I think the way to convince the anti-immigration types is that within the EEA we can add conditionality and other clauses to come and work in the UK. Language tests, self-sufficiency rules etc... that we are currently unable to do within the EU. It won't be a big change, but it gives us a small amount of control where we currently have none.
No. As regards immigration itself, we'd be in exactly the same position as now - it's the same EU directive which applies, as I keep having to repeat. Language tests definitely a no-no. Self-sufficiency rules already apply to EU citizens.
There might be an advantage in terms of regaining the freedom to discriminate on benefits payment - I'm unsure on that point and I don't know of any authoritative source on it. In practice, though, Cameron will get something similar anyway, so I think it's academic.
The bottom line is that, if we leave the EU but sign up to the EEA, anyone who voted Leave because of immigration is going to be seriously and rightly pissed off.
Cameron is getting an emergency brake that the EC will have final say over. It is of little practical use unless Parliament has final say, which the EU will never give up since basically every other western EU nation will demand one as well.
I accept that the immigration situation isn't really going to change if we stay in the EEA. It changes from literally open borders to basically open borders.
Has the ECJ ruled on language tests, this is wording:
"Workers may not be discriminated against, for example with regard to language requirements, which may not go beyond what is reasonable and necessary for the job in question."
It is then up to the state to decide what is "reasonable and necessary" in terms of communication AIUI. I'm not sure if it makes a difference being in the EEA though.
Good morning all. I don't understand Felix's logic (apart from the natural eye roll due an adult who thinks things should be 'fair').
We put the kids through private school. Presumably, our taxes were also covering education budget. As our decision was a voluntary one, we had no room to complain. Similarly, my BUPA cover is elective; no one made me take it out.
Being a civilian requires us to be civil; this isn't just a matter of having good manners and consideration for others, it also requires us to contribute to things that may not be directly of benefit to us personally.
I would be totally behind charging people who miss NHS appointments, or who waste Doctor's time (I'm also aware of all the edge and corner cases that probably make that administratively impractical).
Absolutely nothing to do with the argument which centred around the lack of competition for health care in the UK given the fact that the NHS receives its funds through compulsory taxes not available to alternative providers.
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Yes, but people the people who can be convinced to vote for leave with immigration are already voting to leave. They are the hardcore 20% of people who will vote to leave whatever happens. Swinging moderate voters who are not convinced by remain or leave is the key to winning the referendum. Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. Anyway the immigration argument will be self-explanatory around the summer when the refugee crisis heats up again and another 3m people are the gates of Europe. There is not really going to be much need for the leave side to make the argument when it will be on the news every day from May to August.
Well okay, perhaps there's not much need to "bang on" about immigration because the unfolding events make the case for Out. But sotto voce the Out campaigns should remind people of the continuing danger with In.
If not all of the constitution applies to American unincorporated territories, surely it wouldn't merely for people born under American occupation either?
Scott - Salmond chaired the Games Committee from 2007. Lord Smith chaired the Organising Company. I'm surprised that the Tory research department haven't read Salmond's book - see section on Pumeza and Hamish Henderson's Freedom Cam O Ye.
Peter - I didn't have to be at wedding it was reported on media. As was the point that Salmond served plain chocolate caramel wafers to the Weirs and Rupert Murdoch at Bute House (not at the same time!).
Anyway point is Salmond's class and sense of humour of which unionists (of which I used to be one) are almosr completely devoid in their desperation to forestall the coming SNP landslide.
@Richard_Tyndall is right on VAT if we join the EEA; as he says, in practice we'd keep the VAT structure but we'd have flexibility on how we apply it.
There would be one other formal difference, which is the VAT treatment of exports to EU countries; the 'reverse charge' procedure wouldn't apply, instead the exports would be exempt from VAT and the importer would have to pay local VAT directly. I don't think this makes much difference in practice - it's different paperwork but the same overall effect.
And in return in an outbreak of Détente, can I say in return that you are absolutely right about immigration and the EEA. There is no practical difference between EU and EEA membership when it comes to the freedom of movement rules. This is why Farage is holding back the Leave movement so badly by making immigration such a big part of the campaign.
I do wonder if that (the freedom of movement rules) will change over the next year or two if the current crisis continues to escalate.
