifth largest economy and once it all shakes out. We trade with enough nations around the world without having free trade agreements and we do it just fine, not having one with the EU wouldn't be the end of the world, if anything given that we buy more from them than they do from us it may rebalance our economy towards domestic production rather than imports from Germany.
If companies cannot export unless they are a member of a single market with their customers how on earth do UK companies managed to sell into the USA, China, Brazil, Australia, South Korea etc. etc.?
With more difficulty, expense and paperwork than when they sell to Germany or France.
This really isn't hard.
Not that much more paperwork or difficulty. Tariffs are probably the biggest complaint, but even then as the fifth largest economy I don't foresee many countries putting up barriers to trade with the UK if we left.
As Sean_F points out, if the cost of leaving the EU is 1-2% knocked of GDP then that is a price well worth paying for the return of our sovereignty. It would still leave us as the fifth largest economy and once it all shakes out. We trade with enough nations around the world without having free trade agreements and we do it just fine, not having one with the EU wouldn't be the end of the world, if anything given that we buy more from them than they do from us it may rebalance our economy towards domestic production rather than imports from Germany.
Max what can we not do domestically now that if we left the EU we would be able to do? Can be anything I would just like to anchor myself in an actual example of the EU interfering with an intra-UK issue.
As Sean_F points out, if the cost of leaving the EU is 1-2% knocked of GDP then that is a price well worth paying for the return of our sovereignty.
OK, if that is what the Leave side argue, let them argue it. They would have to accept that that means accepting a large number of job losses, obviously. They'd also need to spell out exactly what they mean by 'return of our sovereignty'. Sovereignty in what areas, exactly? Presumably not product type approvals, for example, but what else?
My gripe is not that I disagree with the Leave side's arguments, it's that they are not even getting to first base and telling me what they are advocating. That's why we keep going round in circles with people still mentioning the EEA option, which seems to me unambiguously the worst of all worlds.
What I don't understand is that 95% of people in the UK don't have any idea of what 95% of the EU does or is.
That means we are going to be swayed by soundbites and scare stories.
Lines of migrants marching straight to South Thanet on the one hand, or forecasts of doom if we leave on the other.
I am a soft-INer, despite the horlicks of the handling of the migrant crisis, but even for moi, it probably won't take many headlines along the lines of "EU tells UK no it can't....." to think sod it and sod them.
But if we are members and the EU says "no you can't do that" I can't imagine that if we are not members, then the EU will say "ok you can do that now" if it pertains to UK-EU dealings.
That comes back to @Richard_Nabavi's point about articulating what egregious injustice or imposition we will specifically be able to address if we leave.
The difference is that if we aren't in the EU we're not paying £8bn per year to be told to sod off. Their attitude towards us isn't going to change whether we vote in or out, they will still want to dismantle the City and impose unworkable immigration rules on us, the difference will be whether or not we pay for the privilege. Leaving also gives us the power to tell them to sod off from time to time.
What I don't understand is that 95% of people in the UK don't have any idea of what 95% of the EU does or is.
That means we are going to be swayed by soundbites and scare stories.
Lines of migrants marching straight to South Thanet on the one hand, or forecasts of doom if we leave on the other.
I am a soft-INer, despite the horlicks of the handling of the migrant crisis, but even for moi, it probably won't take many headlines along the lines of "EU tells UK no it can't....." to think sod it and sod them.
But if we are members and the EU says "no you can't do that" I can't imagine that if we are not members, then the EU will say "ok you can do that now" if it pertains to UK-EU dealings.
That comes back to @Richard_Nabavi's point about articulating what egregious injustice or imposition we will specifically be able to address if we leave.
The difference is that if we aren't in the EU we're not paying £8bn per year to be told to sod off. Their attitude towards us isn't going to change whether we vote in or out, they will still want to dismantle the City and impose unworkable immigration rules on us, the difference will be whether or not we pay for the privilege. Leaving also gives us the power to tell them to sod off from time to time.
