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?
Hannan's not neutral, but neither is Cameron - it's subtly different now:
"3. A ‘red card’ for national parliaments
This is actually worse than the status quo. What Eurosceptics always wanted – and what David Cameron was calling for until a year or so ago – was the restoration of parliamentary supremacy. In other words, EU treaties would have the same status as other international treaties, rather than creating a new legal order with precedence over national laws. EU directives and regulations would then come into effect only following an implementing decision by Parliament.
The PM has evidently dropped that idea, and is instead asking for system whereby a number of national parliaments can club together to block an EU proposal. In other words, national parliaments will be formally recognised as sub-units within a European polity – much as, say, American states are recognised as the units that can formally amend the US Constitution. Parliament will no longer be a sovereign entity in voluntary association with other institutions; rather, it will be a subordinate part of the EU’s political architecture."
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.
Except the so-called core isn't a bloc and isn't voting as a bloc. In one way they're further from that than ever, I have Dutch friends who used to see themselves as European first, Dutch second and wanted an EU superstate. Now they see themselves as Dutch first and are fed up with the Greeks.
The Dutch and Germans very often vote the same way as we do. Even the USA is not homogeneous after centuries as a single nation, the EU will never be homogeneous.
It was the Merkelisation of the EU that made it for me re immigration. I simply don't think the threat from mass migration can be controlled by remaining in.
Other things like trade we can fix/tweak - hundreds of thousands of culturally different people will change us forever and I don't want that to happen. It's already bad enough as we are and will take decades to unpick.
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
The simple answer to that is to end national wage bargaining. Why should someone in South Shields (for example) be paid the same as someone in Kettering, if the standards of living in the two areas are different (which means that in real terms, they're not paid the same)? Similarly, if there is a wage-related under-recruitment issue in one area then the rate for the job needs to rise, assuming it can't easily and effectively be moved to a cheaper area. That doesn't mean that everyone else across the country should get the same rise.
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 think the border control thing is a bit of a red herring. Any EU, Swiss, or a host of other countries can come here without a visa. The vast bulk of these people are on holiday, or coming for business day trips. I'm sure we're not about to implement some kind of system where Norwegian tourists have to apply for visas before visiting the UK.
Re your caps: The US has caps on certain types of visas that have tended to be abused by large corporates (who gobble up the visas at the start of the year to the detriment of smaller businesses). It does not have an overall cap.
Canada does not have an annual immigration cap, as far as I can tell.
What's wrong with my annual fee idea? Administratively simply, achieves the same broad goals. And if we're getting too many, you just raise the fee for the next year.
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.
Eh? I'm not denying any problems point-blank at all. Where did I say their immigration system is perfect? Is there such a system anywhere in the world?
I'm simply pointing out they have control of their borders and that it's not impractical to manage an annual cap - plenty of countries do it.
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.
Eh? I'm not denying any problems point-blank at all. Where did I say their immigration system is perfect? Is there such a system anywhere in the world?
I'm simply pointing out they have control of their borders and that it's not impractical to manage an annual cap - plenty of countries do it.
Do they have control over their borders? Again that'd be news to many Americans or anyone who pays attention to US politics.
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?
Ill take that as a no then. Tory news blackout on this, understandable given how embarrassing it is.
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.
No, my point is that we could do a deal on that - in return for signing up to the treaty changes with the Eurozone needs to integrate more closely (using EU institutions to do so), we could get better institutional protection.
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.
Opt-outs from further integration certainly, and with a bit of luck opt-outs or at least amelioration on current rules as these inevitably get revised. Basically I want to train them into the view that it's easier just to say 'Oh, heck, just leave the UK out of it' everytime they change something!
I accept that this is a very optimistic approach. On the other hand, it's less unrealistic than the Leave case that we can have all of the above and more, with zero downside, despite having to negotiate with exactly the same people to get it and having given up such veto power as we still have (albeit too weakly) as a consequence of being signatories to the EU treaties.
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.
Why do you think we should accept this?
On the basis that you (seem) to be unhappy with the surrender of those veto powers under that Labour government, don't you think Cameron should have not demanded their return in his renegotiation coupled with a treaty amendment to Lisbon?
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 think the border control thing is a bit of a red herring. Any EU, Swiss, or a host of other countries can come here without a visa. The vast bulk of these people are on holiday, or coming for business day trips. I'm sure we're not about to implement some kind of system where Norwegian tourists have to apply for visas before visiting the UK.
Re your caps: The US has caps on certain types of visas that have tended to be abused by large corporates (who gobble up the visas at the start of the year to the detriment of smaller businesses). It does not have an overall cap.
Canada does not have an annual immigration cap, as far as I can tell.
What's wrong with my annual fee idea? Administratively simply, achieves the same broad goals. And if we're getting too many, you just raise the fee for the next year.
I think th fee idea is great. Could it be implemented for EU citizens though within the EU ?
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?
Ill take that as a no then. Tory news blackout on this, understandable given how embarrassing it is.
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?
Ill take that as a no then. Tory news blackout on this, understandable given how embarrassing it is.
Obviously it hasn't excited the left-leaning people on this site either, as I can't recall seeing anything on whatever it is .
If you want something discussed, why not just give a link to it?
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.
Every politician says they will govern for all by definition, but actually none does. Each politician governs according to his particular vision and political philosophy.
Size of the state, for example. Should it be 35%? 45%? 55%? GO might think 35% and so set about reducing it from current levels. Is he governing for all? No. He is governing according to his own political philosophy which he _believes_ is good for all.
But plenty would disagree.
Sadiq Khan has been endorsed by the TSSA because his political philosophy aligns with theirs. He believes that if he accedes to every single TSSA request (charging bankers £100 extra to use the tube at rush-hour, increasing fivefold TSSA members' wages, etc) that will be better for society and hence for all. Oh of course individuals might suffer but it's all for the common good and so he is governing for all.
Not so different from Osbo's view on tax credits. But you might agree on tax credits. So might Stanley Fink. Stanley Fink donated £2m to the Conservative Party between 2005-2010. How about that for conflict of interest?
It has absolutely no relation to a banker putting himself in a situation where there is a conflict of interest because bankers have an obligation to treat all customers fairly. Sadiq Khan is a politician putting himself up for election which means some people will be discriminated against and he has no obligation to treat everyone fairly, although he might say that his policies will be good for everyone.
So, to summarise, Sadiq Khan a) shares the views of the TSSA; b) is fully transparent about it; so c) if you don't like it, don't vote for him; or conversely d) if you think it's great, you can vote for him
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.
But to some extent it's meant to be a disincentive for time wasters rather than necessarily an income generator
On the basis that you (seem) to be unhappy with the surrender of those veto powers under that Labour government, don't you think Cameron should have not demanded their return in his renegotiation coupled with a treaty amendment to Lisbon?
Just demanding something doesn't make it happen. Obviously it would have been hugely easier to get this right before 28 countries agreed and ratified it following years of negotiation, rather than trying to unpick it afterwards - with the best will in the world, you can see why the other EU countries might not be very sympathetic to revision.
Bear in mind that I start from the assessment that UK voters would vote to Remain whatever happens in the renegotiations. Therefore, any improvements Cameron can get are better than the alternative, which is that we remain stuck with the status quo.
If we voted out the Calais camps would be empty in weeks after our withdrawl.
Because without French co-operation they'd all be in the UK and not in Calais.
