For normal books I'm not particularly price-sensitive. I buy off Amazon if I know exactly what I'm looking for and don't need to go to a bookshop. More often, I buy in a bookshop where I've stumbled across something interesting to read and want it on the spot.
When I buy much more expensive books I tend to buy off Amazon because the savings are worth it.
This article from the BBC is so biased. It just repeats the line of the notorious IHRC, repeating an entire story from one of their supporters in depth, and with no counter point of view.
The BBC's partiality is poisonous to British public debate.
It was a mistake to let all those Arab and Asian Muslims into the UK, eh, JEO?
No, I don't think that. I just think that if there is an allegation that the government is hurting a particular group of people, there should be the counter argument. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
I can't comment on that because I can't understand it. These comments threads are full of instances of allegations of one sort or another: sometimes there are attempts to rebut them, sometimes there aren't. So?
By the way, I would like to see many apologies today from people who said that Cameron's negotiation was all stage managed.
It's hard to think of anything less stage managed than "Fuck off", "OK, I will."
Whilst Cameron did not explicitly mention a two speed EU he has been dropping an awful lot of hints. The media have mentioned it numerous times so are obviously being briefed from somewhere. Cameron will come back with associate membership and claim a great victory.
- Record employment rate; - EU nationals working in the UK tops 2 million. It was 500k in 1997, and around 1.2m in 2010; - Non-EU worker numbers are marginally down on 2010; - Real terms pay still rising at close to 3%
- Record employment rate; - EU nationals working in the UK tops 2 million. It was 500k in 1997, and around 1.2m in 2010; - Non-EU worker numbers are marginally down on 2010; - Real terms pay still rising at close to 3%
I think we may be hearing the words "Long" and "Term" and "Economic Plan" in PMQs
I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
What am I missing?
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests.
Gen Houghton in another guise.
All good.
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.
Bah, again, I am failing to be outraged. They have a view of how the tube should be run and are endorsing a guy who they think will help to achieve that.
I'm not sure what you would rather they did? Not endorse him, but they have members who presumably want them to achieve their vision of the tube. Not offer him resources? I can live with them giving him a phone and a team.
They are funding him.
So, when the TSSA says we want £10 an hour more for our drivers (making up numbers) will Khan say "yes" or "no".
Given that the TSSA may not support his re-election bid if he doesn't give them what he wants how can he be a steward of public funds in this case?
The usual approach would be that he recuse himself from this part of the portfolio, but given the significance of transport it's not really practical in this case
Is there any difference between Khan's relationship to the TSSA and any sponsored Labour MP's to their sponsoring Union? This is just the same canard that Tories have run since, oh, at least the foundation of the LRC in 1900.
Perhaps there's a Tory Peebie who can explain to me why it's responsible of the Government to allow left-wing ideas to be legal
Materiality. In the case of sponsored Labour MPs it's usually a couple of thousand to their constituency and it's not a core component of their interests or portfolio.
In theory, I suppose they should declare their interest before they speak on any matter, and they should definitely register it in accordance with the rules, but I'm not too fussed.
Khan will be acting in an executive capacity, negotiating with someone who he owes.
I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
What am I missing?
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests.
Gen Houghton in another guise.
All good.
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.
Bah, again, I am failing to be outraged. They have a view of how the tube should be run and are endorsing a guy who they think will help to achieve that.
I'm not sure what you would rather they did? Not endorse him, but they have members who presumably want them to achieve their vision of the tube. Not offer him resources? I can live with them giving him a phone and a team.
They are funding him.
who can explain to me why it's responsible of the Government to allow left-wing ideas to be legal
Materiality. In the case of sponsored Labour MPs it's usually a couple of thousand to their constituency and it's not a core component of their interests or portfolio.
In theory, I suppose they should declare their interest before they speak on any matter, and they should definitely register it in accordance with the rules, but I'm not too fussed.
Khan will be acting in an executive capacity, negotiating with someone who he owes.
'Cameron will come back with associate membership and claim a great victory.'
Yes that wheeze has been outlined elsewhere and seems to be part of the thinking. The key point is that all 'associate membership' would be is a different name for the status quo.
It is also intended to apply to other Eurozone 'outs' and - most interestingly - to non-EU countries like Norway and Iceland as well.
That's right - the EU wants to try to close down the EEA structure (I wonder why?) and replace it with associate EU membership. The creation of 'associate membership' is actually an integrationist move (who's have thought it, eh?).
It looks on here as if the question now is not whether Cameron will get what he wants, but whether that will be enough for the English people
That I think was inevitable. There was no way after a decade as party leader (and five years as PM) that Cameron didn't know almost exactly what he wanted - and that he could get it - in advance of the election. The fine detail will have to be sorted of course but the broad strokes would have been known and planned for.
It is inevitable that if Cameron had wanted something completely unachievable then as a realist he would have moved on to wanting that which was achievable. Some call this 'going native' but I think its realpolitik.
It looks on here as if the question now is not whether Cameron will get what he wants, but whether that will be enough for the English people
Yes, politics aside this is a fascinating study of a human being. Cameron was forced into something he didn't want now he's hopping around knowing if he loses the referendum his place in history is disastrous. Legacy is everything to PMs.
Cameron will delay the vote as long as possible, talk of June 2016 is nonsense imo, one false step and Cameron is toast.
Decent piece on the history of (US) polling, and some thoughts on the future.
Liz Jaff, Crowdpac’s Democratic political director (she has a Republican counterpart), showed me a beta site she’d set up, whereby visitors who supported Planned Parenthood could look up all the unopposed G.O.P. candidates who have promised to defund Planned Parenthood and then pledge money to anyone who would run against them. The pledges would be converted to donations automatically, as soon as someone decided to run.
It looks on here as if the question now is not whether Cameron will get what he wants, but whether that will be enough for the English people
Tory MPs who are unsure whether he has asked for enough need to be saying so in the coming days. Otherwise they risk him getting pretty much everything he asked for and then being practically obliged as a matter of consistency to be supporting In.
" A major study published recently found that many members of the public can forecast economic and political events at least as accurately as the experts, and that some of them do consistently better than the pundits and economists we always turn to for advice.
Pollsters proved hopeless at forecasting our general election, and economists had little clue that the price of oil would plummet at the end of last year. It is a lesson of the modern world that having more data does not inevitably mean more accurate forecasting."
Good morning all. I miss Hague, he has brains and eloquence in equal measure. Africa's stability (or lack of it) is Europe's sword of Damocles. I didn't notice his source, but another 1.3 billion people in Africa by 2020? Horrifying, if we don't see the emergence of their equivalent of the Asian tiger economies.
Before I receive the usual veiled accusations of racism; I wouldn't change my view if they were cricket playing, tea drinking whities; my argument about immigration has always been based on scale, pace and sustainability.
And that's another big reason why I feel we simply have to vote to Leave the EU now.
We simply don't know how well the EU's migration and security policy will pan out over the decades to come, but the signs so far are not good.
We risk simply being overwhelmed, unless we have full control of our borders.
'Cameron will come back with associate membership and claim a great victory.'
Yes that wheeze has been outlined elsewhere and seems to be part of the thinking. The key point is that all 'associate membership' would be is a different name for the status quo.
It is also intended to apply to other Eurozone 'outs' and - most interestingly - to non-EU countries like Norway and Iceland as well.
That's right - the EU wants to try to close down the EEA structure (I wonder why?) and replace it with associate EU membership. The creation of 'associate membership' is actually an integrationist move (who's have thought it, eh?).
I don't see it myself. I thought that going to the EEA and not being in the EU proper was something many Leave people want.
If it is something that will happen with Remain then aren't we Leaving by default without a say? Seems unlikely.
I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
What am I missing?
All good.
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.
Bahth them giving him a phone and a team.
They are funding him.
So, when the TSSA says we want £10 an hour more for our drivers (making up numbers) will Khan say "yes" or "no".
The usual approach would be that he recuse himself from this part of the portfolio, but given the significance of transport it's not really practical in this case
Is there any difference between Khan's relationship to the TSSA and any sponsored Labour MP's to their sponsoring Union? This is just the same canard that Tories have run since, oh, at least the foundation of the LRC in 1900.
Perhaps there's a Tory Peebie who can explain to me why it's responsible of the Government to allow left-wing ideas to be legal
Materiality. In the case of sponsored Labour MPs it's usually a couple of thousand to their constituency and it's not a core component of their interests or portfolio.
In theory, I suppose they should declare their interest before they speak on any matter, and they should definitely register it in accordance with the rules, but I'm not too fussed.
Khan will be acting in an executive capacity, negotiating with someone who he owes.
He owes them because he accepted their sponsorship because he agrees with their vision of the tube so he accepted their sponsorship.
Pretty clear to me.
If he becomes mayor I will expect a more TSSA-friendly administration. If they want and he gives them an extra £10/hour I will say to myself: of course, that was the platform that Khan campaigned and was elected on.
Cons get party funds from private sources and use them to further their vision of the country which, smack my ass and call me Sally, coincides with the donors'.
That said, I don't see how he can discharge his function as mayor in the area of transport.
I'm not sure what the answer is. On one level voters *should* consider the question of conflicts, but I don't think they will. Perhaps Khan recusing himself from any involvement in transport would work?
It looks on here as if the question now is not whether Cameron will get what he wants, but whether that will be enough for the English people
Well, if you don't ask for much (which he isn't), then you don't get much. Given his initial starting position, I wonder how much will be left once it's gone through the inevitable watering down.
I was positive that the initial rumours were just spin to lower expectations, with more substantive demands emerging later. Turns out I was wrong.