The people we vote for to represent us wont be able to fail to do what they said they would and blame the failure on a distant foreign organisation
As for the GDP argument, that's just a way of saying you're happy for the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor
As Sean_F points out, if the cost of leaving the EU is 1-2% knocked of GDP then that is a price well worth paying for the return of our sovereignty.
OK, if that is what the Leave side argue, let them argue it. They would have to accept that that means accepting a large number of job losses, obviously. They'd also need to spell out exactly what they mean by 'return of our sovereignty'. Sovereignty in what areas, exactly? Presumably not product type approvals, for example, but what else?
My gripe is not that I disagree with the Leave side's arguments, it's that they are not even getting to first base and telling me what they are advocating. That's why we keep going round in circles with people still mentioning the EEA option, which seems to me unambiguously the worst of all worlds.
Only because you have not bothered to actually find out what it means and apparently still believe the myths being propagated by people like Flightpath and DavidL.
What I don't understand is that 95% of people in the UK don't have any idea of what 95% of the EU does or is.
That means we are going to be swayed by soundbites and scare stories.
Lines of migrants marching straight to South Thanet on the one hand, or forecasts of doom if we leave on the other.
I am a soft-INer, despite the horlicks of the handling of the migrant crisis, but even for moi, it probably won't take many headlines along the lines of "EU tells UK no it can't....." to think sod it and sod them.
But if we are members and the EU says "no you can't do that" I can't imagine that if we are not members, then the EU will say "ok you can do that now" if it pertains to UK-EU dealings.
That comes back to @Richard_Nabavi's point about articulating what egregious injustice or imposition we will specifically be able to address if we leave.
The difference is that if we aren't in the EU we're not paying £8bn per year to be told to sod off. Their attitude towards us isn't going to change whether we vote in or out, they will still want to dismantle the City and impose unworkable immigration rules on us, the difference will be whether or not we pay for the privilege. Leaving also gives us the power to tell them to sod off from time to time.
As Sean_F points out, if the cost of leaving the EU is 1-2% knocked of GDP then that is a price well worth paying for the return of our sovereignty.
OK, if that is what the Leave side argue, let them argue it. They would have to accept that that means accepting a large number of job losses, obviously. They'd also need to spell out exactly what they mean by 'return of our sovereignty'. Sovereignty in what areas, exactly? Presumably not product type approvals, for example, but what else?
My gripe is not that I disagree with the Leave side's arguments, it's that they are not even getting to first base and telling me what they are advocating. That's why we keep going round in circles with people still mentioning the EEA option, which seems to me unambiguously the worst of all worlds.
I personally wouldn't advocate joining the EEA, it just seems like paying for nothing. Better to do a bilateral trade deal, it won't be as good as what we have now, but given what we have now is quite poor the difference would be negligible.
Return of sovereignty is return of border controls and return of our foreign policy (see the Russia sanctions farce with Germany not willing to push for harsher sanctions because it would hurt their industries). Beyond that we would save £8bn per year even if we decided to maintain all of the current levels of funding that the EU spends in the UK (development funding mostly in Wales and agricultural subsidies). If we replaced the EU programmes with more efficient ones then we could get savings beyond the £8bn per year.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 12m12 minutes ago No 10 backs Chief of Defence Staff in Corbyn row: "It's reasonable for him to talk about how we maintain the credibility (of Trident)."
If companies cannot export unless they are a member of a single market with their customers how on earth do UK companies managed to sell into the USA, China, Brazil, Australia, South Korea etc. etc.?
With more difficulty, expense and paperwork than when they sell to Germany or France.
This really isn't hard.
Not that much more paperwork or difficulty. Tariffs are probably the biggest complaint, but even then as the fifth largest economy I don't foresee many countries putting up barriers to trade with the UK if we left.