Mr. Eagles, we all bugger things up now and then. Generally, I finish ahead with F1, but last year was lacklustre, and I've had a few other dicey seasons.
Quite. Pretty much everyone with experience of other health systems can see this. No-one else in the world has an NHS like the UK does. As you say the key is that those providing the service are
And because the surgeons and anaesthetists are working for the NHS during the week.
I'm sure that's some of it yes. Also a big
They do - it's called insurance.
Are you saying that those who opt out can get money back from their taxes to pay for private care? currently if you opt out you have to pay twice.
I'm saying if you want health insurance pay for it. Like car or home insurance.
Not the same at all - with Health Insurance you have to pay twice - NHS + Private. On your logic if you opt to go private you should receive an NHS refund. Otherwise it is definitely not a free market.
NHS - doctor appointments, prescriptions etc. Private insurance - better health care and private clinics for operations, care etc.
Come on, this is not difficult. If you want better care you should PAY for it. Yes, it costs you more out of pocket.
I pay for private insurance in Spain which covers everything - you can do the same in the UK. It is very expensive and yet you still have. to pay for the NHS even if all your medical cares are covered privately. How is that fair?
No UK private health insurance is comprehensive. It will not cover accidents, emergencies or maternity care, nor existing conditions. Most policies also put limits on how long a condition can be treated for, and will not cover "chronic" conditions.
You may well ask why UK insurance has so many exclusions, yet is more expensive than other countries. It is not Doctors fees - these are paid at lower rates than 20 years ago, while premiums are substantially ahead of inflation. It is not my colleagues that are fleecing the public!
I do wonder if that (the freedom of movement rules) will change over the next year or two if the current crisis continues to escalate.
I don't think there will be any formal change (the Eurocrats wouldn't want to retreat on one of their Four Pillars), but there may well be some fudging on the application of the principle, as we are seeing with Schengen.
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Yes, but people the people who can be convinced to vote for leave with immigration are already voting to leave. They are the hardcore 20% of people who will vote to leave whatever happens. Swinging moderate voters who are not convinced by remain or leave is the key to winning the referendum. Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. Anyway the immigration argument will be self-explanatory around the summer when the refugee crisis heats up again and another 3m people are the gates of Europe. There is not really going to be much need for the leave side to make the argument when it will be on the news every day from May to August.
Well okay, perhaps there's not much need to "bang on" about immigration because the unfolding events make the case for Out. But sotto voce the Out campaigns should remind people of the continuing danger with In.
On the ground, absolutely, the argument about immigration should be made.
@Richard_Tyndall is right on VAT if we join the EEA; as he says, in practice we'd keep the VAT structure but we'd have flexibility on how we apply it.
There would be one other formal difference, which is the VAT treatment of exports to EU countries; the 'reverse charge' procedure wouldn't apply, instead the exports would be exempt from VAT and the importer would have to pay local VAT directly. I don't think this makes much difference in practice - it's different paperwork but the same overall effect.
And in return in an outbreak of Détente, can I say in return that you are absolutely right about immigration and the EEA. There is no practical difference between EU and EEA membership when it comes to the freedom of movement rules. This is why Farage is holding back the Leave movement so badly by making immigration such a big part of the campaign.
I do wonder if that (the freedom of movement rules) will change over the next year or two if the current crisis continues to escalate.
I doubt they will change it. For one, Germany can begin exporting their refugees/migrants once they qualify after 5 or 8 years.
Are you saying that those who opt out can get money back from their taxes to pay for private care? currently if you opt out you have to pay twice.
I'm saying if you want health insurance pay for it. Like car or home insurance.
Not the same at all - with Health Insurance you have to pay twice - NHS + Private. On your logic if you opt to go private you should receive an NHS refund. Otherwise it is definitely not a free market.
NHS - doctor appointments, prescriptions etc. Private insurance - better health care and private clinics for operations, care etc.
Come on, this is not difficult. If you want better care you should PAY for it. Yes, it costs you more out of pocket.
I pay for private insurance in Spain which covers everything - you can do the same in the UK. It is very expensive and yet you still have. to pay for the NHS even if all your medical cares are covered privately. How is that fair?
No UK private health insurance is comprehensive. It will not cover accidents, emergencies or maternity care, nor existing conditions. Most policies also put limits on how long a condition can be treated for, and will not cover "chronic" conditions.