Were that to happen, we merely close the Tunnel, and watch it's French owners howl.
Cooperation works both ways.
Eurotunnel may be headquartered in France, but its shareholder register is mainly in the UK these days.
Freight operations are French owned.
Closing the tunnel would have serious consequences. The number of ferries on the Dover-Calais route has declined very sharply over the last 25 years, even as trade and passenger numbers have increased significantly.
Overall cross channel capacity would be reduced significantly, which would impact both people and businesses significantly. There would be serious economic consequences for train companies, for exporters, and the like. No doubt some British businesses which relied on components being shipped from Europe could be seriously impacted, at least in the short-term.
Furthermore, the legal costs from the inevitable lawsuits from Virgin and the like could potentially run into the hundreds of millions.
It would almost certainly be cheaper to secure it with several batallions of troops than to close it.
"What Cameron means by an “emergency brake” or “red card” is not a national veto that one member state, such as the UK, could exercise, but a veto that several member states could exercise in concert.
There is already a mechanism called a “yellow card” that can be collectively exercised by nine member states, but it only obliges the European Commission to reconsider a particular rule change, not abandon it. If Cameron could get the European Council to turn that yellow card into a red one – which they could do before next June, when he wants to hold the referendum – that would be more than a “cosmetic” concession."
However, there are not nine countries likely to be outside the eurozone in the long-term. In fact, it could just be us, and Denmark. And, even now, we'd need almost all of them with us.
On things like financial services, we might struggle to find eight allies too - either inside, or outside, the eurozone.
So I'm not sure the non-eurozone protection amounts to very much either, despite being the most substantive proposal.
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
The simple answer to that is to end national wage bargaining. Why should someone in South Shields (for example) be paid the same as someone in Kettering, if the standards of living in the two areas are different (which means that in real terms, they're not paid the same)? Similarly, if there is a wage-related under-recruitment issue in one area then the rate for the job needs to rise, assuming it can't easily and effectively be moved to a cheaper area. That doesn't mean that everyone else across the country should get the same rise.
I agree. But I doubt that the "blue sky" thinking from Labour included that, because they have fought tooth and nail against it for years
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.
Why do you think we should accept this?
On the basis that you (seem) to be unhappy with the surrender of those veto powers under that Labour government, don't you think Cameron should have not demanded their return in his renegotiation coupled with a treaty amendment to Lisbon?
It would be an impossible demand. Some things once broken can't be fixed, the other EU nations would never agree to that.
In a negotiation you demand what you can achieve plus a little bit more normally that you would like but don't expect to get, you don't demand the absolutely impossible.
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 think the border control thing is a bit of a red herring. Any EU, Swiss, or a host of other countries can come here without a visa. The vast bulk of these people are on holiday, or coming for business day trips. I'm sure we're not about to implement some kind of system where Norwegian tourists have to apply for visas before visiting the UK.
Re your caps: The US has caps on certain types of visas that have tended to be abused by large corporates (who gobble up the visas at the start of the year to the detriment of smaller businesses). It does not have an overall cap.
Canada does not have an annual immigration cap, as far as I can tell.
What's wrong with my annual fee idea? Administratively simply, achieves the same broad goals. And if we're getting too many, you just raise the fee for the next year.
I think th fee idea is great. Could it be implemented for EU citizens though within the EU ?
The answer is no, probably not. But achieving it with the EEA would quite possibly be doable. (The Norwegians, of course, have their compulsory language courses.)
Although the Italians effectively have something like it with their health service. It's an insurance based system which makes it hard to emigrate to Italy without a job. (We could learn a lot from how our fellow Europeans run their health services.)
On the basis that you (seem) to be unhappy with the surrender of those veto powers under that Labour government, don't you think Cameron should have not demanded their return in his renegotiation coupled with a treaty amendment to Lisbon?
Just demanding something doesn't make it happen. Obviously it would have been hugely easier to get this right before 28 countries agreed and ratified it following years of negotiation, rather than trying to unpick it afterwards - with the best will in the world, you can see why the other EU countries might not be very sympathetic to revision.
Bear in mind that I start from the assessment that UK voters would vote to Remain whatever happens in the renegotiations. Therefore, any improvements Cameron can get are better than the alternative, which is that we remain stuck with the status quo.
Well said.
I like you see the status quo as a baseline and any improvements as precisely that.
Others seem to see a hypothetically imagined ideal world as a baseline and anything less than that as a failure.
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.
Other than pride, I still don't really understand why the Greek people were so resistant to leaving the Eurozone - looking at (eg Iceland) shows that it was always likely to be by far the best solution for Greece in the long run (albeit not for German Banks or the rest of the Eurozone) and until the Referendum I always assumed that they were being pressured to stay by the others.
Not so different from Osbo's view on tax credits. But you might agree on tax credits. So might Stanley Fink. Stanley Fink donated £2m to the Conservative Party between 2005-2010. How about that for conflict of interest?
If George Osborne were to sit across the table from Stanley Fink and negotiate the tax rate for hedge fund CEOs I absolutely would have a problem with that.
But he won't because he's not an idiot, and the civil service would never let him put himself in that position.
Other than pride, I still don't really understand why the Greek people were so resistant to leaving the Eurozone - looking at (eg Iceland) shows that it was always likely to be by far the best solution for Greece in the long run (albeit not for German Banks or the rest of the Eurozone) and until the Referendum I always assumed that they were being pressured to stay by the others.
I think it would have been the best option for the Greeks, for the Germans, and for the Eurozone generally.
However, the problem was that the Greek government would not survive a Eurozone exit. And politicians always want to get re-elected.
On the basis that you (seem) to be unhappy with the surrender of those veto powers under that Labour government, don't you think Cameron should have not demanded their return in his renegotiation coupled with a treaty amendment to Lisbon?
Just demanding something doesn't make it happen. Obviously it would have been hugely easier to get this right before 28 countries agreed and ratified it following years of negotiation, rather than trying to unpick it afterwards - with the best will in the world, you can see why the other EU countries might not be very sympathetic to revision.
Bear in mind that I start from the assessment that UK voters would vote to Remain whatever happens in the renegotiations. Therefore, any improvements Cameron can get are better than the alternative, which is that we remain stuck with the status quo.
I understand it would have been easier prior to ratification. But given he's opening up the whole relationship now, and seeking treaty change, why hasn't he tried?
What you're tacitly accepting there is that EU integration is a one-way street, something Cameron has explicitly says he's opposed to in his speeches up to now, and hinges upon the sanity of the UK government that happens to be in office at the time.
I can never accept that.
(PS. I have no idea why you start from an assessment that UK voters will vote to Remain no matter what in the referendum so we must get what we're given. It's not that clear-cut.
Besides which, Cameron could have held out the threat of campaigning for Leave if the Lisbon Treaty wasn't reasonably amended, and that would have focussed minds)
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.
Other than pride, I still don't really understand why the Greek people were so resistant to leaving the Eurozone - looking at (eg Iceland) shows that it was always likely to be by far the best solution for Greece in the long run (albeit not for German Banks or the rest of the Eurozone) and until the Referendum I always assumed that they were being pressured to stay by the others.
Because left-wing voters especially (of which there is a majority in Greece) but voters in general too don't care just about the long run. Keynes once said "in the long run we are all dead" - the pain of leaving the Eurozone would be immediate in the short term, the benefits of leaving would be in the long run.