As Sean_F points out, if the cost of leaving the EU is 1-2% knocked of GDP then that is a price well worth paying for the return of our sovereignty. It would still leave us as the fifth largest economy and once it all shakes out. We trade with enough nations around the world without having free trade agreements and we do it just fine, not having one with the EU wouldn't be the end of the world, if anything given that we buy more from them than they do from us it may rebalance our economy towards domestic production rather than imports from Germany.
Max what can we not do domestically now that if we left the EU we would be able to do? Can be anything I would just like to anchor myself in an actual example of the EU interfering with an intra-UK issue.
For one we would be able to broker our own free trade deals, two we would have our own foreign policy, though I expect we would still consult with the French and Nato on military incursions, and thirdly we could reclaim our place in the WTO, who are a better arbiter of unfair or illegal trade barriers than the ECJ are for Britain wrt to EU/UK trade.
Richard, if the single market has been as transformative as you imply, why have UK exports to the EU not grown much faster?
Since 1998, goods export volumes to non-EU countries have grown at around triple the rate of export volumes to EU countries. Export volumes since Q1 1998 to the EU have risen only 23% (in 17 years!) while those to non-EU destinations are up 87% in the same period.
Export volumes to the EU have not grown any faster than the EU's anaemic GDP growth rate since 1998. Where is the evidence of significant trade integration from the single market?
Since 1991-2, just before the inception of the single market the share of the EU-28 in UK goods exports has gone down from 61% to 51%. In the bad old 1980s you refer to, the share rose from around 50% in 1981-2 to 55% in 1989.
As someone with no ideological position on the EU, but has decided on Leave after Merkel, I think Remain are doing a crap job on PB.
The arguments are usually insulting, patronising or arguing widget fear. I'm not seeing anything positive, even from our smartest contributors. Maybe Remain can rely on inertia or fear of worse, but I expect more from PB frankly.
On topic, I can't see it anywhere mentioned earlier in the thread but in the BBC Breakfast newspaper review at around 7.20 this morning they specifically mentioned that they had been contacted by Downing Street who denied the story about June 2016 completely.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 12m12 minutes ago No 10 backs Chief of Defence Staff in Corbyn row: "It's reasonable for him to talk about how we maintain the credibility (of Trident)."
Oh, if rcs1000 is around, I remember we had a discussion previously about import and export figures after stripping out imports and exports that just transit through other countries or use the UK as a transit zone. My intern worked out that stripping out the majority of these effects shows that we export around 29-35% of our goods to the EU as the final destination. The official "exports to EU" are about 40% currently, so there is a fairly large amount of goods that just transit through the EU and then onwards to Africa and Asia either by land, rail or sea.
I have to say ultimately I view the decision that needs to be made in a similar way to Sean Fear. If Britain decides to leave the EU I'm sure we'll come up with some working arrangement or other with the rest of the EU. It may not be the economically optimal route but that's less important to me than getting the route that's most consistent with the best way forward for Britain's identity.
Where I part from Sean Fear is that he assumes that a Britain outside the EU would be a better Britain than a Britain in the EU. That is far from obvious to me at present and I am waiting to hear the competing visions of how Britain would progress either inside the EU or outside it. I expect that I shall be waiting a very long time indeed.
In practical terms, leaving the EU and joining the EEA would make no discernible difference as regards immigration. Exactly the same directive applies. Anyone thinking of voting Leave on the basis that it woud make a difference to immigration even if we joined the EEA is kidding himself.
Also you said that under EEA rules we could restrict freedom of movement to workers only. Wrong. Directive 2004/38/EC applies identically.
But what happens despite all this is the political imperative in the UK becomes to do something serious about immigration (and by implication lose the election if you don't). Its not hard to see a spate of terrorist violence in the UK which is traced to illegal immigrants, or worse immigrants moving here after gaining their residency in other EU countries.
Any thoughts on what the newspapers will recommend?
I'd say the Guardian, Indy and Mirror will definitely be IN, the Sun and Express definitely OUT, interesting see what the Mail and Telegraph tell readers to do.
Any thoughts on what the newspapers will recommend?