" A major study published recently found that many members of the public can forecast economic and political events at least as accurately as the experts, and that some of them do consistently better than the pundits and economists we always turn to for advice.
Pollsters proved hopeless at forecasting our general election, and economists had little clue that the price of oil would plummet at the end of last year. It is a lesson of the modern world that having more data does not inevitably mean more accurate forecasting."
Good morning all. I miss Hague, he has brains and eloquence in equal measure. Africa's stability (or lack of it) is Europe's sword of Damocles. I didn't notice his source, but another 1.3 billion people in Africa by 2020? Horrifying, if we don't see the emergence of their equivalent of the Asian tiger economies.
Before I receive the usual veiled accusations of racism; I wouldn't change my view if they were cricket playing, tea drinking whities; my argument about immigration has always been based on scale, pace and sustainability.
And that's another big reason why I feel we simply have to vote to Leave the EU now.
We simply don't know how well the EU's migration and security policy will pan out over the decades to come, but the signs so far are not good.
We risk simply being overwhelmed, unless we have full control of our borders.
What migration and security policy?
Whatever there was has clearly been overwhelmed by the numbers pouring across the borders of southern Europe.
Got an EU passport? Queue at border control. If you haven't got one, stroll on in.
"The tycoon [Donald Trump] told interviewers after the debate that he had a good night, but it was probably his worst performance to date. His answers on many issues from trade policy to dealing with Vladimir Putin were incoherent and displayed a lack of comprehension of basic facts. It can be dangerous to read too much into his performance, but having fewer people on the stage worked against him as he was forced to spend more time addressing issues in detail, which is not his forte."
"Mr Cruz has been doing well in terms of fundraising, so he is starting to look like a more formidable candidate. Many Republicans think the race will narrow down to him and Mr Rubio once others have fallen by the wayside."
It looks on here as if the question now is not whether Cameron will get what he wants, but whether that will be enough for the English people
Tory MPs who are unsure whether he has asked for enough need to be saying so in the coming days. Otherwise they risk him getting pretty much everything he asked for and then being practically obliged as a matter of consistency to be supporting In.
They are making their voices heard.
Bernard Jenkin has shocked me: he attacked his own front bench with the venom of a member of the opposition yesterday.
And before people write him off as just another one of the BOO'ers usual suspects it's worth remembering that Jenkin was a very early declarer from the Right for Cameron, over Davis, and voted for same-sex marriage. And he's also a naturist.
That's right - the EU wants to try to close down the EEA structure (I wonder why?) and replace it with associate EU membership. The creation of 'associate membership' is actually an integrationist move (who's have thought it, eh?).
I don't know how widespread such thinking is in the EU, but such an arrangement may be close to what we want - allow the Eurozone to become the focus of 'ever closer union' whilst we tiptoe away without frightening the horses. If we can do so whilst retaining institutional protections which EEA membership wouldn't give us, that could be the way forward.
Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!
I used to do that all the time when we had a bookshop in the village, just to help keep the place going. Not only were the books more expensive but because he had to order them they were slower to arrive.
The shop still went to the wall, most local people say they like local independent shops but not enough are actually prepared to shop in them.
The Carmichael hearing is drawing to a close today with the respective parties making their final submissions. The most interesting snippet which has come to light during Carmichael's evidence, is that he has now admitted misleading the Cabinet Office investigation until he finally admitted his guilt on 12th May.
The Shetland news are tweeting on the closing submissions from the court:
'Cameron will come back with associate membership and claim a great victory.'
Yes that wheeze has been outlined elsewhere and seems to be part of the thinking. The key point is that all 'associate membership' would be is a different name for the status quo.
It is also intended to apply to other Eurozone 'outs' and - most interestingly - to non-EU countries like Norway and Iceland as well.
That's right - the EU wants to try to close down the EEA structure (I wonder why?) and replace it with associate EU membership. The creation of 'associate membership' is actually an integrationist move (who's have thought it, eh?).
I don't see it myself. I thought that going to the EEA and not being in the EU proper was something many Leave people want.
If it is something that will happen with Remain then aren't we Leaving by default without a say? Seems unlikely.
If Cameron were to stand up in 10 minutes from now and say 'Its Wednesday Morning' then the Leave campaign would 'Oh no its not!' Associate membership would be a good deal, so good I'd be surprised if it was possible. The EU is not going to go away and we do not want to be in the Euro or be part of its political association.
He owes them because he accepted their sponsorship because he agrees with their vision of the tube so he accepted their sponsorship.
Pretty clear to me.
If he becomes mayor I will expect a more TSSA-friendly administration. If they want and he gives them an extra £10/hour I will say to myself: of course, that was the platform that Khan campaigned and was elected on.
Cons get party funds from private sources and use them to further their vision of the country which, smack my ass and call me Sally, coincides with the donors'.
It's not a question of "furthering vision".
It would be utterly inappropriate, for example, for Michael Fallon to take large donation from Defence companies and then get directly involved in negotiating with them.
I'm not aware that has happened, but if it has I would think a lot less of the government for doing so.
Khan, if elected, should represent the interests of Londoners. In particular he has a duty to be a careful steward of taxpayer monies. His incentives, in this case, are different to those of the people to whom he owes a fiducary duty. That's a problem.
It looks on here as if the question now is not whether Cameron will get what he wants, but whether that will be enough for the English people
Well, if you don't ask for much (which he isn't), then you don't get much. Given his initial starting position, I wonder how much will be left once it's gone through the inevitable watering down.
I was positive that the initial rumours were just spin to lower expectations, with more substantive demands emerging later. Turns out I was wrong.
It depends how these things are implemented.
If for instance (and I'm not expecting it) there is a form of Double QMV protection for non-Eurozone members then that would be an incredibly significant reform. Its also something I think will be beyond the pale for the EU sadly.
Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!
I used to do that all the time when we had a bookshop in the village, just to help keep the place going. Not only were the books more expensive but because he had to order them they were slower to arrive.
The shop still went to the wall, most local people say they like local independent shops but not enough are actually prepared to shop in them.
Successful book shops seem to be cafe/book shops these days. An experience you cannot get from Amazon.
Interesting comments on the Spanish GE - and re-assuring from this ex-pat's perspective!
"In crisis situations, voters tend to cast their ballot for the government currently in place," said political analyst Jose Ignacio Torreblanca. "Particularly if you manage to increase participation thanks to the sensation that this is a very important election, that there is a threat or a risk to the constitution." But he underlined that it was under Rajoy's mandate that "nearly half of new separatist voters emerged". Historian Carlos Gil Andres said that the prime minister was emerging as a figure of stability at a time of strong nationalistic sentiment. And he added that other crucial issues, such as the actual content of policies, corruption and austerity were "disappearing from the political debate".
Latest opinion polls see PP up with a lead around 6.5% over PSOE while their likely coalition partners are around 18% well ahead of the far Left Podemos.
'Cameron will come back with associate membership and claim a great victory.'
Yes that wheeze has been outlined elsewhere and seems to be part of the thinking. The key point is that all 'associate membership' would be is a different name for the status quo.
It is also intended to apply to other Eurozone 'outs' and - most interestingly - to non-EU countries like Norway and Iceland as well.
That's right - the EU wants to try to close down the EEA structure (I wonder why?) and replace it with associate EU membership. The creation of 'associate membership' is actually an integrationist move (who's have thought it, eh?).
I don't see it myself. I thought that going to the EEA and not being in the EU proper was something many Leave people want.
If it is something that will happen with Remain then aren't we Leaving by default without a say? Seems unlikely.
If Cameron were to stand up in 10 minutes from now and say 'Its Wednesday Morning' then the Leave campaign would 'Oh no its not!' Associate membership would be a good deal, so good I'd be surprised if it was possible. The EU is not going to go away and we do not want to be in the Euro or be part of its political association.
Associate membership is a meaningless phrase. We would still be subject to all the rules we are subject to now and would still be at the mercy of their interpretation by the ECJ. For all intents and purposes it would be exactly what we have now . Which of course is why Cameron and the rest of you Europhiles are so keen on it.
" A major study published recently found that many members of the public can forecast economic and political events at least as accurately as the experts, and that some of them do consistently better than the pundits and economists we always turn to for advice.
Pollsters proved hopeless at forecasting our general election, and economists had little clue that the price of oil would plummet at the end of last year. It is a lesson of the modern world that having more data does not inevitably mean more accurate forecasting."
Good morning all. I miss Hague, he has brains and eloquence in equal measure. Africa's stability (or lack of it) is Europe's sword of Damocles. I didn't notice his source, but another 1.3 billion people in Africa by 2020? Horrifying, if we don't see the emergence of their equivalent of the Asian tiger economies.
Before I receive the usual veiled accusations of racism; I wouldn't change my view if they were cricket playing, tea drinking whities; my argument about immigration has always been based on scale, pace and sustainability.
And that's another big reason why I feel we simply have to vote to Leave the EU now.
We simply don't know how well the EU's migration and security policy will pan out over the decades to come, but the signs so far are not good.
We risk simply being overwhelmed, unless we have full control of our borders.
What has a possible burgeoning population in Africa got to do with inward migration from EU countries or the European Single Market? We can control our borders from Africa. So can all EU countries. We are not, unlike non EU Norway, part of the Schengen Agreement
Are they red-lines? What exactly are the details? I'm not sure that nice words and vague assurances count for anything. I'm sure there'll be a big ticket item and that will be the clincher - if it's definite.
'Cameron will come back with associate membership and claim a great victory.'
Yes that wheeze has been outlined elsewhere and seems to be part of the thinking. The key point is that all 'associate membership' would be is a different name for the status quo.