Other than pride, I still don't really understand why the Greek people were so resistant to leaving the Eurozone - looking at (eg Iceland) shows that it was always likely to be by far the best solution for Greece in the long run (albeit not for German Banks or the rest of the Eurozone) and until the Referendum I always assumed that they were being pressured to stay by the others.
Have they ever had a chance to leave it though? My Greek friend insists Greek people don't want to remain in the euro despite polling (and the likes of BBC vox pops, which aren't evidence of anything) telling us they do. This is only anecdotal, but neither do I trust their polling - there was a big story of 'Yes' being deliberately overstated in the run up to the referendum.
I understand it would have been easier prior to ratification. But given he's opening up the whole relationship now, and seeking treaty change, why hasn't he tried?
Who says he hasn't tried? Most of these negotiations happen behind closed doors.
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?
Ill take that as a no then. Tory news blackout on this, understandable given how embarrassing it is.
Dim enough to win the election and destroy all competing parties for a generation. It would have been apocalypse if he were smart!
The public sector will squeal like crazy and start pulling Race Equity Impact Assessments.
Feather bedding uneconomic regions with public sector jobs has been something that has been done for thirty years.
Regional regeneration must focus on improving competitiveness.
London costs are so much higher so moving departments out is sensible. It would be a relatively quick win for Osborne's powerhouses as moves could be done within 3 years.
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???
What a bizarre post. Are we not to complain that our opponents are crap? Are we not to dispute the content of what they're saying? Can we expect a trappist silence from you on the subject of Labour and Corbyn from now on? If you don't like him, don't vote for him after all.
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?
Ill take that as a no then. Tory news blackout on this, understandable given how embarrassing it is.
Other than pride, I still don't really understand why the Greek people were so resistant to leaving the Eurozone - looking at (eg Iceland) shows that it was always likely to be by far the best solution for Greece in the long run (albeit not for German Banks or the rest of the Eurozone) and until the Referendum I always assumed that they were being pressured to stay by the others.
Have they ever had a chance to leave it though? My Greek friend insists Greek people don't want to remain in the euro despite polling (and the likes of BBC vox pops, which aren't evidence of anything) telling us they do. This is only anecdotal, but neither do I trust their polling - there was a big story of 'Yes' being deliberately overstated in the run up to the referendum.
Greece twice had the chance to leave the Eurozone, and twice Tsipiras bottled it.
In January of this year, they had the opportunity, with the full support of the IMF to leave the Eurozone. This would have been the best time and would have avoided all the problems with capital controls and uncertainty and the like.
Then again during the negotiations, Germany publicly floated Greece leaving. This was a worse time, because deposits had already fled Greece, and the cost of recapitalisation was much higher. Nevertheless, Greece could have renegotiated its debts from a position of strength outside the Eurozone.
The problem was that Tsipiras promised that he could end austerity and stay in the Eurozone. (In reality, even leaving the Eurozone would not have ended austerity, but it would have solved a lot of other problems.) When it came down to it, he didn't think he could survive the break of promise.
Every politician says they will govern for all by definition, but actually none does. Each politician governs according to his particular vision and political philosophy.
[Snipped]
Sadiq Khan has been endorsed by the TSSA because his political philosophy aligns with theirs. He believes that if he accedes to every single TSSA request (charging bankers £100 extra to use the tube at rush-hour, increasing fivefold TSSA members' wages, etc) that will be better for society and hence for all. Oh of course individuals might suffer but it's all for the common good and so he is governing for all.
Not so different from Osbo's view on tax credits. But you might agree on tax credits. So might Stanley Fink. Stanley Fink donated £2m to the Conservative Party between 2005-2010. How about that for conflict of interest?
It has absolutely no relation to a banker putting himself in a situation where there is a conflict of interest because bankers have an obligation to treat all customers fairly. Sadiq Khan is a politician putting himself up for election which means some people will be discriminated against and he has no obligation to treat everyone fairly, although he might say that his policies will be good for everyone.
So, to summarise, Sadiq Khan a) shares the views of the TSSA; b) is fully transparent about it; so c) if you don't like it, don't vote for him; or conversely d) if you think it's great, you can vote for him
You have just undermined your own previous argument that "obviously" Khan would govern for all.
I've already said what my views are on the funding of the Tories.
Bankers' conflicts of interest don't arise from the obligation to treat customers fairly, though they may do. They can arise between the bankers' personal position and that of the firm or between the firm and a client or between clients. The important thing is to recognise it and try and manage it if you can't avoid it. The best thing of all is to avoid it.
Khan could perfectly well get the endorsement of a union without getting their money. By doing so he has put himself in a situation where he has or is perceived as having a conflict. That shows very poor judgment, especially for an MP, who should have - one would have hoped - learnt from the MPs expenses scandal that just because you can do something does not mean you should.
I think it shows that he does not have the level of mature judgment needed in such a post.
Other than pride, I still don't really understand why the Greek people were so resistant to leaving the Eurozone - looking at (eg Iceland) shows that it was always likely to be by far the best solution for Greece in the long run (albeit not for German Banks or the rest of the Eurozone) and until the Referendum I always assumed that they were being pressured to stay by the others.
Have they ever had a chance to leave it though? My Greek friend insists Greek people don't want to remain in the euro despite polling (and the likes of BBC vox pops, which aren't evidence of anything) telling us they do. This is only anecdotal, but neither do I trust their polling - there was a big story of 'Yes' being deliberately overstated in the run up to the referendum.
Greece twice had the chance to leave the Eurozone, and twice Tsipiras bottled it.
In January of this year, they had the opportunity, with the full support of the IMF to leave the Eurozone. This would have been the best time and would have avoided all the problems with capital controls and uncertainty and the like.
Then again during the negotiations, Germany publicly floated Greece leaving. This was a worse time, because deposits had already fled Greece, and the cost of recapitalisation was much higher. Nevertheless, Greece could have renegotiated its debts from a position of strength outside the Eurozone.
The problem was that Tsipiras promised that he could end austerity and stay in the Eurozone. (In reality, even leaving the Eurozone would not have ended austerity, but it would have solved a lot of other problems.) When it came down to it, he didn't think he could survive the break of promise.
Yes, I accept all that. I'm saying that I don't think there has ever been a national plebiscite on the subject to test the actual opinions of the Greek people. It's always reported that the Greeks stoically and somewhat suicidally won't contemplate leaving the euro, but when I mentioned this to my Greek friend she argued the opposite.
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 think the border control thing is a bit of a red herring. Any EU, Swiss, or a host of other countries can come here without a visa. The vast bulk of these people are on holiday, or coming for business day trips. I'm sure we're not about to implement some kind of system where Norwegian tourists have to apply for visas before visiting the UK.
Re your caps: The US has caps on certain types of visas that have tended to be abused by large corporates (who gobble up the visas at the start of the year to the detriment of smaller businesses). It does not have an overall cap.
Canada does not have an annual immigration cap, as far as I can tell.
What's wrong with my annual fee idea? Administratively simply, achieves the same broad goals. And if we're getting too many, you just raise the fee for the next year.
US, Australia and Canadian citizens can also come here without a visa for up to six months. In principle, what would be triggered is a need for a work visa if seeking work in the UK from the EU after a certain point - announced in advance. Probably with 6 months notice.
Obviously that restriction wouldn't apply to existing EU residents although they might have to get an exemption permit in that time into their existing passports, and future ones would be checked at the border.