You may well ask why UK insurance has so many exclusions, yet is more expensive than other countries. It is not Doctors fees - these are paid at lower rates than 20 years ago, while premiums are substantially ahead of inflation. It is not my colleagues that are fleecing the public!
I agree with you. That's why you still have to pay your taxes and NI, you need the NHS for the reasons you suggest. At a guess I'd say that in Spain you pay compulsory insurance as in say France or Germany, but can pay a top up or extra sort of premium for some sort of different level of care. Again as I understand it people in Germany are finding this a lot more expensive.
I do wonder if that (the freedom of movement rules) will change over the next year or two if the current crisis continues to escalate.
I don't think there will be any formal change (the Eurocrats wouldn't want to retreat on one of their Four Pillars), but there may well be some fudging on the application of the principle, as we are seeing with Schengen.
It really always was a question of application, e.g. the move from the free movement of workers to the free movement of people. The principle itself, divorced from application, is almost meaningless.
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Yes, but people the people who can be convinced to vote for leave with immigration are already voting to leave. They are the hardcore 20% of people who will vote to leave whatever happens. Swinging moderate voters who are not convinced by remain or leave is the key to winning the referendum. Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. Anyway the immigration argument will be self-explanatory around the summer when the refugee crisis heats up again and another 3m people are the gates of Europe. There is not really going to be much need for the leave side to make the argument when it will be on the news every day from May to August.
Well okay, perhaps there's not much need to "bang on" about immigration because the unfolding events make the case for Out. But sotto voce the Out campaigns should remind people of the continuing danger with In.
We are not part of Schengen (like for instance an independent Scotland would have to be), so 'current events' do not affect us. The EU has no influence on our non EU immigration. We still have immigration from India and Pakistan which is nothing to do with the EU.
bb63 I think winning elections can be quite an achievement..not many people can do that..how many have you won..
I'm sorry Mr Dodd but that is a ridiculous response. Cameron failed to win a majority against a man considered by Tories to be the worst ever PM.
Cameron made more gains than any other party leader at any other general election since 1945, with the sole exception of Blair in 1997.
He also led a majority government for the full five years, even if it was a coalition one; it was his coalition and implemented a large part of the Tory manifesto.
Could he have done better in 2010? Undoubtedly. Was it a poor performance? No.
And of course, he has won a single-party majority as well since then.
In fact, Cameron has as many outright majority general election victories under his belt as the UKIP has seats.
The mistakes of the Tory 2010 campaign have been quite extensively mulled over. There were some things they did well (politically) though. One was staking out the fiscally conservative ground and making the deficit the key to the economic debate.
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Yes, but people the people who can be convinced to vote for leave with immigration are already voting to leave. They are the hardcore 20% of people who will vote to leave whatever happens. Swinging moderate voters who are not convinced by remain or leave is the key to winning the referendum. Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. Anyway the immigration argument will be self-explanatory around the summer when the refugee crisis heats up again and another 3m people are the gates of Europe. There is not really going to be much need for the leave side to make the argument when it will be on the news every day from May to August.
Well okay, perhaps there's not much need to "bang on" about immigration because the unfolding events make the case for Out. But sotto voce the Out campaigns should remind people of the continuing danger with In.
We are not part of Schengen (like for instance an independent Scotland would have to be), so 'current events' do not affect us. The EU has no influence on our non EU immigration. We still have immigration from India and Pakistan which is nothing to do with the EU.
Exactly. And if we try to dramatically reduce Indian/Pakistani immigration dramatically, bang goes the Commonwealth.
I think the way to convince the anti-immigration types is that within the EEA we can add conditionality and other clauses to come and work in the UK. Language tests, self-sufficiency rules etc... that we are currently unable to do within the EU. It won't be a big change, but it gives us a small amount of control where we currently have none.
No. As regards immigration itself, we'd be in exactly the same position as now - it's the same EU directive which applies, as I keep having to repeat. Language tests definitely a no-no. Self-sufficiency rules already apply to EU citizens.
There might be an advantage in terms of regaining the freedom to discriminate on benefits payment - I'm unsure on that point and I don't know of any authoritative source on it. In practice, though, Cameron will get something similar anyway, so I think it's academic.