I'd say the Guardian, Indy and Mirror will definitely be IN, the Sun and Express definitely OUT, interesting see what the Mail and Telegraph tell readers to do.
Telegraph and Mail will be Out. The Times will be In, but mostly "a plague on both your houses".
@runnymede - Fair points, although you do also need to include services to get the whole picture (imperfect though the Single Market for services still is).
It's a difficult analysis to make, however - increasing exports to non-EU countries could arise precisely because there has also been a reduction in the barriers to trade (which previously were higher than intra-Europe) with non-EU countries as a result of WTO agreements, plus of course the larger share of world prosperity in emerging and newly-developed markets.
I'm certainly open to persuasion that we could leave the EU, negotiate a trade deal with them, and not suffer much or possibly any significant economic harm in the medium to long term. I can't see how there wouldn't be a short-term hit, because of the period of uncertainty over two or more years, and that needs to be included in any realistic assessment.
As I said, I'm still waiting to hear a coherent and realistic proposal.
Oh, if rcs1000 is around, I remember we had a discussion previously about import and export figures after stripping out imports and exports that just transit through other countries or use the UK as a transit zone. My intern worked out that stripping out the majority of these effects shows that we export around 29-35% of our goods to the EU as the final destination. The official "exports to EU" are about 40% currently, so there is a fairly large amount of goods that just transit through the EU and then onwards to Africa and Asia either by land, rail or sea.
That matches the latest figures I saw a couple of weeks ago which quoted 33%. I must admit I didn't chase it up because I thought it sounded too low compared to previous estimates.
Comments
However, the Leave campaign is yet to explain in any even vaguely coherent form how leaving the EU would make the slightest difference to our position in respect of immigration.
The usual subjects would have been up in arms is he had a private driver. "Who does he think he is, the #&%king President" etc etc.
Is he a footballer ?
I would have expected both stunts from Leave.eu, but disappointed by Vote Leave.
I still hope Cameron will gain some good concessions from the Eurocrats to make the referendum a meaningful choice for the floating voters.
Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised? Fire up the coal-fired power stations, pronto!
The duo posed as businessmen to gain access to the conference on behalf of Students for Britain which is 'pushing for fundamental reform of Britain’s relationship with the European Union'.
Mr Lyon later told Sky News said it was 'one of the most terrifying things I've done in my life'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3309679/Our-security-line-leave-EU-warns-Cameron-PM-say-exit-gamble-UK-s-future.html
For me, the EU debate comes down to whether you think it's worth it for the UK to remain to exert internal influence and steer over the future of the single market, putting up with all the political and economic constraints that go with it.
Personally, that equation tipped for me about 10 years ago and, given the economic benefits of membership are very finely balanced, pushes me decisively towards Leave.
But I appreciate others may have a different view.
oh pull the other one Richard
Steel company boss found dead
Caparo boss Angad Paul killed after plunging from penthouse flat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34765572
For example Miami in 1995 was nearly $200 a day and the marker hotel was the Sheraton on Brickell Avenue. However, the Sheraton, like many US hotels, had a "government rate" which we Brits had blagged our way onto. A luxury room cost $75 plus $10 for a magnificent all you could eat breakfast buffet. Allowing for cost of laundry and a daily phone call home, even I couldn't eat and drink my way through $100 a day, especially as business expenses such as taxi fares and official entertaining were chargeable, with receipts and explanation, on top. For some places the daily rate was not as generous and prices were higher (e.g. some the Caribbean Islands) but on every trip I always returned home with a wodge of travellers' cheques, sometimes amounting to several hundred dollars, which I gave to my wife as a present.
As for standard class being good enough, well I suppose sometimes it can be, but when travelling on business I refused to use it for any journey lasting more than about an hour. I took the view that my employer wanted me to go to these places and therefore they could stand the cost of me being as reasonably comfortable in the process as if I was at home. If I was having my body clocked scrambled for their sake I was not going to do it crammed into a seat too small for me.