It is also intended to apply to other Eurozone 'outs' and - most interestingly - to non-EU countries like Norway and Iceland as well.
That's right - the EU wants to try to close down the EEA structure (I wonder why?) and replace it with associate EU membership. The creation of 'associate membership' is actually an integrationist move (who's have thought it, eh?).
I don't see it myself. I thought that going to the EEA and not being in the EU proper was something many Leave people want.
If it is something that will happen with Remain then aren't we Leaving by default without a say? Seems unlikely.
If Cameron were to stand up in 10 minutes from now and say 'Its Wednesday Morning' then the Leave campaign would 'Oh no its not!' Associate membership would be a good deal, so good I'd be surprised if it was possible. The EU is not going to go away and we do not want to be in the Euro or be part of its political association.
Associate membership is a meaningless phrase. We would still be subject to all the rules we are subject to now and would still be at the mercy of their interpretation by the ECJ. For all intents and purposes it would be exactly what we have now . Which of course is why Cameron and the rest of you Europhiles are so keen on it.
Funny this is a complete inversion of what has been said in the past about the EEA. You saying its a great deal and when anyone else says that it means we'd still be subject to all the rules we are now you call them an ignorant idiot.
'Cameron will come back with associate membership and claim a great victory.'
Yes that wheeze has been outlined elsewhere and seems to be part of the thinking. The key point is that all 'associate membership' would be is a different name for the status quo.
It is also intended to apply to other Eurozone 'outs' and - most interestingly - to non-EU countries like Norway and Iceland as well.
That's right - the EU wants to try to close down the EEA structure (I wonder why?) and replace it with associate EU membership. The creation of 'associate membership' is actually an integrationist move (who's have thought it, eh?).
I don't see it myself. I thought that going to the EEA and not being in the EU proper was something many Leave people want.
If it is something that will happen with Remain then aren't we Leaving by default without a say? Seems unlikely.
If Cameron were to stand up in 10 minutes from now and say 'Its Wednesday Morning' then the Leave campaign would 'Oh no its not!' Associate membership would be a good deal, so good I'd be surprised if it was possible. The EU is not going to go away and we do not want to be in the Euro or be part of its political association.
Associate membership is a meaningless phrase. We would still be subject to all the rules we are subject to now and would still be at the mercy of their interpretation by the ECJ. For all intents and purposes it would be exactly what we have now . Which of course is why Cameron and the rest of you Europhiles are so keen on it.
Funny this is a complete inversion of what has been said in the past about the EEA. You saying its a great deal and when anyone else says that it means we'd still be subject to all the rules we are now you call them an ignorant idiot.
That is because associate membership is not the same as EEA membership. It is not even close.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
There seem to be two 'Out' positions. The Tory right wingers want control of all laws, the others want control of our borders. So item four is the main one for the latter group. I suspect the Tory rebels won't change their mind as their demand isn't even mentioned.
'allow the Eurozone to become the focus of 'ever closer union' whilst we tiptoe away without frightening the horses'
But that is not what it is going to be Richard. We will not get to tiptoe away from anything - there will be no repatriation of any existing powers and the UK will continue to be subject to integrationist judgements by the European courts.
Nor will there be any safeguards of the sort you say you want against the inner core legislating in ways that damage our economic interests. Indeed, they are quite likely to do just that as a form of pressure to get associate members to ultimately join the core.
'Cameron will come back with associate membership and claim a great victory.'
Yes that wheeze has been outlined elsewhere and seems to be part of the thinking. The key point is that all 'associate membership' would be is a different name for the status quo.
It is also intended to apply to other Eurozone 'outs' and - most interestingly - to non-EU countries like Norway and Iceland as well.
That's right - the EU wants to try to close down the EEA structure (I wonder why?) and replace it with associate EU membership. The creation of 'associate membership' is actually an integrationist move (who's have thought it, eh?).
I don't see it myself. I thought that going to the EEA and not being in the EU proper was something many Leave people want.
If it is something that will happen with Remain then aren't we Leaving by default without a say? Seems unlikely.
If Cameron were to stand up in 10 minutes from now and say 'Its Wednesday Morning' then the Leave campaign would 'Oh no its not!' Associate membership would be a good deal, so good I'd be surprised if it was possible. The EU is not going to go away and we do not want to be in the Euro or be part of its political association.
Associate membership is a meaningless phrase. We would still be subject to all the rules we are subject to now and would still be at the mercy of their interpretation by the ECJ. For all intents and purposes it would be exactly what we have now . Which of course is why Cameron and the rest of you Europhiles are so keen on it.
Funny this is a complete inversion of what has been said in the past about the EEA. You saying its a great deal and when anyone else says that it means we'd still be subject to all the rules we are now you call them an ignorant idiot.
That is because associate membership is not the same as EEA membership. It is not even close.
Associate membership isn't a thing yet, is it? If it becomes a thing (and if it incorporates Norway and Iceland as well as us) then obviously it won't be the status quo ante.
" A major study published recently found that many members of the public can forecast economic and political events at least as accurately as the experts, and that some of them do consistently better than the pundits and economists we always turn to for advice.
Pollsters proved hopeless at forecasting our general election, and economists had little clue that the price of oil would plummet at the end of last year. It is a lesson of the modern world that having more data does not inevitably mean more accurate forecasting."
Good morning all. I miss Hague, he has brains and eloquence in equal measure. Africa's stability (or lack of it) is Europe's sword of Damocles. I didn't notice his source, but another 1.3 billion people in Africa by 2020? Horrifying, if we don't see the emergence of their equivalent of the Asian tiger economies.
Before I receive the usual veiled accusations of racism; I wouldn't change my view if they were cricket playing, tea drinking whities; my argument about immigration has always been based on scale, pace and sustainability.
And that's another big reason why I feel we simply have to vote to Leave the EU now.
We simply don't know how well the EU's migration and security policy will pan out over the decades to come, but the signs so far are not good.
We risk simply being overwhelmed, unless we have full control of our borders.
What has a possible burgeoning population in Africa got to do with inward migration from EU countries or the European Single Market? We can control our borders from Africa. So can all EU countries. We are not, unlike non EU Norway, part of the Schengen Agreement
The EU is a transit port. Resettlement in other EU countries could lead to them exercising free movement rights in future once they obtain citizenship - as Somalis currently do from the Netherlands. It would lead to a situation that would make the current problems at Calais look like child's play.
Also, there will be great pressure to resettle and rehouse those that do arrive once they are within the EU, and that could be in the tens of millions.
Unfortunately, there's only one bookshop within an hour's walk from my house, and it's not great (small selection).
There's a very nice Waterstones in Leeds, but that's a fiver (probably more, now) and an hour's travel just to browse.
For some books, especially pricier histories, I do sometimes check AbeBooks. Got a Contamine history on the Hundred Years' War there for less than half the new price.
'allow the Eurozone to become the focus of 'ever closer union' whilst we tiptoe away without frightening the horses'
But that is not what it is going to be Richard. We will not get to tiptoe away from anything - there will be no repatriation of any existing powers and the UK will continue to be subject to integrationist judgements by the European courts.
Nor will there be any safeguards of the sort you say you want against the inner core legislating in ways that damage our economic interests. Indeed, they are quite likely to do just that as a form of pressure to get associate members to ultimately join the core.
If they do that we can always vote to leave in the future. The negotiations demand protections for non-EZ members so it is not automatic that they will do that.
Ultimately why would all the nations of the core unanimously want to harm us to try and get us to join them? In many respects the French for one would be glad to see us out of the core (as De Gaulle originally vetoed us from being). If we leave the core the French will not be begging for us to return.
- Record employment rate; - EU nationals working in the UK tops 2 million. It was 500k in 1997, and around 1.2m in 2010; - Non-EU worker numbers are marginally down on 2010; - Real terms pay still rising at close to 3%
I think we may be hearing the words "Long" and "Term" and "Economic Plan" in PMQs
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I like Cameron. I entertained the hope that he would lead the EU (I think everyone accepts it has to do better). I'm disappointed at the poverty of his ambition.
As I think the electorate will follow Cameron's lead, I'm also prematurely disappointed to think that we'll accept such a weak set of proposals, simply because Cameron is so popular.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
The problem for 'leave' is that to date they have not produced a coherent position and it seems unlikely that they can apart from speculate on various new trade agreements, and in Europe's case they will require absolute freedom of movement. If leave can make a thought out attractive proposition it is possible that they could win but in the absence of anything concrete it is likely 'remain' will win by a substantial margin on the grounds of better the devil you know
UK betting post. I have mentioned the need to watch Theresa May. ConHome has an article. Will she jump or react if pushed? http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/11/the-eu-referendum-cameron-is-gripped-by-the-fear-that-may-will-come-out-for-leave.html "“Cameron doesn’t understand people who act on principle, while Osborne has contempt for people who act on principle,” said one source, who admittedly is not well-disposed to either. But since there is conversation in Downing Street, at the highest level, about what she may do about Europe, there will also be conversation about what to do with her."
'allow the Eurozone to become the focus of 'ever closer union' whilst we tiptoe away without frightening the horses'
But that is not what it is going to be Richard. We will not get to tiptoe away from anything - there will be no repatriation of any existing powers and the UK will continue to be subject to integrationist judgements by the European courts.
Nor will there be any safeguards of the sort you say you want against the inner core legislating in ways that damage our economic interests. Indeed, they are quite likely to do just that as a form of pressure to get associate members to ultimately join the core.
Well maybe, but there's another way of looking at this.