The bottom line is that, if we leave the EU but sign up to the EEA, anyone who voted Leave because of immigration is going to be seriously and rightly pissed off.
That's actually not true. There is an emergency brake option for EEA members, as Open Europe points out here:
The discussion of the niceties of European law on here today is interesting.
In the real world, voters know that when it suits the whole edifice is thrown out of the window. EG Schengen. Cornerstone founding principles become polystyrene.
So I think the approach of 'we can't do this because of article C paragraph 2 of treaty X' is not an approach that will work for IN.
"Does Norway have an ‘emergency brake’ on EU free movement?
The EEA Agreement grants member states the ability to take ‘safeguard measures’, which potentially allows the EEA/EFTA countries to temporarily suspend parts of the EEA agreement, including the free movement of people. Such measures are only meant to be temporary. Unlike the veto described above, which applies to new legislation, the safeguard measures can be applied to the existing agreement. The safeguard measures can be triggered by a country unilaterally but the agreement also allows the EU to take retaliatory “proportionate rebalancing measures”.91 The use of safeguard measures triggers a negotiation between the EEA/EFTA countries and the European Commission “with a view to nding a commonly acceptable solution.” The EEA Agreement does therefore include an emergency brake as a ‘nuclear option’, which could be used to bring the EU to the negotiating table rather than as an inde nite policy tool. The outcome of any such negotiations would ultimately be determined politically. Norway has never used the safeguard measures for this purpose but, in the late 1990s, Liechtenstein applied safeguard measures to restrict free movement while it negotiated the ability to apply restrictions on foreign EEA nationals’ residence and employment which it has applied since 2000."
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Yes, but people the people who can be convinced to vote for leave with immigration are already voting to leave. They are the hardcore 20% of people who will vote to leave whatever happens. Swinging moderate voters who are not convinced by remain or leave is the key to winning the referendum. Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. Anyway the immigration argument will be self-explanatory around the summer when the refugee crisis heats up again and another 3m people are the gates of Europe. There is not really going to be much need for the leave side to make the argument when it will be on the news every day from May to August.
Well okay, perhaps there's not much need to "bang on" about immigration because the unfolding events make the case for Out. But sotto voce the Out campaigns should remind people of the continuing danger with In.
We are not part of Schengen (like for instance an independent Scotland would have to be), so 'current events' do not affect us. The EU has no influence on our non EU immigration. We still have immigration from India and Pakistan which is nothing to do with the EU.
Exactly. And if we try to dramatically reduce Indian/Pakistani immigration dramatically, bang goes the Commonwealth.
Strangely enough, never discussed.
I think that the British electorate might be able to live with that.
@Richard_Tyndall is right on VAT if we join the EEA; as he says, in practice we'd keep the VAT structure but we'd have flexibility on how we apply it.
There would be one other formal difference, which is the VAT treatment of exports to EU countries; the 'reverse charge' procedure wouldn't apply, instead the exports would be exempt from VAT and the importer would have to pay local VAT directly. I don't think this makes much difference in practice - it's different paperwork but the same overall effect.
If we don't want the political side of the EU then we should join the EEA. It will not make the EU go away however or stop it getting better stronger or more influential. It may not do those things, but then again it might. The EEA with access to single market and the ability to attract inward investment would be a fair alternative for me if the restrictions of being in the EU work out to be not satisfactory. But frankly I believe to attractions for the voluable Leavers have moved beyond economics and sovereignty and are just a cover for more crude motives. The split between Carswell and Farage gives us the clue.
Current German polling confirms a small further bump in AfD support after Cologne, to the 9-11% range. It doesn't seem to have come especially from the CDU and as such shouldn't be seen as a direct threat the Merkel, but it's worth noting.
bb63 I think winning elections can be quite an achievement..not many people can do that..how many have you won..
I'm sorry Mr Dodd but that is a ridiculous response. Cameron failed to win a majority against a man considered by Tories to be the worst ever PM.
You really don't understand elections do you? The electoral mountain to climb in 2010 was enormous and Cameron did enough to get Brown out. The fact that you don't get that is very revealing.
But he almost didn't. If he'd clocked just ten seats fewer a Lib/Lab coalition would have been viable and Cameron would have been out on his Nellie.