Pat McFadden put it very well:
A referendum is a choice between two futures, not an opinion poll on one. “Brexit” campaigners might try to run away from every version of Out, claiming they have never advocated the Norwegian model or the Swiss model, or any model. But they cannot run from them all. And the more the options for leaving are examined, the less attractive they become.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/04/brexit-norwegian-swiss-model-uk-sovereignty
Now, maybe there is a coherent alternative future. I'm still waiting for someone to argue for it. The Leave side have wasted the last three years trying to sabotage the referendum, rather than address the points which the Remain side make.
Still ok to have the window's just open on the ventilation thingummyjig, though the blind's swaying like a drunken sailor.
Energy policy has been pathetic since at least 1997.
In EFTA, or via a bespoke bilateral deal, we could potentially negotiate the 75k annual cap that David Goodhart has argued for, although this may affect a trade off with the level of single market access.
I've considered Cameron to be duplicitous for years, his stance at the moment confirms my view.
That thread will be like the AV debates on steroids.
After that seemed to work, went back to bed and all hell broke loose. It went bonkers and eventually I shut it up with brutal force before it woke the dead.
I've now become paranoid that something other than equipment failure is the cause, hence windows... It's stupid.
Just as a reminder we did in those far off days manage to trade with European countries, we also managed, if we wanted and they wanted us, to buy property and live in European countries. The additional paperwork was trivial even in non-democratic countries such as Spain and Portugal.
I rather think that the people who are having trouble explaining in any vaguely coherent form immigration policy are those that who want us to stay in.
@Telegraph: Labour MP uses Commons notepaper to criticise shop for failing to reserve Star Wars shoes https://t.co/TVQnOMQmRH https://t.co/RSIF3kWRbe
The momentous events of the day are immaterial; bring on the climate change!
The one with a coal mine on his estate?
https://twitter.com/SimonMiller316/status/657494320367476736
Incidentally, Wrath of Khan (the original) was on the other day. Bloody good film.
The IRB Committee has now agreed to the following pre-match displays:
1.. The England team will chat about the weather, wave hankies in the air and attach bells to their ankles before moaning about how they invented the game and gave it to the world, and how it's not fair that everyone still thinks New Zealand are the best team in the world.
2. The Scotland team will chant "You lookin' at me Jimmy?" before smashing an Iron Bru bottle over their opponents' heads.
3.. The Ireland team will split into two, with the Southern half performing a Riverdance, while the Northerners march the Traditional route from their dressing room to the pitch, via their opponents dressing room.
4.. Argentina will unexpectedly invade a small part of opposition territory, claim it as their own "Las In-Goals-Areas" and then be forcibly removed by the match stewards.
5.. Two members of the South African team will claim to be more important than the other 13 whom they will imprison between the posts whilst they claim the rest of the pitch for themselves.
6.. The Americans will not attend until almost full time. In future years they will amend the records to show that they were in fact the most important team in the tournament and Hollywood will make a film called 'Saving No.8 Lyle'.
7.. Five of the Canadian team will sing La Marseillaise and hold the rest of the team to ransom.
8.. The Italian team will arrive in Armani gear, sexually harass the female stewards and then run away.
9.. The Spanish will sneak into the other half of the pitch, mow it and then claim that it was all in line with European "grass quotas". They will then curl up under the posts and have a kip until half time, when their appeal for compensation against the UK Government will be heard.
10.. The Japanese will attempt to strengthen their team by offering good salaries to the key opposition players and then run around the pitch at high speed in a highly efficient manner before buying the ground (with a subsidy from the UK Government).
11.. The French will declare they have new scientific evidence that the opposition are in fact all mad. They will then park lorries across the halfway line, let sheep loose in the opposition half (much to the delight of the WELSH) and burn the officials.
12.. The Australians will have a barbie before negotiating lucrative singing and TV contracts in the UK. They will then invite all their mates to come and live with them in Shepherds Bush."