The core EU countries want closer union. Indeed, for the Euro to work, they very much need closer union; the single currency is fundamentally flawed as it stands, so if they want to keep the Euro (and they do, rightly or wrongly) then they need a tighter structure.
From their point of view, we are a major nuisance, not wanting closer union, not wanting political integration, with a different cultural attitude on many issues, and above all not likely ever to join the Eurozone. But the EU elite (with lots of popular support in much of continental Europe, remember) have a huge amount of political capital invested in the 'vision' of the EU. It verges on a religion. The UK leaving would look like a failure of that vision, a blow to prestige, as well as being a major problem for those like Germany who want a free-market EU, not an olive-belt subsidy machine.
The way to reconcile this, whilst saving face - always important in international negotiations - and whilst being able to sell the new arrangement both to UK voters nervous about the risks of leaving and to voters elsewhere, is to retain 'EU membership' for the UK, but set up institutions which allow the Eurozone to integrate further without us. From our point of view, this is a much better deal than leaving and joining the EEA because we'd still have full say in EU rules, and we'd have vetos via treaty (for example, we could veto Turkey joining the EU, if that's what we wanted to do - Norway couldn't do that, they'd just have to put up with it whether they liked it or not).
Of course, we'd still be subject to EU rules where don't have an opt-out, and we wouldn't have any more control over EU immigration than we do today, but that's the same as being in the EEA. (We'd have more institutional protection, though, and a full say in decision making). Longer term, though, such a structure should make it easier to get opt-outs, as it will be easier for the core Eurozone to go ahead without us. We're too much trouble.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
What made you think there might be more? It is exactly what reports said he was demanding before the election.
''Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale.''
It now looks like that is not the case. It is take it as it is or leave it. We will never get that true associate membership which so many, I believe, crave. It is not available under this prime minister and certainly not available under any viable major opposition party.
Trouble is, this is the prime minister who won the election.
Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!
I used to do that all the time when we had a bookshop in the village, just to help keep the place going. Not only were the books more expensive but because he had to order them they were slower to arrive.
The shop still went to the wall, most local people say they like local independent shops but not enough are actually prepared to shop in them.
My friend has a domestic appliance shop in the town centre and his beef is people coming in and asking for his advice on the various models, making a note of the serial numbers, then buying online elsewhere... but what can he do???
I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
What am I missing?
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests.
Gen Houghton in another guise.
All good.
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.
Bah, again, I am failing to be outraged. They have a view of how the tube should be run and are endorsing a guy who they think will help to achieve that.
I'm not sure what you would rather they did? Not endorse him, but they have members who presumably want them to achieve their vision of the tube. Not offer him resources? I can live with them giving him a phone and a team.
They are funding him.
So, when the TSSA says we want £10 an hour more for our drivers (making up numbers) will Khan say "yes" or "no".
Given that the TSSA may not support his re-election bid if he doesn't give them what he wants how can he be a steward of public funds in this case?
The usual approach would be that he recuse himself from this part of the portfolio, but given the significance of transport it's not really practical in this case
Is there any difference between Khan's relationship to the TSSA and any sponsored Labour MP's to their sponsoring Union? This is just the same canard that Tories have run since, oh, at least the foundation of the LRC in 1900.
Perhaps there's a Tory Peebie who can explain to me why it's responsible of the Government to allow left-wing ideas to be legal
It's not a canard. And it applies just as much to the Tories and who funds them. It's one reason why I think there should be an absolute per annum upper limit on how much any individual or organisation, of whatever type, can give to a political party, precisely to stop the perception - let alone the actuality - of policies being bought.
Cant be bothered to read back the PB doggerel to date, (recently found better things to do) but has there been any comment from the resident Tory spinners on our Dear Leader showing himself up to be a bit dim in the infamous Oxford correspondence, yet?
I noticed, elsewhere, that the TSSA - the transport workers union - is the prime supporter behind Khan's campaign for Mayor of London
I know there are always issues with any donors or supporters, but given that the TSSA havea direct interest in the Tube - one of the Mayor's primary responsibilities - this strikes me as a really serious conflict of interest
What am I missing?
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests.
Gen Houghton in another guise.
All good.
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.
Bah, again, I am failing to be outraged. They have a view of how the tube should be run and are endorsing a guy who they think will help to achieve that.
I'm not sure what you would rather they did? Not endorse him, but they have members who presumably want them to achieve their vision of the tube. Not offer him resources? I can live with them giving him a phone and a team.
They are funding him.
So, when the TSSA says we want £10 an hour more for our drivers (making up numbers) will Khan say "yes" or "no".
Given that the TSSA may not support his re-election bid if he doesn't give them what he wants how can he be a steward of public funds in this case?
The usual approach would be that he recuse himself from this part of the portfolio, but given the significance of transport it's not really practical in this case
Is there any difference between Khan's relationship to the TSSA and any sponsored Labour MP's to their sponsoring Union? This is just the same canard that Tories have run since, oh, at least the foundation of the LRC in 1900.
Perhaps there's a Tory Peebie who can explain to me why it's responsible of the Government to allow left-wing ideas to be legal
It's not a canard. And it applies just as much to the Tories and who funds them. It's one reason why I think there should be an absolute per annum upper limit on how much any individual or organisation, of whatever type, can give to a political party, precisely to stop the perception - let alone the actuality - of policies being bought.
It's not a question of funding or anything like that. Khan is the Tube Union's man. The Labour Party generally are in the pocket of the Unions.
Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!
I used to do that all the time when we had a bookshop in the village, just to help keep the place going. Not only were the books more expensive but because he had to order them they were slower to arrive.
The shop still went to the wall, most local people say they like local independent shops but not enough are actually prepared to shop in them.
My friend has a domestic appliance shop in the town centre and his beef is people coming in and asking for his advice on the various models, making a note of the serial numbers, then buying online elsewhere... but what can he do???
There are no longer camera shops in Leicester for that reason. 20 years ago there were 4 includding the HQs of both Jessops and Jacobs chains. Both went bankrupt.
On the other hand this Welsh town has gone offshore to join the tax dodgers:
Well excuse us if we listen to our people as imposing millions of immigrants onto them from on high.
The EU is sitting on a power keg, if opinion polls in france and holland are even half way correct. In two years time we might be negotiating with people far more amenable to our position than the people we are negotiating with now.
Which makes me very suspicious of the early timing of the referendum. Cameron wants to lock us in before Europe explodes.
- Record employment rate; - EU nationals working in the UK tops 2 million. It was 500k in 1997, and around 1.2m in 2010; - Non-EU worker numbers are marginally down on 2010; - Real terms pay still rising at close to 3%
I think we may be hearing the words "Long" and "Term" and "Economic Plan" in PMQs
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
I'm more likely to vote leave after yesterday - I just don't think Cameron's asking for enough. Having said that, I wasn't quite sure exactly what I wanted: it just sounds like not enough, even if (and it is a big if) he gets what he's asked for.
The quality (or lack thereof) in the debate may help shift me further one way or t'other.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
What made you think there might be more? It is exactly what reports said he was demanding before the election.
I don't see anything that's changed between then and now.
His Bloomberg speech in 2013 hat-tipped employment, crime and environmental powers, and red-cards for national parliament. Also that there should be mechanisms for power to 'flow back' to national parliaments.
His speech last year at conference was also instructive on migration: "I will get what Britain needs."
He was looking at an emergency brake on EU migration and a 75k-100k cap limit until he was told to bog off. Then it became about benefits for four years.
Undermined by no mention that I can see of moving HMRC, DWP etc away from London already.
The issue, though, is that with national wage bargaining for the civil service, it makes government jobs the most attractive by some margin in the regions to which they move.
This has the perverse effect of crowding out private sector and entrepreneurship by attracting the most talented staff into government service rather than private business.
IIRC, Newcastle (or at least the North East) had a particular issue with this if you looked at the stats
Group that has interest in tube endorses candidate who most closely reflects those interests
All good.
Because the Mayor and the TSSA are leading participants in negotiating the future of TfL.
They are basically paying to get "their guy" on the other side of the table.
Of course they are entitled to vote for him, but they are providing him with a headquarters, a salaried team and a call centre.
Bah, again, I am failing to be outraged. They have a view of how the tube should be run and are endorsing a guy who they think will help to achieve that.
I'm not sure what you would rather they did? Not endorse him, but they have members who presumably want them to achieve their vision of the tube. Not offer him resources? I can live with them giving him a phone and a team.
The TSSA are entitled to do what they are doing. Nothing wrong with that.
The issue is whether Khan realises he has a potential conflict of interest and how he addresses it. He needs to persuade everyone else that he will govern in the interests of all and not just those who have funded him and that he won't be influenced by his financial backers simply because they are funding him rather than because of the merits of the arguments.
Obviously he will govern in the interests of all, but as per my comment above about someone wanting "decency and fairness", his vision of what is in the best interests of all might not coincide with yours. That is politics.
I doubt Jezza's vision of what is good for "all" would coincide with mine. I know from reading CiF that Dave's vision isn't shared by a few btl commentators.
If Khan accepts the TSSA dollar it is because he shares their vision that tube drivers should get £100,000 pa and a free owl, or whatever it is. And we price that into our assessment of him and his overall manifesto.
Why is it "obvious" that he will govern in the interests of all, if he is heavily funded by one group? It's not obvious at all. Some might conclude that he won't or that he might not be, which is why he has to (a) recognise that he has a potential conflict of interest; and (b) seek to address it.
If a banker were to put himself in a similar position where he had a conflict of interest, he would be disciplined and very likely dismissed. I know because I have very recently done such a case. We should expect a candidate for an elected post to avoid creating conflicts of interest given that his job will be hard enough as it is, reconciling the various different interests of Londoners, without adding the perception that he is financially beholden to one group.