...
I'm not sure that's true. Firstly, Clegg said during the campaign that whoever won most votes would get first crack at putting together a government; that would still have been the Tories. Secondly, Cameron was keen and ready (in both senses) to do a deal; Labour wasn't. And thirdly - and critically - for the Lib Dems to have done a deal with Labour, they'd have either had to work with Brown or a blank space.
And that final one is the killer: can you imagine the Lib Dems propping up a Labour government that had lost its majority and moral mandate, with Balls at No 11 and the whole bunker attitude? On the other hand, if Brown had resigned, who on earth were the Lib Dems supposed to negotiate a deal with, and on what authority?
The senior Lib Dems were clearly keener to do a deal with the Tories for various reasons and I think it's quite likely that even if the numbers had stacked up for a Lib-Lab pact, they'd still have gone Blue - though they'd have got a higher price.
Fair point. It wouldn't have ruled out a coalition of Tory/LD but it would have made it much harder. And by the same token Cameron would have found it even harder to get it past his own Backbenchers. As would Clegg if there had been a left wing alternative, unless he got a better electoral reform deal.
We're into the luxury of hindsight terrority here and we'll never know but if Labour had known a LD/Labour deal was viable without many "moving parts" the attitude of the like of Harman, Mandelson and Blunkett might have been quite different.
I think the negotiations would have gone on longer on both sides but Brown was willing to stand down to stop the Tories - it would have been a question of how and when.
@Richard_Tyndall is right on VAT if we join the EEA; as he says, in practice we'd keep the VAT structure but we'd have flexibility on how we apply it.
There would be one other formal difference, which is the VAT treatment of exports to EU countries; the 'reverse charge' procedure wouldn't apply, instead the exports would be exempt from VAT and the importer would have to pay local VAT directly. I don't think this makes much difference in practice - it's different paperwork but the same overall effect.
If we don't want the political side of the EU then we should join the EEA. It will not make the EU go away however or stop it getting better stronger or more influential. It may not do those things, but then again it might. The EEA with access to single market and the ability to attract inward investment would be a fair alternative for me if the restrictions of being in the EU work out to be not satisfactory. But frankly I believe to attractions for the voluable Leavers have moved beyond economics and sovereignty and are just a cover for more crude motives. The split between Carswell and Farage gives us the clue.
The Cologne controversy shines a harsh light on the corrosion of the Enlightenment values Europe claims to hold to, on the decay of freedom and openness at the very heart of Europe; and we’re obsessing over the cultural habits of gangs of Arab blokes?
There were two alarming things about what happened in Cologne. The first was the attacks themselves, which, going by the women’s accounts, were awful. The second was the way the authorities, like rulers in some fictional dystopia, sought to cover up the nature of the attacks lest the revelations rattle the populace and provoke inter-communal tension. The police chief of Cologne consciously hid info about the backgrounds of the attackers. He told the media it was hard to know who carried out the assaults, a claim later contradicted by officers who were on the ground on the night in question, who say ‘the majority’ of those arrested had asylum-seeker IDs.
Like something out of Orwell, the police chief preferred to promote a lie of omission than allow the truth of the situation to start a discussion about Germany’s recent intake of immigrants from Syria and elsewhere. He appears to have tailored the facts, rewritten reality, in the name of keeping in check the passions of what he seems to view as the swirling German populace, better kept passive with untruths than made rowdy with uncomfortable facts.
bb63 I think winning elections can be quite an achievement..not many people can do that..how many have you won..
I'm sorry Mr Dodd but that is a ridiculous response. Cameron failed to win a majority against a man considered by Tories to be the worst ever PM.
You really don't understand elections do you? The electoral mountain to climb in 2010 was enormous and Cameron did enough to get Brown out. The fact that you don't get that is very revealing.
But he almost didn't. If he'd clocked just ten seats fewer a Lib/Lab coalition would have been viable and Cameron would have been out on his Nellie.
A majority was there for the taking but he had at least two people trying to run the campaign and the ghastly hybrid that he came up with lost that opportunity in January and February.
The first debate then compounded it.
A pointless argument given that he didn't get ten seats fewer.