13.. Unfortunately the Committee were unable to accept the Welsh suggestion following representations from the RSPCA.
Also, you probably have no direct experience of international trading. I do. My small company was exporting to European countries in the early 1980s. It was a nightmare, because at that point the Single Market was much less developed. The real killer was the paperwork on things like spare parts, where you didn't know in advance if the part was going to be left permanently with the customer or not be needed and so come back to the UK. And the cost, not in terms of tariffs but paying customs agents to sort out the mess, was very high.
Buying a new one.
I also want this on a t shirt
http://www.zenzoneforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18906&d=1348235168
The Wrath of Khan is the finest film ever.
I was so proud when I got in a very very subtle reference to the Wrath of Khan in to a recent PB thread.
Better safe than sorry, though.
You asked a question about immigration when someone gives you an answer you respond by telling us about your experience with a different issue.
Anyway, if you will excuse me, Herself has gone out and I have a new book about the Black Death. The fourteenth century is calling.
Play nicely, all.
http://2ihmoy1d3v7630ar9h2rsglp.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/150507-Open-Europe-What-If-Report-Final-Digital-Copy.pdf
Amazon seem to have them in stock - this model features a CO level reading.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fireangel-CO-9D-Digital-Sealed-Monoxide/dp/B00441S9GS
I think in the short term (Or not using yr boiler) leaving your property might be wise as others have suggested.
Cameron styled it out pretty well I thought
Right now I really am off.
Er! On second thoughts, what navy? Anyone seen ours recently?
It's a choice between being self-governing, or not being self-governing.
If the former means that GDP per head is 1% lower than the latter, it's a very small price to pay.
Quoting Gilbert and Sullivan is a sign of an erudite and cultured mind.
CO poisoning is extremely dangerous. The first symptoms are often a slight headache, at concentrations around 15% COHb. As poisoning progresses, your headache gets worse and you begin to feel sick, dizzy and drowsy – a bit like flu, which makes it difficult to diagnose. If poisoning continues undetected, the results of even relatively low exposures over time can be permanent lung damage, heart damage, brain damage or death. Most victims die in their sleep from a strong leak – some in just minutes. The family pets tend to die first, then babies, small children or the elderly. Healthy adults tend to take longer to die, but they will be killed just the same.
Depending on the concentration of carbon monoxide, you can die in minutes, or in hours, or over several days. With low concentrations, there is a common effect where people's sense or urgency is deeply dulled, and they have next to no reaction to reading about severe warnings. 24 hours outside the house means the poisoning wears off and they suddenly realise how much danger they were in.
Your sense of logic can often be eroded: I read about one person who thought his landlord was leaving him nonsensical notes, but he was actually writing them himself and then passing out. He set up a webcam to catch the landlord doing it, but all he did was put an unplugged webcam on a shelf, and create an empty folder on his computer called "webcam". He then thought his landlord was deleting his recordings from the folder. Eventually, he was persuaded to get a proper detector, and found he had a reading that showed he was in extreme danger. He reacted very calmly and finished off other things in the flat before leaving. It turned out he was very close to death by the time he went to a hospital.
Please, please, leave the house immediately and go to a friend or family member. Get someone else to come back and check the levels with another alarm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKXtv2_IaCY
The EEA Agreement does therefore include an emergency brake as a ‘nuclear option’,
which could be used to bring the EU to the negotiating table rather than as an indefinite
policy tool. The outcome of any such negotiations would ultimately be determined
politically. Norway has never used the safeguard measures for this purpose
(The Liechtenstein example which follows predates the current EU directive, and in any case was a temporary thing).
In practical terms, leaving the EU and joining the EEA would make no discernible difference as regards immigration. Exactly the same directive applies. Anyone thinking of voting Leave on the basis that it woud make a difference to immigration even if we joined the EEA is kidding himself.
Also you said that under EEA rules we could restrict freedom of movement to workers only. Wrong. Directive 2004/38/EC applies identically.