Canada has seven sub-categories of economic immigrants, including a Federal Skilled Worker Program with a 25,000 cap. The federal government monitors overall immigration levels and makes adjustments as required.
If your annual fee achieved the same goal, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it, but it would obviously be biased in favour of those who could afford it.
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???
What a bizarre post. Are we not to complain that our opponents are crap? Are we not to dispute the content of what they're saying? Can we expect a trappist silence from you on the subject of Labour and Corbyn from now on? If you don't like him, don't vote for him after all.
I don't complain about Corbyn being crap, I laugh about it.
I understand it would have been easier prior to ratification. But given he's opening up the whole relationship now, and seeking treaty change, why hasn't he tried?
Who says he hasn't tried? Most of these negotiations happen behind closed doors.
Who says he has? You yourself said his demands haven't changed for years.
Other than pride, I still don't really understand why the Greek people were so resistant to leaving the Eurozone - looking at (eg Iceland) shows that it was always likely to be by far the best solution for Greece in the long run (albeit not for German Banks or the rest of the Eurozone) and until the Referendum I always assumed that they were being pressured to stay by the others.
I think it would have been the best option for the Greeks, for the Germans, and for the Eurozone generally.
However, the problem was that the Greek government would not survive a Eurozone exit. And politicians always want to get re-elected.
I think the reason that the Greeks did not want to exit is in part them buying into being a European nation rather than a Levantine one, but also they remember the Drachma.
Imagine a government run by Tsipras and Varifakis that could print money. There are not enough wheelbarrows in the world! Greeks know they need sound money to keep from being a banana republic.
I'd have thought that it is normal, to adapt one of Boris Johnson's most memorable observations, for Prime Ministers to be in favour of having cake and in favour of eating it.
But Mr Tyndall says they do, and did them himself. Are they only for non EU migrants? Or is he lying?
I think they used to apply to EU nationals, but that was before the EU directive came into full force (IIRC they had a quite long transition period before they had to apply it fully).
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???
What a bizarre post. Are we not to complain that our opponents are crap? Are we not to dispute the content of what they're saying? Can we expect a trappist silence from you on the subject of Labour and Corbyn from now on? If you don't like him, don't vote for him after all.
I don't complain about Corbyn being crap, I laugh about it.
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.
Eh? I'm not denying any problems point-blank at all. Where did I say their immigration system is perfect? Is there such a system anywhere in the world?
I'm simply pointing out they have control of their borders and that it's not impractical to manage an annual cap - plenty of countries do it.
Do they have control over their borders? Again that'd be news to many Americans or anyone who pays attention to US politics.
Almost all of the Americans problems on illegal immigration stem from their Mexican land border. You can bet your bottom dollar they'd have a far greater immigration problem if they had free movement in NAFTA, yet alone the rest of South America. Thankfully, we are an island.
Right, I've wasted enough time on here this morning. I really must crack on with some work.
I'd have thought that it is normal, to adapt one of Boris Johnson's most memorable observations, for Prime Ministers to be in favour of having cake and in favour of eating it.
Yet another reason for Cameron to resign, joining the various gaffes with pasties, lost children, frothy Guinness and fish purchases from supermarkets that have no doubt excited Wisemann in the past.
If we voted out the Calais camps would be empty in weeks after our withdrawl.
Because without French co-operation they'd all be in the UK and not in Calais.
Were that to happen, we merely close the Tunnel, and watch it's French owners howl.
Cooperation works both ways.
Eurotunnel may be headquartered in France, but its shareholder register is mainly in the UK these days.
Freight operations are French owned.
Closing the tunnel would have serious consequences. The number of ferries on the Dover-Calais route has declined very sharply over the last 25 years, even as trade and passenger numbers have increased significantly.
Overall cross channel capacity would be reduced significantly, which would impact both people and businesses significantly. There would be serious economic consequences for train companies, for exporters, and the like. No doubt some British businesses which relied on components being shipped from Europe could be seriously impacted, at least in the short-term.
Furthermore, the legal costs from the inevitable lawsuits from Virgin and the like could potentially run into the hundreds of millions.
It would almost certainly be cheaper to secure it with several batallions of troops than to close it.
The easy way to check your assertion: what were the effects of the short-term (in the manner of many months) closures after the fires in 1996 and 2008? How did we manage after the 2008 fire?
I understand it would have been easier prior to ratification. But given he's opening up the whole relationship now, and seeking treaty change, why hasn't he tried?
Who says he hasn't tried? Most of these negotiations happen behind closed doors.
Who says he has? You yourself said his demands haven't changed for years.
No I said the demands haven't changed post-election. I said that after five years of being PM he'd know what was achievable and be demanding that - prior to him setting out his goals in 2014 there were lots of kits flown many of which were shot down. Those were never going to be in the final demands.
To me it was clear in 2014 that the negotiations were quite advanced already and that those four being set out in public were already known to be achievable in private.
Almost all of the Americans problems on illegal immigration stem from their Mexican land border. You can bet your bottom dollar they'd have a far greater immigration problem if they had free movement in NAFTA, yet alone the rest of South America. Thankfully, we are an island.
Right, I've wasted enough time on here this morning. I really must crack on with some work.
Exactly, just as Europe's problems stem from their southern borders.
New Mexico (population 2 million) has free movement with 49 other States (317 million in those other States) for which there is no objection. It is illegal migration from elsewhere that is the issue.
"What Cameron means by an “emergency brake” or “red card” is not a national veto that one member state, such as the UK, could exercise, but a veto that several member states could exercise in concert.
There is already a mechanism called a “yellow card” that can be collectively exercised by nine member states, but it only obliges the European Commission to reconsider a particular rule change, not abandon it. If Cameron could get the European Council to turn that yellow card into a red one – which they could do before next June, when he wants to hold the referendum – that would be more than a “cosmetic” concession."
However, there are not nine countries likely to be outside the eurozone in the long-term. In fact, it could just be us, and Denmark. And, even now, we'd need almost all of them with us.
On things like financial services, we might struggle to find eight allies too - either inside, or outside, the eurozone.
So I'm not sure the non-eurozone protection amounts to very much either, despite being the most substantive proposal.
I await the details with interest.
Financial services is such a key industry for the UK that Cameron should have been insisting that nothing could be done to it without the UK's agreement.
The thing that underpins all the hostility towards cuts is the misguided and comical belief that every penny spent by the public sector and the welfare state is well spent.
Yet, at the same time the complainants assail us with a myriad of arguments and statistics telling us everyone is in poverty in spite of limitless tax credits. That the only people who aren't stuck in a queue at A and E are those at a foodbank. The NHS is simultaneously in crisis, yet the envy of the world. That there are not enough houses yet we should take in all the world's waifs and strays and so on.
It often projects as complaining for the sake of it, riddled with contradiction and bereft of sense. Just some moral indignation that the public have rejected old Labour, yet again.
The thing that underpins all the hostility towards cuts is the misguided and comical belief that every penny spent by the public sector and the welfare state is well spent.
Yet, at the same time the complainants assail us with a myriad of arguments and statistics telling us everyone is in poverty in spite of limitless tax credits. That the only people who aren't stuck in a queue at A and E are those at a foodbank. The NHS is simultaneously in crisis, yet the envy of the world. That there are not enough houses yet we should take in all the world's waifs and strays and so on.
It often projects as complaining for the sake of it, riddled with contradiction and bereft of sense. Just some moral indignation that the public have rejected old Labour, yet again.