Well excuse us if we listen to our people as imposing millions of immigrants onto them from on high.
The EU is sitting on a power keg, if opinion polls in france and holland are even half way correct. In two years time we might be negotiating with people far more amenable to our position than the people we are negotiating with now.
Which makes me very suspicious of the early timing of the referendum. Cameron wants to lock us in before Europe explodes.
I think that's a tad cynical. Cameron gave the 2017 date years ago; a long time before the polls shifted elsewhere on the continent. If he was pushing the date further back now many people would be complaining that it was a broken promise and we should get on with the vote.
Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!
I used to do that all the time when we had a bookshop in the village, just to help keep the place going. Not only were the books more expensive but because he had to order them they were slower to arrive.
The shop still went to the wall, most local people say they like local independent shops but not enough are actually prepared to shop in them.
My friend has a domestic appliance shop in the town centre and his beef is people coming in and asking for his advice on the various models, making a note of the serial numbers, then buying online elsewhere... but what can he do???
Charge a fee for his advice, fully offset against any purchase.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands. My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes. Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
"My own view is that Cameron’s reform package is too modest to make any real difference to our relationship with the EU so even if he achieves it I won’t be changing my mind. But for those who are genuinely undecided and still weighing up which way to vote, how successful he is in securing the first of his demands might well be critical. "
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
What made you think there might be more? It is exactly what reports said he was demanding before the election.
I don't see anything that's changed between then and now.
His Bloomberg speech in 2013 hat-tipped employment, crime and environmental powers, and red-cards for national parliament. Also that there should be mechanisms for power to 'flow back' to national parliaments.
His speech last year at conference was also instructive on migration: "I will get what Britain needs."
He was looking at an emergency brake on EU migration and a 75k-100k cap limit until he was told to bog off. Then it became about benefits for four years.
And it looks like he won't even get that.
2014 is more recent than 2013 while still being quite a while before the election. I thought red cards for Parliaments was still on the agenda?
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
What made you think there might be more? It is exactly what reports said he was demanding before the election.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
What made you think there might be more? It is exactly what reports said he was demanding before the election.
I don't see anything that's changed between then and now.
His Bloomberg speech in 2013 hat-tipped employment, crime and environmental powers, and red-cards for national parliament. Also that there should be mechanisms for power to 'flow back' to national parliaments.
His speech last year at conference was also instructive on migration: "I will get what Britain needs."
He was looking at an emergency brake on EU migration and a 75k-100k cap limit until he was told to bog off. Then it became about benefits for four years.
And it looks like he won't even get that.
Realistically, a cap is a logistical nightmare. How do you allocate them? Is it net? Is it rolling 12 months? What are the requirements? How do you deal with people already here? Will you end up with the problems they have in the US, where big business grabs all the visas at the start of the year? How do employers check if an EU person is someone who was already in the UK, or someone who more recently came?
You would be better off with a x thousand pound annual "fee" for people who came from the EU, that would be: (a) easy to implement, (b) discourage low skill immigration, (c) raise valuable revenue for the treasury.
'allow the Eurozone to become the focus of 'ever closer union' whilst we tiptoe away without frightening the horses'
But that is not what it is going to be Richard. We will not get to tiptoe away from anything - there will be no repatriation of any existing powers and the UK will continue to be subject to integrationist judgements by the European courts.
Nor will there be any safeguards of the sort you say you want against the inner core legislating in ways that damage our economic interests. Indeed, they are quite likely to do just that as a form of pressure to get associate members to ultimately join the core.
Of course, we'd still be subject to EU rules where don't have an opt-out, and we wouldn't have any more control over EU immigration than we do today, but that's the same as being in the EEA. (We'd have more institutional protection, though, and a full say in decision making). Longer term, though, such a structure should make it easier to get opt-outs, as it will be easier for the core Eurozone to go ahead without us. We're too much trouble.
So in summary we may get less s**t on our head from here on in but are stuck with the s**t we have ?
'allow the Eurozone to become the focus of 'ever closer union' whilst we tiptoe away without frightening the horses'
But that is not what it is going to be Richard. We will not get to tiptoe away from anything - there will be no repatriation of any existing powers and the UK will continue to be subject to integrationist judgements by the European courts.
Nor will there be any safeguards of the sort you say you want against the inner core legislating in ways that damage our economic interests. Indeed, they are quite likely to do just that as a form of pressure to get associate members to ultimately join the core.
In general I try to avoid the "I told you so" stuff where posters who've said 15 different things over the years prove they were Right All Along (SeanT, I'm looking at you). But before the election several of us repeatedly pointed out that people weren't going to be offered either an agreed package or a serious prospect of change by 2017, and that the referendum promise was therefore essentially a Wilson-style fudge. The response from Tory loyalists was always pooh, there's lots of time to get an agreement, it's going to be terribly important to the EU, and anyway only voting Tory gives people a real chance to leave.
There was never much prospect of a serious revision. There was no prospect whatsoever of a new Treaty by 2017. And it was always obvious that Cameron was going to nudge people into voting to stay before either a major revision or, let alone, a Treaty were actually available. Anyone who voted Tory believing something else is sadly gullible.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
What made you think there might be more? It is exactly what reports said he was demanding before the election.
UK betting post. I have mentioned the need to watch Theresa May. ConHome has an article. Will she jump or react if pushed? http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/11/the-eu-referendum-cameron-is-gripped-by-the-fear-that-may-will-come-out-for-leave.html "“Cameron doesn’t understand people who act on principle, while Osborne has contempt for people who act on principle,” said one source, who admittedly is not well-disposed to either. But since there is conversation in Downing Street, at the highest level, about what she may do about Europe, there will also be conversation about what to do with her."
'one source, who is admittedly not disposed well to either' ... Thank you and good night. ConHome? .... Who owns that?? How desperate does desperate have to be before the desperate desperateness of it all becomes desperately clear?
Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!
I used to do that all the time when we had a bookshop in the village, just to help keep the place going. Not only were the books more expensive but because he had to order them they were slower to arrive.
The shop still went to the wall, most local people say they like local independent shops but not enough are actually prepared to shop in them.
My friend has a domestic appliance shop in the town centre and his beef is people coming in and asking for his advice on the various models, making a note of the serial numbers, then buying online elsewhere... but what can he do???
Charge a fee for his advice, fully offset against any purchase.
''I think that's a tad cynical. Cameron gave the 2017 date years ago; a long time before the polls shifted elsewhere on the continent. If he was pushing the date further back now many people would be complaining that it was a broken promise and we should get on with the vote.''
You are probably correct, actually. Following my own logic, I'll be voting leave, as a much better deal could be on the table in a few years time.
Well maybe, but there's another way of looking at this.
The core EU countries want closer union. Indeed, for the Euro to work, they very much need closer union; the single currency is fundamentally flawed as it stands, so if they want to keep the Euro (and they do, rightly or wrongly) then they need a tighter structure.
From their point of view, we are a major nuisance, not wanting closer union, not wanting political integration, with a different cultural attitude on many issues, and above all not likely ever to join the Eurozone. But the EU elite (with lots of popular support in much of continental Europe, remember) have a huge amount of political capital invested in the 'vision' of the EU. It verges on a religion. The UK leaving would look like a failure of that vision, a blow to prestige, as well as being a major problem for those like Germany who want a free-market EU, not an olive-belt subsidy machine.
The way to reconcile this, whilst saving face - always important in international negotiations - and whilst being able to sell the new arrangement both to UK voters nervous about the risks of leaving and to voters elsewhere, is to retain 'EU membership' for the UK, but set up institutions which allow the Eurozone to integrate further without us. From our point of view, this is a much better deal than leaving and joining the EEA because we'd still have full say in EU rules, and we'd have vetos via treaty (for example, we could veto Turkey joining the EU, if that's what we wanted to do - Norway couldn't do that, they'd just have to put up with it whether they liked it or not).
Of course, we'd still be subject to EU rules where don't have an opt-out, and we wouldn't have any more control over EU immigration than we do today, but that's the same as being in the EEA. (We'd have more institutional protection, though, and a full say in decision making). Longer term, though, such a structure should make it easier to get opt-outs, as it will be easier for the core Eurozone to go ahead without us. We're too much trouble.
That's probably the best Remain post you've written yet Richard.
Here's the thing: I think most people would buy that, if it was restricted to the single market, with strengthened roles for national parliaments, and we had practical limits on EU immigration.
But - and I know you disagree - I think we will continue to be marginalised and outvoted on economic matters. We will also continue to be subject to political union (and its creep) in key matters of social, employment, crime, justice, foreign affairs, and that's too important to (also) accept pooled sovereignty on those market rules - not to mention trade, agriculture, and fisheries.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
What made you think there might be more? It is exactly what reports said he was demanding before the election.
I don't see anything that's changed between then and now.
So the EU's reaction to the Greek economic crisis and the Migrant crisis hasnt given him pause for thought
How could the EU have dealt better with the Greek crisis?
Ive never claimed to be an expert on things like that and am not going to try blagging now... but it seems to be on a basic level, as someone who watched the news etc, that 2 quite controversial problems have arisen since 2014 that the EU have been criticised for, so maybe a rethink of demands with those in mind is fair game
There was never much prospect of a serious revision.
In other words, Labour stitched up the UK so badly by signing up to Lisbon, and giving up most of our veto power for nothing in return, that Cameron starts from a weak negotiating position.
This is true, but we have to deal with the world as it is, not how it might have been if we'd had a sensible government at the time of Lisbon.