This really isn't hard.
That means we are going to be swayed by soundbites and scare stories.
Lines of migrants marching straight to South Thanet on the one hand, or forecasts of doom if we leave on the other.
I am a soft-INer, despite the horlicks of the handling of the migrant crisis, but even for moi, it probably won't take many headlines along the lines of "EU tells UK no it can't....." to think sod it and sod them.
But if we are members and the EU says "no you can't do that" I can't imagine that if we are not members, then the EU will say "ok you can do that now" if it pertains to UK-EU dealings.
That comes back to @Richard_Nabavi's point about articulating what egregious injustice or imposition we will specifically be able to address if we leave.
UKIP are 8/1 to win next month's Oldham West & Royton by-election.
http://ow.ly/UpCqf
As Sean_F points out, if the cost of leaving the EU is 1-2% knocked of GDP then that is a price well worth paying for the return of our sovereignty. It would still leave us as the fifth largest economy and once it all shakes out. We trade with enough nations around the world without having free trade agreements and we do it just fine, not having one with the EU wouldn't be the end of the world, if anything given that we buy more from them than they do from us it may rebalance our economy towards domestic production rather than imports from Germany.
My gripe is not that I disagree with the Leave side's arguments, it's that they are not even getting to first base and telling me what they are advocating. That's why we keep going round in circles with people still mentioning the EEA option, which seems to me unambiguously the worst of all worlds.
As for the GDP argument, that's just a way of saying you're happy for the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor
Return of sovereignty is return of border controls and return of our foreign policy (see the Russia sanctions farce with Germany not willing to push for harsher sanctions because it would hurt their industries). Beyond that we would save £8bn per year even if we decided to maintain all of the current levels of funding that the EU spends in the UK (development funding mostly in Wales and agricultural subsidies). If we replaced the EU programmes with more efficient ones then we could get savings beyond the £8bn per year.
No 10 backs Chief of Defence Staff in Corbyn row: "It's reasonable for him to talk about how we maintain the credibility (of Trident)."
Since 1998, goods export volumes to non-EU countries have grown at around triple the rate of export volumes to EU countries. Export volumes since Q1 1998 to the EU have risen only 23% (in 17 years!) while those to non-EU destinations are up 87% in the same period.
Export volumes to the EU have not grown any faster than the EU's anaemic GDP growth rate since 1998. Where is the evidence of significant trade integration from the single market?
Since 1991-2, just before the inception of the single market the share of the EU-28 in UK goods exports has gone down from 61% to 51%. In the bad old 1980s you refer to, the share rose from around 50% in 1981-2 to 55% in 1989.
The arguments are usually insulting, patronising or arguing widget fear. I'm not seeing anything positive, even from our smartest contributors. Maybe Remain can rely on inertia or fear of worse, but I expect more from PB frankly.
Where I part from Sean Fear is that he assumes that a Britain outside the EU would be a better Britain than a Britain in the EU. That is far from obvious to me at present and I am waiting to hear the competing visions of how Britain would progress either inside the EU or outside it. I expect that I shall be waiting a very long time indeed.
I'd say the Guardian, Indy and Mirror will definitely be IN, the Sun and Express definitely OUT, interesting see what the Mail and Telegraph tell readers to do.
Eurosceptic bet of the day: Exit Europe is 11/2 to win the 5.40 Kempton.
It's a difficult analysis to make, however - increasing exports to non-EU countries could arise precisely because there has also been a reduction in the barriers to trade (which previously were higher than intra-Europe) with non-EU countries as a result of WTO agreements, plus of course the larger share of world prosperity in emerging and newly-developed markets.
I'm certainly open to persuasion that we could leave the EU, negotiate a trade deal with them, and not suffer much or possibly any significant economic harm in the medium to long term. I can't see how there wouldn't be a short-term hit, because of the period of uncertainty over two or more years, and that needs to be included in any realistic assessment.
As I said, I'm still waiting to hear a coherent and realistic proposal.