Not so different from Osbo's view on tax credits. But you might agree on tax credits. So might Stanley Fink. Stanley Fink donated £2m to the Conservative Party between 2005-2010. How about that for conflict of interest?
If George Osborne were to sit across the table from Stanley Fink and negotiate the tax rate for hedge fund CEOs I absolutely would have a problem with that.
But he won't because he's not an idiot, and the civil service would never let him put himself in that position.
The one effective PMQs EdM had IMO was when he asked, repeatedly, about stamp duty avoidance by hedge funds.
The thing that underpins all the hostility towards cuts is the misguided and comical belief that every penny spent by the public sector and the welfare state is well spent.
Yet, at the same time the complainants assail us with a myriad of arguments and statistics telling us everyone is in poverty in spite of limitless tax credits. That the only people who aren't stuck in a queue at A and E are those at a foodbank. The NHS is simultaneously in crisis, yet the envy of the world. That there are not enough houses yet we should take in all the world's waifs and strays and so on.
It often projects as complaining for the sake of it, riddled with contradiction and bereft of sense. Just some moral indignation that the public have rejected old Labour, yet again.
Financial services is such a key industry for the UK that Cameron should have been insisting that nothing could be done to it without the UK's agreement.
I suspect the FO would be quite happy to sacrifice much of the City if it meant they kept their 'seat at the table'.
Other than pride, I still don't really understand why the Greek people were so resistant to leaving the Eurozone - looking at (eg Iceland) shows that it was always likely to be by far the best solution for Greece in the long run (albeit not for German Banks or the rest of the Eurozone) and until the Referendum I always assumed that they were being pressured to stay by the others.
Have they ever had a chance to leave it though? My Greek friend insists Greek people don't want to remain in the euro despite polling (and the likes of BBC vox pops, which aren't evidence of anything) telling us they do. This is only anecdotal, but neither do I trust their polling - there was a big story of 'Yes' being deliberately overstated in the run up to the referendum.
Greece twice had the chance to leave the Eurozone, and twice Tsipiras bottled it.
In January of this year, they had the opportunity, with the full support of the IMF to leave the Eurozone. This would have been the best time and would have avoided all the problems with capital controls and uncertainty and the like.
Then again during the negotiations, Germany publicly floated Greece leaving. This was a worse time, because deposits had already fled Greece, and the cost of recapitalisation was much higher. Nevertheless, Greece could have renegotiated its debts from a position of strength outside the Eurozone.
The problem was that Tsipiras promised that he could end austerity and stay in the Eurozone. (In reality, even leaving the Eurozone would not have ended austerity, but it would have solved a lot of other problems.) When it came down to it, he didn't think he could survive the break of promise.
Yes, I accept all that. I'm saying that I don't think there has ever been a national plebiscite on the subject to test the actual opinions of the Greek people. It's always reported that the Greeks stoically and somewhat suicidally won't contemplate leaving the euro, but when I mentioned this to my Greek friend she argued the opposite.
It would have been madness. Any loans denominated in Euros would instantly have jacked up as the "new currency" would have lost value on the first day of trading.
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 think the border control thing is a bit of a red herring. Any EU, Swiss, or a host of other countries can come here without a visa. The vast bulk of these people are on holiday, or coming for business day trips. I'm sure we're not about to implement some kind of system where Norwegian tourists have to apply for visas before visiting the UK.
Re your caps: The US has caps on certain types of visas that have tended to be abused by large corporates (who gobble up the visas at the start of the year to the detriment of smaller businesses). It does not have an overall cap.
Canada does not have an annual immigration cap, as far as I can tell.
What's wrong with my annual fee idea? Administratively simply, achieves the same broad goals. And if we're getting too many, you just raise the fee for the next year.
US, Australia and Canadian citizens can also come here without a visa for up to six months. In principle, what would be triggered is a need for a work visa if seeking work in the UK from the EU after a certain point - announced in advance. Probably with 6 months notice.
Obviously that restriction wouldn't apply to existing EU residents although they might have to get an exemption permit in that time into their existing passports, and future ones would be checked at the border.
Canada has seven sub-categories of economic immigrants, including a Federal Skilled Worker Program with a 25,000 cap. The federal government monitors overall immigration levels and makes adjustments as required.
If your annual fee achieved the same goal, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it, but it would obviously be biased in favour of those who could afford it.
Annual immigration to Canada is about 250,000 and has been for decades. Over half these immigrants are coming from Asia. Canada's immigrant population is about 21%. Over 2.5m permanent immigrants in the last 10 years or so. Pro rata that to the UK.
Financial services is such a key industry for the UK that Cameron should have been insisting that nothing could be done to it without the UK's agreement.
I suspect the FO would be quite happy to sacrifice much of the City if it meant they kept their 'seat at the table'.
Which is why the FO should have been told to F Off.
But Mr Tyndall says they do, and did them himself. Are they only for non EU migrants? Or is he lying?
I think they used to apply to EU nationals, but that was before the EU directive came into full force (IIRC they had a quite long transition period before they had to apply it fully).
Firstly, as I was a transitory worker and not trying to settle in Norway or take Norwegian nationality I was not forced to do them. Even when they applied to EU citizens I was exempt because I didn't live in Norway just worked their on a rotational basis.
Secondly as Richard points out this was 15 years ago or more. I started working in Norway in 1996 and voluntarily started taking the lessons a couple of years later. Having been out of Norway for several years now I have no first hand experience of the current rules.
As I have said in the past, immigration is not one of my reasons for opposing the EU so I have not used Norway as a positive or negative example in those terms.
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:
I notice the tweets make comment as to the timing of Carmichael's admission. I think this may prove critical in the ruling, whereby it is clearly a politically motivated lie.
It seems that the whole thing will rest on whether the lie relates to his personal character.
Surely he would have been returning about now anyway. He has successfully avoided UK tax for the last 35 years and sent his wife back to the UK for free taxpayer funded care, he will now be at the age where he wants to get the same benefits he's never contributed to.
A warning to us all from the past about believing we have absolute guarantees from the EU about anything.
Full text of letter from John Major, Prime Minister, to His Excellency Monsieur Jacques Santer, 12 November 1996:
"ARTICLE 118A of the TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Governments also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act.
This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118A.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118A cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118A which properly belong under the other Members States' Agreement on Social Policy.
I am sending copies of this letter to the Heads of State or Governments of European Union Member States.
Yours sincerely,
John Major"
Needless to say Major’s demand that the amendments be adopted at the IGC did not come to pass.
It would have been madness. Any loans denominated in Euros would instantly have jacked up as the "new currency" would have lost value on the first day of trading.
It would have made sense if they were going to default.
O/T, disappointed that I missed the thread on the pyramids. As someone who has visited and studied them they remain the most incredible structures ever built. The accuracy, the engineering, the lifting required is totally beyond belief. These were people living in mudhuts using copper tools who builts structures that we would not be able to build today.
A comparision i ofte use is that with our current space technology, its like us suddenly building a deathstar.
Textbooks are so lazy on the pyramids, they spout stuff that there is absolutely no evidence for.
And RIP Pat Eddery, to my mind the greatest of a golden age of horseman. I still watch him come there crusing on Warning in the 1988 QEII at least once a week, it gives me tingles. He was awesome.