'allow the Eurozone to become the focus of 'ever closer union' whilst we tiptoe away without frightening the horses'
But that is not what it is going to be Richard. We will not get to tiptoe away from anything - there will be no repatriation of any existing powers and the UK will continue to be subject to integrationist judgements by the European courts.
Nor will there be any safeguards of the sort you say you want against the inner core legislating in ways that damage our economic interests. Indeed, they are quite likely to do just that as a form of pressure to get associate members to ultimately join the core.
In general I try to avoid the "I told you so" stuff where posters who've said 15 different things over the years prove they were Right All Along (SeanT, I'm looking at you). But before the election several of us repeatedly pointed out that people weren't going to be offered either an agreed package or a serious prospect of change by 2017, and that the referendum promise was therefore essentially a Wilson-style fudge. The response from Tory loyalists was always pooh, there's lots of time to get an agreement, it's going to be terribly important to the EU, and anyway only voting Tory gives people a real chance to leave.
There was never much prospect of a serious revision. There was no prospect whatsoever of a new Treaty by 2017. And it was always obvious that Cameron was going to nudge people into voting to stay before either a major revision or, let alone, a Treaty were actually available. Anyone who voted Tory believing something else is sadly gullible.
Yet at least we got a choice - Labour knew best and weren't even offering a choice.
Your disconnect from the electorate is remarkable.
There was never much prospect of a serious revision.
In other words, Labour stitched up the UK so badly by signing up to Lisbon, and giving up most of our veto power for nothing in return, that Cameron starts from a weak negotiating position.
This is true, but we have to deal with the world as it is, not now it might have been if we'd had a sensible government at the time of Lisbon.
No bets on my array of Oldham markets Richard??! The prices cant be that good!
Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!
I used to do that all the time when we had a bookshop in the village, just to help keep the place going. Not only were the books more expensive but because he had to order them they were slower to arrive.
The shop still went to the wall, most local people say they like local independent shops but not enough are actually prepared to shop in them.
My friend has a domestic appliance shop in the town centre and his beef is people coming in and asking for his advice on the various models, making a note of the serial numbers, then buying online elsewhere... but what can he do???
Charge a fee for his advice, fully offset against any purchase.
Cheers
Is there a precedent for that working?
I don't know about retail, but for professional services it is used regularly.
Effectively he'd be setting himself up as a consultant who also sells retail products - not sure how the model would work in practice, because you need to figure out a way to distinguish between customers who have a simple question and those who want more detailed advice.
If it is more than a 1 man band, perhaps you have a dedicated employee who provides that service?
Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!
I used to do that all the time when we had a bookshop in the village, just to help keep the place going. Not only were the books more expensive but because he had to order them they were slower to arrive.
The shop still went to the wall, most local people say they like local independent shops but not enough are actually prepared to shop in them.
My friend has a domestic appliance shop in the town centre and his beef is people coming in and asking for his advice on the various models, making a note of the serial numbers, then buying online elsewhere... but what can he do???
Charge a fee for his advice, fully offset against any purchase.
Cheers
Is there a precedent for that working?
There is plenty of advice online, so I don't think its a goer. Good service and aftercare is probably the only way.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
What made you think there might be more? It is exactly what reports said he was demanding before the election.
I don't see anything that's changed between then and now.
His Bloomberg speech in 2013 hat-tipped employment, crime and environmental powers, and red-cards for national parliament. Also that there should be mechanisms for power to 'flow back' to national parliaments.
His speech last year at conference was also instructive on migration: "I will get what Britain needs."
He was looking at an emergency brake on EU migration and a 75k-100k cap limit until he was told to bog off. Then it became about benefits for four years.
And it looks like he won't even get that.
Realistically, a cap is a logistical nightmare. How do you allocate them? Is it net? Is it rolling 12 months? What are the requirements? How do you deal with people already here? Will you end up with the problems they have in the US, where big business grabs all the visas at the start of the year? How do employers check if an EU person is someone who was already in the UK, or someone who more recently came?
You would be better off with a x thousand pound annual "fee" for people who came from the EU, that would be: (a) easy to implement, (b) discourage low skill immigration, (c) raise valuable revenue for the treasury.
I'm not sure it is. Canada and Australia already manage, as does the US, and we are not part of Schengen so control our own borders already.
Yes, there are questions of design and administration. They can be answered.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
What made you think there might be more? It is exactly what reports said he was demanding before the election.
I don't see anything that's changed between then and now.
So the EU's reaction to the Greek economic crisis and the Migrant crisis hasnt given him pause for thought
How could the EU have dealt better with the Greek crisis?
Ive never claimed to be an expert on things like that and am not going to try blagging now... but it seems to be on a basic level, as someone who watched the news etc, that 2 quite controversial problems have arisen since 2014 that the EU have been criticised for, so maybe a rethink of demands with those in mind is fair game
The best outcome for Greece would have been for them to leave the Eurozone. But they chose not to take that.
Ultimately, I think it's a real struggle to see what outcome in Greece - given they were to determined not to leave - would have been better.
'allow the Eurozone to become the focus of 'ever closer union' whilst we tiptoe away without frightening the horses'
But that is not what it is going to be Richard. We will not get to tiptoe away from anything - there will be no repatriation of any existing powers and the UK will continue to be subject to integrationist judgements by the European courts.
Nor will there be any safeguards of the sort you say you want against the inner core legislating in ways that damage our economic interests. Indeed, they are quite likely to do just that as a form of pressure to get associate members to ultimately join the core.
In general I try to avoid the "I told you so" stuff where posters who've said 15 different things over the years prove they were Right All Along (SeanT, I'm looking at you). But before the election several of us repeatedly pointed out that people weren't going to be offered either an agreed package or a serious prospect of change by 2017, and that the referendum promise was therefore essentially a Wilson-style fudge. The response from Tory loyalists was always pooh, there's lots of time to get an agreement, it's going to be terribly important to the EU, and anyway only voting Tory gives people a real chance to leave.
There was never much prospect of a serious revision. There was no prospect whatsoever of a new Treaty by 2017. And it was always obvious that Cameron was going to nudge people into voting to stay before either a major revision or, let alone, a Treaty were actually available. Anyone who voted Tory believing something else is sadly gullible.
Unlike those people who believed Labour's promise on the EU Constitution, eh Nick?
'allow the Eurozone to become the focus of 'ever closer union' whilst we tiptoe away without frightening the horses'
But that is not what it is going to be Richard. We will not get to tiptoe away from anything - there will be no repatriation of any existing powers and the UK will continue to be subject to integrationist judgements by the European courts.
Nor will there be any safeguards of the sort you say you want against the inner core legislating in ways that damage our economic interests. Indeed, they are quite likely to do just that as a form of pressure to get associate members to ultimately join the core.
In general I try to avoid the "I told you so" stuff where posters who've said 15 different things over the years prove they were Right All Along (SeanT, I'm looking at you). But before the election several of us repeatedly pointed out that people weren't going to be offered either an agreed package or a serious prospect of change by 2017, and that the referendum promise was therefore essentially a Wilson-style fudge. The response from Tory loyalists was always pooh, there's lots of time to get an agreement, it's going to be terribly important to the EU, and anyway only voting Tory gives people a real chance to leave.
There was never much prospect of a serious revision. There was no prospect whatsoever of a new Treaty by 2017. And it was always obvious that Cameron was going to nudge people into voting to stay before either a major revision or, let alone, a Treaty were actually available. Anyone who voted Tory believing something else is sadly gullible.
You calling voters gullible? The man who voted for Corbyn??? Will we have a referendum or not? Will we, that you as well although given your track record that does not count for much, have a vote or not??
There will be a referendum and all those who do not like it can vote. It's pretty clear that the Out voters will not be remotely interested in the actual terms, so why anyone whinging about them matters I do not know. There will be a vote ... as promised by Cameron and the Tories. Anyone who wants to leave the EU can vote accordingly.
Has anyone else paid 33% more for a book because it's from your local old bookshop rather than just get it on Amazon?
My mums birthday and I think she'd prefer I did that!
I used to do that all the time when we had a bookshop in the village, just to help keep the place going. Not only were the books more expensive but because he had to order them they were slower to arrive.
The shop still went to the wall, most local people say they like local independent shops but not enough are actually prepared to shop in them.
My friend has a domestic appliance shop in the town centre and his beef is people coming in and asking for his advice on the various models, making a note of the serial numbers, then buying online elsewhere... but what can he do???
Charge a fee for his advice, fully offset against any purchase.
Cheers
Is there a precedent for that working?
John Lewis do it for some of their services eg advising on carpets / blinds etc.,.
Realistically, a cap is a logistical nightmare. How do you allocate them? Is it net? Is it rolling 12 months? What are the requirements? How do you deal with people already here? Will you end up with the problems they have in the US, where big business grabs all the visas at the start of the year? How do employers check if an EU person is someone who was already in the UK, or someone who more recently came?
You would be better off with a x thousand pound annual "fee" for people who came from the EU, that would be: (a) easy to implement, (b) discourage low skill immigration, (c) raise valuable revenue for the treasury.
I'm not sure it is. Canada and Australia already manage, as does the US, and we are not part of Schengen so control our own borders already.
Yes, there are questions of design and administration. They can be answered.
By simply stating that the US manages you're point blank ignoring all the problems rcs mentioned that the US has or that there are serious problems with the systems in the US too (or Canada or Australia). Try telling an American that their immigration system is perfect, especially one who has had to deal with it.
It's the absence of a firm offer for what Remain looks like, and we're a few months from it. That's causing the reluctant Remains to be irked as they've a laundry list of positions from a bit less EU to Almost No EU = but they want to be loyal at the same time.