Surely he would have been returning about now anyway. He has successfully avoided UK tax for the last 35 years and sent his wife back to the UK for free taxpayer funded care, he will now be at the age where he wants to get the same benefits he's never contributed to.
Much as I don't share your spite (if he had been locked up and faced the lash for being intersex or something Im sure you wouldn't have posted on this), I thought the purpose of the protestations were for him to be spared the lash, not returned home?
Surely he would have been returning about now anyway. He has successfully avoided UK tax for the last 35 years and sent his wife back to the UK for free taxpayer funded care, he will now be at the age where he wants to get the same benefits he's never contributed to.
Much as I don't share your spite (if he had been locked up and faced the lash for being intersex or something Im sure you wouldn't have posted on this), I thought the purpose of the protestations were for him to be spared the lash, not returned home?
Yes - presumably the deal was done on a "f*** off" basis.
Surely he would have been returning about now anyway. He has successfully avoided UK tax for the last 35 years and sent his wife back to the UK for free taxpayer funded care, he will now be at the age where he wants to get the same benefits he's never contributed to.
Much as I don't share your spite (if he had been locked up and faced the lash for being intersex or something Im sure you wouldn't have posted on this), I thought the purpose of the protestations were for him to be spared the lash, not returned home?
I have no interest in what demands he was making of the government he refuses to pay for. Expats need to face the music on their own and should be barred from sending their family back to the UK to steal education, health and other resources from taxpayer.
Of course, it would all be moot if the UK just implemented the American system whereby you are liable for tax regardless.
I have little sympathy with the bloke returning from Saudi, he'd lived there long enough to know the laws, when in Rome and all that. There'll be people treating him like some sort of returning hero, it shouldn't even make the news.
'the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act'
The past is the future I'm afraid. There have been other recent examples and there will be an increasing number in the years to come unless something changes.
This is one of main reasons the UK has to leave. There appear to be people out there who still think the EU is a creature of treaties and solemn understandings between governments but it has gone far beyond that now.
It is a legal order which has a clear goal of creating a European state and no amount of dissembling can get away from that. If we want to go back to a treaty-based system it has to be from outside the legal framework of the EU.
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.
Other than pride, I still don't really understand why the Greek people were so resistant to leaving the Eurozone - looking at (eg Iceland) shows that it was always likely to be by far the best solution for Greece in the long run (albeit not for German Banks or the rest of the Eurozone) and until the Referendum I always assumed that they were being pressured to stay by the others.
Because left-wing voters especially (of which there is a majority in Greece) but voters in general too don't care just about the long run. Keynes once said "in the long run we are all dead" - the pain of leaving the Eurozone would be immediate in the short term, the benefits of leaving would be in the long run.
I think there's an element of seeing the Euro as mainstream. It's why Eastern European countries are continuing to be keen. Going back to the drachma seems to many Greeks (I believe) a retreat into a backwater. Most voters might well find it hard to judge what was best for the country as a whole in the long term.
The EU countries are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.
Perhaps the INNERS can point out which of those we benefit from and how. I'll start: Germany, they sell us cars
GPs given control of NHS budgets paid their OWN companies £2.4bn of taxpayers' money, major investigation reveals Groups of GPs now sit on CCG boards and buy services for their local area CCGs awarded 437 contracts to companies GPs owned or worked for This is completely within the rules - GPs with conflicts of interest are simply required to leave the room or abstain during voting
Lansleys reforms were always going to end up here. Meanwhile the Acute hospital sector is £2BN in debt and being forced to abandon capital projects return Capital to the centre to receive it back as revenue
Yes, I accept all that. I'm saying that I don't think there has ever been a national plebiscite on the subject to test the actual opinions of the Greek people. It's always reported that the Greeks stoically and somewhat suicidally won't contemplate leaving the euro, but when I mentioned this to my Greek friend she argued the opposite.
She may well argue the opposite, and I'm sure she's sincere in her belief, but every time it crops up, Greece simply fails to leave. It's not imprisoned within the Euro, it can leave it voluntarily any time it likes and there have been several opportunities to do so since this kicked off (2009?), but a reason for not doing so always crops up: it'll cause disruption, the currency will collapse, the dog ate my homework, there's something good on telly, whatever.
I think it prefers to sit and complain, rather than leave and do something. It won't go until its forced.
I have banged on about this frequently in the past and apologise for mounting my hobbyhorse yet again. It's just that presenting Greece as involuntary Euro members irks me. I now have to get back to work, so I shall bid you adieu.
In one case, GPs in Birmingham awarded contracts to a company where three of shareholders were on the CCG board and one was its medical director, the investigation revealed In another, six GPs on the board of North Durham CCG awarded six contracts to their own surgeries.
In one case, GPs in Birmingham awarded contracts to a company where three of shareholders were on the CCG board and one was its medical director, the investigation revealed In another, six GPs on the board of North Durham CCG awarded six contracts to their own surgeries.
Yes, it's all Lansley's fault, not the spongers ripping off the 'envy of the World'. Let's not forget that these are the same people who continually whine about the threat to patient care and services, whilst grabbing the loot.
Incidentally, have you been following the Daily Mail's revelations about NHS fat cats sucking the tanks dry this week? None of it comes as a surprise.
Is there a route back for Chris Christie? In many ways he's one of the best candidates, and by all accounts he did well last night, albeit only in the juniors' debate:
In one case, GPs in Birmingham awarded contracts to a company where three of shareholders were on the CCG board and one was its medical director, the investigation revealed In another, six GPs on the board of North Durham CCG awarded six contracts to their own surgeries.
Having watched and commented live on the debate last night, I can summarize it as follows: Everyone won but Kasich (based on expectations at least), and every supporter is happy about their candidate.
Best and worst points for the top 4 candidates:
Trump Best: When he invoked Eisenhower's program of mass deportations to defeat Kasich, Rubio and Bush on illegal immigration.
Trump Worst: When he complained that wages are too high (that's rich).
Rubio Best: When he hid his call for a minimum wage cut behind his nonsense project for a new american century.
Rubio Worst: When Paul attacked him over his pledge to increase social spending by 1$ trillion a year, plus his support for illegal immigration.
Cruz Best: When he interrogated Kasich over the bank bailouts, and calling immigration reform amnesty over Rubio's support for illegal immigration.
Cruz Worst: When talking about his family past.
Carson Best: When he dissed Hillary as a liar compared with him.
Carson Worst: When he became invisible during every fight by refusing to talk or comment during them.
The next debate is Dec. 15th, so it's a long way till then and any debate bump would probably fizzle by then.
'the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act'
The past is the future I'm afraid. There have been other recent examples and there will be an increasing number in the years to come unless something changes.
This is one of main reasons the UK has to leave. There appear to be people out there who still think the EU is a creature of treaties and solemn understandings between governments but it has gone far beyond that now.
It is a legal order which has a clear goal of creating a European state and no amount of dissembling can get away from that. If we want to go back to a treaty-based system it has to be from outside the legal framework of the EU.
I still believe it and am voting accordingly.
I see no plausibility in the ludicrous notion of a European state. Voters in Europe are never going to vote for it that I can foresee.
'the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act'
The past is the future I'm afraid. There have been other recent examples and there will be an increasing number in the years to come unless something changes.
This is one of main reasons the UK has to leave. There appear to be people out there who still think the EU is a creature of treaties and solemn understandings between governments but it has gone far beyond that now.
It is a legal order which has a clear goal of creating a European state and no amount of dissembling can get away from that. If we want to go back to a treaty-based system it has to be from outside the legal framework of the EU.
I still believe it and am voting accordingly.
I see no plausibility in the ludicrous notion of a European state. Voters in Europe are never going to vote for it that I can foresee.
Comments
The Dutch and Germans very often vote the same way as we do. Even the USA is not homogeneous after centuries as a single nation, the EU will never be homogeneous.
Other things like trade we can fix/tweak - hundreds of thousands of culturally different people will change us forever and I don't want that to happen. It's already bad enough as we are and will take decades to unpick.
Re your caps: The US has caps on certain types of visas that have tended to be abused by large corporates (who gobble up the visas at the start of the year to the detriment of smaller businesses). It does not have an overall cap.
Canada does not have an annual immigration cap, as far as I can tell.
What's wrong with my annual fee idea? Administratively simply, achieves the same broad goals. And if we're getting too many, you just raise the fee for the next year.
I'm simply pointing out they have control of their borders and that it's not impractical to manage an annual cap - plenty of countries do it.
Co-operation works both ways.
I accept that this is a very optimistic approach. On the other hand, it's less unrealistic than the Leave case that we can have all of the above and more, with zero downside, despite having to negotiate with exactly the same people to get it and having given up such veto power as we still have (albeit too weakly) as a consequence of being signatories to the EU treaties.
On the basis that you (seem) to be unhappy with the surrender of those veto powers under that Labour government, don't you think Cameron should have not demanded their return in his renegotiation coupled with a treaty amendment to Lisbon?
Feather bedding uneconomic regions with public sector jobs has been something that has been done for thirty years.
Regional regeneration must focus on improving competitiveness.
If you want something discussed, why not just give a link to it?
Size of the state, for example. Should it be 35%? 45%? 55%? GO might think 35% and so set about reducing it from current levels. Is he governing for all? No. He is governing according to his own political philosophy which he _believes_ is good for all.
But plenty would disagree.
Sadiq Khan has been endorsed by the TSSA because his political philosophy aligns with theirs. He believes that if he accedes to every single TSSA request (charging bankers £100 extra to use the tube at rush-hour, increasing fivefold TSSA members' wages, etc) that will be better for society and hence for all. Oh of course individuals might suffer but it's all for the common good and so he is governing for all.
Not so different from Osbo's view on tax credits. But you might agree on tax credits. So might Stanley Fink. Stanley Fink donated £2m to the Conservative Party between 2005-2010. How about that for conflict of interest?
It has absolutely no relation to a banker putting himself in a situation where there is a conflict of interest because bankers have an obligation to treat all customers fairly. Sadiq Khan is a politician putting himself up for election which means some people will be discriminated against and he has no obligation to treat everyone fairly, although he might say that his policies will be good for everyone.
So, to summarise, Sadiq Khan a) shares the views of the TSSA; b) is fully transparent about it; so c) if you don't like it, don't vote for him; or conversely d) if you think it's great, you can vote for him
See how often the French permit strikers etc to blockade Calais versus how often we permit strikers etc to blockade Dover.
Bear in mind that I start from the assessment that UK voters would vote to Remain whatever happens in the renegotiations. Therefore, any improvements Cameron can get are better than the alternative, which is that we remain stuck with the status quo.
Overall cross channel capacity would be reduced significantly, which would impact both people and businesses significantly. There would be serious economic consequences for train companies, for exporters, and the like. No doubt some British businesses which relied on components being shipped from Europe could be seriously impacted, at least in the short-term.
Furthermore, the legal costs from the inevitable lawsuits from Virgin and the like could potentially run into the hundreds of millions.
It would almost certainly be cheaper to secure it with several batallions of troops than to close it.
"What Cameron means by an “emergency brake” or “red card” is not a national veto that one member state, such as the UK, could exercise, but a veto that several member states could exercise in concert.
There is already a mechanism called a “yellow card” that can be collectively exercised by nine member states, but it only obliges the European Commission to reconsider a particular rule change, not abandon it. If Cameron could get the European Council to turn that yellow card into a red one – which they could do before next June, when he wants to hold the referendum – that would be more than a “cosmetic” concession."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11986320/David-Camerons-EU-reform-package-is-too-feeble-to-make-any-difference.html
However, there are not nine countries likely to be outside the eurozone in the long-term. In fact, it could just be us, and Denmark. And, even now, we'd need almost all of them with us.
On things like financial services, we might struggle to find eight allies too - either inside, or outside, the eurozone.
So I'm not sure the non-eurozone protection amounts to very much either, despite being the most substantive proposal.
I await the details with interest.
In a negotiation you demand what you can achieve plus a little bit more normally that you would like but don't expect to get, you don't demand the absolutely impossible.
Although the Italians effectively have something like it with their health service. It's an insurance based system which makes it hard to emigrate to Italy without a job. (We could learn a lot from how our fellow Europeans run their health services.)
I like you see the status quo as a baseline and any improvements as precisely that.
Others seem to see a hypothetically imagined ideal world as a baseline and anything less than that as a failure.
I suppose its all a matter of perspective.
But he won't because he's not an idiot, and the civil service would never let him put himself in that position.
However, the problem was that the Greek government would not survive a Eurozone exit. And politicians always want to get re-elected.
What you're tacitly accepting there is that EU integration is a one-way street, something Cameron has explicitly says he's opposed to in his speeches up to now, and hinges upon the sanity of the UK government that happens to be in office at the time.
I can never accept that.
(PS. I have no idea why you start from an assessment that UK voters will vote to Remain no matter what in the referendum so we must get what we're given. It's not that clear-cut.
Besides which, Cameron could have held out the threat of campaigning for Leave if the Lisbon Treaty wasn't reasonably amended, and that would have focussed minds)
NW 18.1
YtH 18.5
EM 15.6
WM 17.5
EoE 15.3
Lon 14.9
SE 15.3
SW 16.1
Eng 16.5
Wal 21.6
Sco 21.0
GB 17.1
NI 26.3 !
UK 17.2
%s of Employment from public sector.
The total pay in pounds and pence and as a % of the total regional conomies would be interesting too, but I don't have that to hand.
In January of this year, they had the opportunity, with the full support of the IMF to leave the Eurozone. This would have been the best time and would have avoided all the problems with capital controls and uncertainty and the like.
Then again during the negotiations, Germany publicly floated Greece leaving. This was a worse time, because deposits had already fled Greece, and the cost of recapitalisation was much higher. Nevertheless, Greece could have renegotiated its debts from a position of strength outside the Eurozone.
The problem was that Tsipiras promised that he could end austerity and stay in the Eurozone. (In reality, even leaving the Eurozone would not have ended austerity, but it would have solved a lot of other problems.) When it came down to it, he didn't think he could survive the break of promise.
I've already said what my views are on the funding of the Tories.
Bankers' conflicts of interest don't arise from the obligation to treat customers fairly, though they may do. They can arise between the bankers' personal position and that of the firm or between the firm and a client or between clients. The important thing is to recognise it and try and manage it if you can't avoid it. The best thing of all is to avoid it.
Khan could perfectly well get the endorsement of a union without getting their money. By doing so he has put himself in a situation where he has or is perceived as having a conflict. That shows very poor judgment, especially for an MP, who should have - one would have hoped - learnt from the MPs expenses scandal that just because you can do something does not mean you should.
I think it shows that he does not have the level of mature judgment needed in such a post.