Given I'm a Leaver now in Braveheart mode [sovereignty/borders/law], I've no dog in this fight. For those who talk a lot about Leaving, but really want to be convinced to stay - it's going to require some patience.
I'd prefer to see Leave work up some good alternatives for the future, instead of bitching about Remain.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands. My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes. Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
"My own view is that Cameron’s reform package is too modest to make any real difference to our relationship with the EU so even if he achieves it I won’t be changing my mind. But for those who are genuinely undecided and still weighing up which way to vote, how successful he is in securing the first of his demands might well be critical. "
'Germany who want a free-market EU, not an olive-belt subsidy machine'
Remind me which country it is that has been organising and financing massive bailouts of the 'olive belt' over the last few years? I know these are 'loans' but everyone knows they will never be repaid in full.
'From our point of view, this is a much better deal than leaving and joining the EEA because we'd still have full say in EU rules, and we'd have vetos via treaty'
We would not have any effective say in rules created by the inner core, which is what you say you are so worried about. The situation would be no better than it is now and quite possibly worse as the core starts to vote as a bloc.
As for vetos, these apply to only a few areas now and again, this is no change to the status quo. Where is the tiptoeing away you keep talking about?
'We'd have more institutional protection, though, and a full say in decision making'
See above - there is no effective institutional protection in this set up and a 'full say' amounts to very little.
'Longer term, though, such a structure should make it easier to get opt-outs'
So it's jam tomorrow, maybe, is it? But what do you really mean here - opt outs from further integrationist measures or from those that apply now. I think you mean the former. We can get those anyway - as we haver in the past - if that is they come by treaty. But a lot of them will not.
You post is just saying that this proposed 'associate membership' is indeed another version of the status quo.
I'm becoming quite perplexed re comments on here about Cameron's negotiations. If you don't like them, vote Leave.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I'm a supporter of Cameron, and don't want to insult him. But I am very disappointed at his renegotiation demands.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
What made you think there might be more? It is exactly what reports said he was demanding before the election.
I don't see anything that's changed between then and now.
So the EU's reaction to the Greek economic crisis and the Migrant crisis hasnt given him pause for thought
How could the EU have dealt better with the Greek crisis?
Ive never claimed to be an expert on things like that and am not going to try blagging now... but it seems to be on a basic level, as someone who watched the news etc, that 2 quite controversial problems have arisen since 2014 that the EU have been criticised for, so maybe a rethink of demands with those in mind is fair game
Maybe but maybe not. The point is we've not edged back on what we're asking for since then.
As for the two problems, Greece is a Eurozone issue and so our demand for protections from Eurozone issues is all the more relevant but was already a demand. Had this been dropped post-Greece then it would be utterly bonkers but it hasn't been. As for migration, we're not a member of Schengen so I don't see it as relevant.
Comments
When I buy much more expensive books I tend to buy off Amazon because the savings are worth it.
(I do, however, have a bit of a problem taking Egyptian stuff seriously, as a result of early exposure to Astérix et Cléopâtre).
The latest unemployment statistics.
- Record employment rate;
- EU nationals working in the UK tops 2 million. It was 500k in 1997, and around 1.2m in 2010;
- Non-EU worker numbers are marginally down on 2010;
- Real terms pay still rising at close to 3%
Websites a bit crap! And I don't like the change from Swan Libraries to Swan Books... This isn't the U.S. of A!!
http://swanbooks.tbpcontrol.co.uk/tbp.direct/customeraccesscontrol/home.aspx?d=swanbooks&s=C&r=10000119&ui=0&bc=0
Labour win by
0-5 8/1
5-10 11/2
10-15 5/2
15-20 5/2
20-25 11/2
25+ 8/1
Labour lose 8/1
Match bets
Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2
Labour winning margin uo 15.5 5/6
In theory, I suppose they should declare their interest before they speak on any matter, and they should definitely register it in accordance with the rules, but I'm not too fussed.
Khan will be acting in an executive capacity, negotiating with someone who he owes.
Yes that wheeze has been outlined elsewhere and seems to be part of the thinking. The key point is that all 'associate membership' would be is a different name for the status quo.
It is also intended to apply to other Eurozone 'outs' and - most interestingly - to non-EU countries like Norway and Iceland as well.
That's right - the EU wants to try to close down the EEA structure (I wonder why?) and replace it with associate EU membership. The creation of 'associate membership' is actually an integrationist move (who's have thought it, eh?).
It is inevitable that if Cameron had wanted something completely unachievable then as a realist he would have moved on to wanting that which was achievable. Some call this 'going native' but I think its realpolitik.
Cameron will delay the vote as long as possible, talk of June 2016 is nonsense imo, one false step and Cameron is toast.
Liz Jaff, Crowdpac’s Democratic political director (she has a Republican counterpart), showed me a beta site she’d set up, whereby visitors who supported Planned Parenthood could look up all the unopposed G.O.P. candidates who have promised to defund Planned Parenthood and then pledge money to anyone who would run against them. The pledges would be converted to donations automatically, as soon as someone decided to run.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/politics-and-the-new-machine
We simply don't know how well the EU's migration and security policy will pan out over the decades to come, but the signs so far are not good.
We risk simply being overwhelmed, unless we have full control of our borders.
If it is something that will happen with Remain then aren't we Leaving by default without a say? Seems unlikely.
Pretty clear to me.
If he becomes mayor I will expect a more TSSA-friendly administration. If they want and he gives them an extra £10/hour I will say to myself: of course, that was the platform that Khan campaigned and was elected on.
Cons get party funds from private sources and use them to further their vision of the country which, smack my ass and call me Sally, coincides with the donors'.
That said, I don't see how he can discharge his function as mayor in the area of transport.
I'm not sure what the answer is. On one level voters *should* consider the question of conflicts, but I don't think they will. Perhaps Khan recusing himself from any involvement in transport would work?
I was positive that the initial rumours were just spin to lower expectations, with more substantive demands emerging later. Turns out I was wrong.
Whatever there was has clearly been overwhelmed by the numbers pouring across the borders of southern Europe.
Got an EU passport? Queue at border control. If you haven't got one, stroll on in.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d566306a-882d-11e5-9f8c-a8d619fa707c.html#slide0
Non-standard conclusions:
"The tycoon [Donald Trump] told interviewers after the debate that he had a good night, but it was probably his worst performance to date. His answers on many issues from trade policy to dealing with Vladimir Putin were incoherent and displayed a lack of comprehension of basic facts. It can be dangerous to read too much into his performance, but having fewer people on the stage worked against him as he was forced to spend more time addressing issues in detail, which is not his forte."
"Mr Cruz has been doing well in terms of fundraising, so he is starting to look like a more formidable candidate. Many Republicans think the race will narrow down to him and Mr Rubio once others have fallen by the wayside."
Bernard Jenkin has shocked me: he attacked his own front bench with the venom of a member of the opposition yesterday.
And before people write him off as just another one of the BOO'ers usual suspects it's worth remembering that Jenkin was a very early declarer from the Right for Cameron, over Davis, and voted for same-sex marriage. And he's also a naturist.
He's not an easy man to pigeonhole.
The shop still went to the wall, most local people say they like local independent shops but not enough are actually prepared to shop in them.
The Shetland news are tweeting on the closing submissions from the court:
https://twitter.com/Shetnews
Associate membership would be a good deal, so good I'd be surprised if it was possible. The EU is not going to go away and we do not want to be in the Euro or be part of its political association.
It would be utterly inappropriate, for example, for Michael Fallon to take large donation from Defence companies and then get directly involved in negotiating with them.
I'm not aware that has happened, but if it has I would think a lot less of the government for doing so.
Khan, if elected, should represent the interests of Londoners. In particular he has a duty to be a careful steward of taxpayer monies. His incentives, in this case, are different to those of the people to whom he owes a fiducary duty. That's a problem.
If for instance (and I'm not expecting it) there is a form of Double QMV protection for non-Eurozone members then that would be an incredibly significant reform. Its also something I think will be beyond the pale for the EU sadly.
Successful book shops seem to be cafe/book shops these days. An experience you cannot get from Amazon.
"In crisis situations, voters tend to cast their ballot for the government currently in place," said political analyst Jose Ignacio Torreblanca.
"Particularly if you manage to increase participation thanks to the sensation that this is a very important election, that there is a threat or a risk to the constitution."
But he underlined that it was under Rajoy's mandate that "nearly half of new separatist voters emerged".
Historian Carlos Gil Andres said that the prime minister was emerging as a figure of stability at a time of strong nationalistic sentiment.
And he added that other crucial issues, such as the actual content of policies, corruption and austerity were "disappearing from the political debate".
Latest opinion polls see PP up with a lead around 6.5% over PSOE while their likely coalition partners are around 18% well ahead of the far Left Podemos.
We can control our borders from Africa. So can all EU countries. We are not, unlike non EU Norway, part of the Schengen Agreement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34786686
Are they red-lines? What exactly are the details? I'm not sure that nice words and
vague assurances count for anything. I'm sure there'll be a big ticket item and that
will be the clincher - if it's definite.
Many of them seem to be coming from firm Leavers anyway, why? It's like rubbishing SNPers for wanting independence when you're a Unionist. Of course you don't agree.
Frankly, I'd have thought firm Leavers would be delighted by *insert insult here* Cameron - a most weird situation that they're complaining that their opponent is crap???
I've had a message from JEO saying his main account has been banned. He doesn't think he's broken any rules.
Is there a problem? Or could there be a technical issue - i.e. his IP address triggering an automatic banning or something?