Obviously that restriction wouldn't apply to existing EU residents although they might have to get an exemption permit in that time into their existing passports, and future ones would be checked at the border.
Canada has seven sub-categories of economic immigrants, including a Federal Skilled Worker Program with a 25,000 cap. The federal government monitors overall immigration levels and makes adjustments as required.
If your annual fee achieved the same goal, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it, but it would obviously be biased in favour of those who could afford it.
If he'd won two elections I wouldn't be laughing.
Imagine a government run by Tsipras and Varifakis that could print money. There are not enough wheelbarrows in the world! Greeks know they need sound money to keep from being a banana republic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34788129
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/11/david-cameron-letter-cuts-oxfordshire
I'd have thought that it is normal, to adapt one of Boris Johnson's most memorable observations, for Prime Ministers to be in favour of having cake and in favour of eating it.
The current rules are here:
http://www.udi.no/en/want-to-apply/the-registration-scheme-for-eueea-nationals/
Right, I've wasted enough time on here this morning. I really must crack on with some work.
To me it was clear in 2014 that the negotiations were quite advanced already and that those four being set out in public were already known to be achievable in private.
New Mexico (population 2 million) has free movement with 49 other States (317 million in those other States) for which there is no objection. It is illegal migration from elsewhere that is the issue.
Same for us.
Yet, at the same time the complainants assail us with a myriad of arguments and statistics telling us everyone is in poverty in spite of limitless tax credits. That the only people who aren't stuck in a queue at A and E are those at a foodbank. The NHS is simultaneously in crisis, yet the envy of the world. That there are not enough houses yet we should take in all the world's waifs and strays and so on.
It often projects as complaining for the sake of it, riddled with contradiction and bereft of sense. Just some moral indignation that the public have rejected old Labour, yet again.
And answer came there none.
Three minutes in - enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDR-WIR54MI
I suspect the FO would be quite happy to sacrifice much of the City if it meant they kept their 'seat at the table'.
Over 2.5m permanent immigrants in the last 10 years or so. Pro rata that to the UK.
Firstly, as I was a transitory worker and not trying to settle in Norway or take Norwegian nationality I was not forced to do them. Even when they applied to EU citizens I was exempt because I didn't live in Norway just worked their on a rotational basis.
Secondly as Richard points out this was 15 years ago or more. I started working in Norway in 1996 and voluntarily started taking the lessons a couple of years later. Having been out of Norway for several years now I have no first hand experience of the current rules.
As I have said in the past, immigration is not one of my reasons for opposing the EU so I have not used Norway as a positive or negative example in those terms.
It seems that the whole thing will rest on whether the lie relates to his personal character.
Full text of letter from John Major, Prime Minister, to His Excellency
Monsieur Jacques Santer, 12 November 1996:
"ARTICLE 118A of the TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Governments also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118A is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act.
This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118A.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118A cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118A which properly belong under the other Members States' Agreement on Social Policy.
I am sending copies of this letter to the Heads of State or Governments of European Union Member States.
Yours sincerely,
John Major"
Needless to say Major’s demand that the amendments be adopted at the IGC did not come to pass.
A comparision i ofte use is that with our current space technology, its like us suddenly building a deathstar.
Textbooks are so lazy on the pyramids, they spout stuff that there is absolutely no evidence for.
And RIP Pat Eddery, to my mind the greatest of a golden age of horseman. I still watch him come there crusing on Warning in the 1988 QEII at least once a week, it gives me tingles. He was awesome.
Of course, it would all be moot if the UK just implemented the American system whereby you are liable for tax regardless.
The past is the future I'm afraid. There have been other recent examples and there will be an increasing number in the years to come unless something changes.
This is one of main reasons the UK has to leave. There appear to be people out there who still think the EU is a creature of treaties and solemn understandings between governments but it has gone far beyond that now.
It is a legal order which has a clear goal of creating a European state and no amount of dissembling can get away from that. If we want to go back to a treaty-based system it has to be from outside the legal framework of the EU.
Perhaps the INNERS can point out which of those we benefit from and how. I'll start: Germany, they sell us cars
Groups of GPs now sit on CCG boards and buy services for their local area
CCGs awarded 437 contracts to companies GPs owned or worked for
This is completely within the rules - GPs with conflicts of interest are simply required to leave the room or abstain during voting
Lansleys reforms were always going to end up here. Meanwhile the Acute hospital sector is £2BN in debt and being forced to abandon capital projects return Capital to the centre to receive it back as revenue
Magic!!
I think it prefers to sit and complain, rather than leave and do something. It won't go until its forced.
I have banged on about this frequently in the past and apologise for mounting my hobbyhorse yet again. It's just that presenting Greece as involuntary Euro members irks me. I now have to get back to work, so I shall bid you adieu.
In one case, GPs in Birmingham awarded contracts to a company where three of shareholders were on the CCG board and one was its medical director, the investigation revealed
In another, six GPs on the board of North Durham CCG awarded six contracts to their own surgeries.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3313662/GPs-given-control-NHS-budgets-paid-companies-2-4bn-taxpayers-money-major-investigation-reveals.html#ixzz3rBvyvWiB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Incidentally, have you been following the Daily Mail's revelations about NHS fat cats sucking the tanks dry this week? None of it comes as a surprise.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/92354/christie-comeback-continued-milwaukee
You are in denial
Everyone won but Kasich (based on expectations at least), and every supporter is happy about their candidate.
Best and worst points for the top 4 candidates:
Trump Best:
When he invoked Eisenhower's program of mass deportations to defeat Kasich, Rubio and Bush on illegal immigration.
Trump Worst:
When he complained that wages are too high (that's rich).
Rubio Best:
When he hid his call for a minimum wage cut behind his nonsense project for a new american century.
Rubio Worst:
When Paul attacked him over his pledge to increase social spending by 1$ trillion a year, plus his support for illegal immigration.
Cruz Best:
When he interrogated Kasich over the bank bailouts, and calling immigration reform amnesty over Rubio's support for illegal immigration.
Cruz Worst:
When talking about his family past.
Carson Best:
When he dissed Hillary as a liar compared with him.
Carson Worst:
When he became invisible during every fight by refusing to talk or comment during them.
The next debate is Dec. 15th, so it's a long way till then and any debate bump would probably fizzle by then.
PB Tories are in denial.
Your own SOS describes it as a perfect storm of a Financial Crisis.
Regulators describe it as the worst ever
PB Tories only ones who don't seem to agree.
You reckoned last year Lansley reforms were turning the NHS round.
You were wrong and seemingly still in denial
I see no plausibility in the ludicrous notion of a European state. Voters in Europe are never going to vote for it that I can foresee.
Meanwhile PB Tories think all is well
2005:
http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/78690/003021.pdf
2006:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-412185/Patients-dying-nursing-shortages.html
2009:
http://www.nursingtimes.net/clinical-subjects/accident-and-emergency/nhs-at-breaking-point-as-nearly-15m-patients-attend-ae-in-one-month/1968223.article
2010:
https://www.onmedica.com/newsarticle.aspx?id=dc6c28cd-9c0a-47af-afab-76d372112c10
2013:
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-05-09/111-service-pushes-a-e-departments-to-breaking-point/
2014:
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/nhs_is_at_breaking_point_says_ed_miliband_pressure_at_king_s_lynn_is_the_proof_1_3863346
Not Labour which are the ONLY major party to have ever cut NHS funding while in government.