But that is not what it is going to be Richard. We will not get to tiptoe away from anything - there will be no repatriation of any existing powers and the UK will continue to be subject to integrationist judgements by the European courts.
Nor will there be any safeguards of the sort you say you want against the inner core legislating in ways that damage our economic interests. Indeed, they are quite likely to do just that as a form of pressure to get associate members to ultimately join the core.
Also, there will be great pressure to resettle and rehouse those that do arrive once they are within the EU, and that could be in the tens of millions.
There's a very nice Waterstones in Leeds, but that's a fiver (probably more, now) and an hour's travel just to browse.
For some books, especially pricier histories, I do sometimes check AbeBooks. Got a Contamine history on the Hundred Years' War there for less than half the new price.
Indeed. It looks like that promised land, in between what Cameron can achieve and leaving, won't be available.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/11/10/innovative-ideas-in-grim-times/
Ultimately why would all the nations of the core unanimously want to harm us to try and get us to join them? In many respects the French for one would be glad to see us out of the core (as De Gaulle originally vetoed us from being). If we leave the core the French will not be begging for us to return.
As I think the electorate will follow Cameron's lead, I'm also prematurely disappointed to think that we'll accept such a weak set of proposals, simply because Cameron is so popular.
My frustration is more that this very thin gruel is what I suspected all along, but I'd been led to believe might have so much more behind the scenes.
Leave/Remain isn't a black/white picture either, it's a sliding scale. I think if he'd put forward a more ambitious package, and backed it with the right attitude and negotiation strategy, he could have achieved more and brought more Leavers into his camp.
Will she jump or react if pushed?
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/11/the-eu-referendum-cameron-is-gripped-by-the-fear-that-may-will-come-out-for-leave.html
"“Cameron doesn’t understand people who act on principle, while Osborne has contempt for people who act on principle,” said one source, who admittedly is not well-disposed to either. But since there is conversation in Downing Street, at the highest level, about what she may do about Europe, there will also be conversation about what to do with her."
The core EU countries want closer union. Indeed, for the Euro to work, they very much need closer union; the single currency is fundamentally flawed as it stands, so if they want to keep the Euro (and they do, rightly or wrongly) then they need a tighter structure.
From their point of view, we are a major nuisance, not wanting closer union, not wanting political integration, with a different cultural attitude on many issues, and above all not likely ever to join the Eurozone. But the EU elite (with lots of popular support in much of continental Europe, remember) have a huge amount of political capital invested in the 'vision' of the EU. It verges on a religion. The UK leaving would look like a failure of that vision, a blow to prestige, as well as being a major problem for those like Germany who want a free-market EU, not an olive-belt subsidy machine.
The way to reconcile this, whilst saving face - always important in international negotiations - and whilst being able to sell the new arrangement both to UK voters nervous about the risks of leaving and to voters elsewhere, is to retain 'EU membership' for the UK, but set up institutions which allow the Eurozone to integrate further without us. From our point of view, this is a much better deal than leaving and joining the EEA because we'd still have full say in EU rules, and we'd have vetos via treaty (for example, we could veto Turkey joining the EU, if that's what we wanted to do - Norway couldn't do that, they'd just have to put up with it whether they liked it or not).
Of course, we'd still be subject to EU rules where don't have an opt-out, and we wouldn't have any more control over EU immigration than we do today, but that's the same as being in the EEA. (We'd have more institutional protection, though, and a full say in decision making). Longer term, though, such a structure should make it easier to get opt-outs, as it will be easier for the core Eurozone to go ahead without us. We're too much trouble.
Here is an article Cameron wrote in the Telegraph in March 2014: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/10700644/David-Cameron-the-EU-is-not-working-and-we-will-change-it.html
I don't see anything that's changed between then and now.
It now looks like that is not the case. It is take it as it is or leave it. We will never get that true associate membership which so many, I believe, crave. It is not available under this prime minister and certainly not available under any viable major opposition party.
Trouble is, this is the prime minister who won the election.
On the other hand this Welsh town has gone offshore to join the tax dodgers:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crickhowell-welsh-town-moves-offshore-to-avoid-tax-on-local-business-a6728971.html
Well excuse us if we listen to our people as imposing millions of immigrants onto them from on high.
The EU is sitting on a power keg, if opinion polls in france and holland are even half way correct. In two years time we might be negotiating with people far more amenable to our position than the people we are negotiating with now.
Which makes me very suspicious of the early timing of the referendum. Cameron wants to lock us in before Europe explodes.
The quality (or lack thereof) in the debate may help shift me further one way or t'other.
His speech last year at conference was also instructive on migration: "I will get what Britain needs."
He was looking at an emergency brake on EU migration and a 75k-100k cap limit until he was told to bog off. Then it became about benefits for four years.
And it looks like he won't even get that.
This has the perverse effect of crowding out private sector and entrepreneurship by attracting the most talented staff into government service rather than private business.
IIRC, Newcastle (or at least the North East) had a particular issue with this if you looked at the stats
If a banker were to put himself in a similar position where he had a conflict of interest, he would be disciplined and very likely dismissed. I know because I have very recently done such a case. We should expect a candidate for an elected post to avoid creating conflicts of interest given that his job will be hard enough as it is, reconciling the various different interests of Londoners, without adding the perception that he is financially beholden to one group.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11986320/David-Camerons-EU-reform-package-is-too-feeble-to-make-any-difference.html
"My own view is that Cameron’s reform package is too modest to make any real difference to our relationship with the EU so even if he achieves it I won’t be changing my mind. But for those who are genuinely undecided and still weighing up which way to vote, how successful he is in securing the first of his demands might well be critical. "
You would be better off with a x thousand pound annual "fee" for people who came from the EU, that would be: (a) easy to implement, (b) discourage low skill immigration, (c) raise valuable revenue for the treasury.
As it stands I'm voting OUT.
There was never much prospect of a serious revision. There was no prospect whatsoever of a new Treaty by 2017. And it was always obvious that Cameron was going to nudge people into voting to stay before either a major revision or, let alone, a Treaty were actually available. Anyone who voted Tory believing something else is sadly gullible.
ConHome? .... Who owns that??
How desperate does desperate have to be before the desperate desperateness of it all becomes desperately clear?
Idealists and zealots already know the conclusion, and have no need to amend their view when pesky evidence comes along which may contradict it.
The EU (and eurozone) are projects of idealism, not pragmatism.
Is there a precedent for that working?
You are probably correct, actually. Following my own logic, I'll be voting leave, as a much better deal could be on the table in a few years time.
But for now, its take it or leave it.
I think I'll leave it.
Here's the thing: I think most people would buy that, if it was restricted to the single market, with strengthened roles for national parliaments, and we had practical limits on EU immigration.
But - and I know you disagree - I think we will continue to be marginalised and outvoted on economic matters. We will also continue to be subject to political union (and its creep) in key matters of social, employment, crime, justice, foreign affairs, and that's too important to (also) accept pooled sovereignty on those market rules - not to mention trade, agriculture, and fisheries.
So that tips the balance for me.
This is true, but we have to deal with the world as it is, not how it might have been if we'd had a sensible government at the time of Lisbon.
Your disconnect from the electorate is remarkable.
Effectively he'd be setting himself up as a consultant who also sells retail products - not sure how the model would work in practice, because you need to figure out a way to distinguish between customers who have a simple question and those who want more detailed advice.
If it is more than a 1 man band, perhaps you have a dedicated employee who provides that service?
Yes, there are questions of design and administration. They can be answered.
Ultimately, I think it's a real struggle to see what outcome in Greece - given they were to determined not to leave - would have been better.
Will we have a referendum or not? Will we, that you as well although given your track record that does not count for much, have a vote or not??
There will be a referendum and all those who do not like it can vote. It's pretty clear that the Out voters will not be remotely interested in the actual terms, so why anyone whinging about them matters I do not know. There will be a vote ... as promised by Cameron and the Tories. Anyone who wants to leave the EU can vote accordingly.
Given I'm a Leaver now in Braveheart mode [sovereignty/borders/law], I've no dog in this fight. For those who talk a lot about Leaving, but really want to be convinced to stay - it's going to require some patience.
I'd prefer to see Leave work up some good alternatives for the future, instead of bitching about Remain.
'Germany who want a free-market EU, not an olive-belt subsidy machine'
Remind me which country it is that has been organising and financing massive bailouts of the 'olive belt' over the last few years? I know these are 'loans' but everyone knows they will never be repaid in full.
'From our point of view, this is a much better deal than leaving and joining the EEA because we'd still have full say in EU rules, and we'd have vetos via treaty'
We would not have any effective say in rules created by the inner core, which is what you say you are so worried about. The situation would be no better than it is now and quite possibly worse as the core starts to vote as a bloc.
As for vetos, these apply to only a few areas now and again, this is no change to the status quo. Where is the tiptoeing away you keep talking about?
'We'd have more institutional protection, though, and a full say in decision making'
See above - there is no effective institutional protection in this set up and a 'full say' amounts to very little.
'Longer term, though, such a structure should make it easier to get opt-outs'
So it's jam tomorrow, maybe, is it? But what do you really mean here - opt outs from further integrationist measures or from those that apply now. I think you mean the former. We can get those anyway - as we haver in the past - if that is they come by treaty. But a lot of them will not.
You post is just saying that this proposed 'associate membership' is indeed another version of the status quo.
As for the two problems, Greece is a Eurozone issue and so our demand for protections from Eurozone issues is all the more relevant but was already a demand. Had this been dropped post-Greece then it would be utterly bonkers but it hasn't been. As for migration, we're not a member of Schengen so I don't see it as relevant.