People just want to hate Cameron. He has been successful pressing policies they disdain. It's pathetic. The Tories won nearly 100 seats an almost record achievement. Labour lost nearly 100, and yet it's presented as a failure for the Tories. In 2005 the Tories had 8.8 million votes. In 2015 they had 11.3 million. Fortunately I can recognise a bunch of sad narrow minded numpties when I see them.
Current German polling confirms a small further bump in AfD support after Cologne, to the 9-11% range. It doesn't seem to have come especially from the CDU and as such shouldn't be seen as a direct threat the Merkel, but it's worth noting.
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Yes, but people the people who can be convinced to vote for leave with immigration are already voting to leave. They are the hardcore 20% of people who will vote to leave whatever happens. Swinging moderate voters who are not convinced by remain or leave is the key to winning the referendum. Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. Anyway the immigration argument will be self-explanatory around the summer when the refugee crisis heats up again and another 3m people are the gates of Europe. There is not really going to be much need for the leave side to make the argument when it will be on the news every day from May to August.
Well okay, perhaps there's not much need to "bang on" about immigration because the unfolding events make the case for Out. But sotto voce the Out campaigns should remind people of the continuing danger with In.
We are not part of Schengen (like for instance an independent Scotland would have to be), so 'current events' do not affect us. The EU has no influence on our non EU immigration. We still have immigration from India and Pakistan which is nothing to do with the EU.
Exactly. And if we try to dramatically reduce Indian/Pakistani immigration dramatically, bang goes the Commonwealth.
Strangely enough, never discussed.
I think that the British electorate might be able to live with that.
I'm not sure it would. Those countries don't grant reciprocal rights as it is.
I don't understand why we grant special immigration privileges to the Commonwealth as a whole (well, OK I do - we do it for the subcontinent for community relations reasons mainly related to extended families, and for cultural affinity reasons for Australia, Canada and New Zealand but it's time we stopped treating the whole Commonwealth as one sort of continuity Empire-lite where we do all the heavy lifting for minimal benefit)
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Yes, but people the people who can be convinced to vote for leave with immigration are already voting to leave. They are the hardcore 20% of people who will vote to leave whatever happens. Swinging moderate voters who are not convinced by remain or leave is the key to winning the referendum. Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. Anyway the immigration argument will be self-explanatory around the summer when the refugee crisis heats up again and another 3m people are the gates of Europe. There is not really going to be much need for the leave side to make the argument when it will be on the news every day from May to August.
Well okay, perhaps there's not much need to "bang on" about immigration because the unfolding events make the case for Out. But sotto voce the Out campaigns should remind people of the continuing danger with In.
We are not part of Schengen (like for instance an independent Scotland would have to be), so 'current events' do not affect us. The EU has no influence on our non EU immigration. We still have immigration from India and Pakistan which is nothing to do with the EU.
Exactly. And if we try to dramatically reduce Indian/Pakistani immigration dramatically, bang goes the Commonwealth.
Strangely enough, never discussed.
Like anyone would notice the Commonwealth not being there.
I think the way to convince the anti-immigration types is that within the EEA we can add conditionality and other clauses to come and work in the UK. Language tests, self-sufficiency rules etc... that we are currently unable to do within the EU. It won't be a big change, but it gives us a small amount of control where we currently have none.
No. As regards immigration itself, we'd be in exactly the same position as now - it's the same EU directive which applies, as I keep having to repeat. Language tests definitely a no-no. Self-sufficiency rules already apply to EU citizens.
There might be an advantage in terms of regaining the freedom to discriminate on benefits payment - I'm unsure on that point and I don't know of any authoritative source on it. In practice, though, Cameron will get something similar anyway, so I think it's academic.
The bottom line is that, if we leave the EU but sign up to the EEA, anyone who voted Leave because of immigration is going to be seriously and rightly pissed off.
Cameron is getting an emergency brake that the EC will have final say over. It is of little practical use unless Parliament has final say, which the EU will never give up since basically every other western EU nation will demand one as well.
I accept that the immigration situation isn't really going to change if we stay in the EEA. It changes from literally open borders to basically open borders.
Has the ECJ ruled on language tests, this is wording:
"Workers may not be discriminated against, for example with regard to language requirements, which may not go beyond what is reasonable and necessary for the job in question."
It is then up to the state to decide what is "reasonable and necessary" in terms of communication AIUI. I'm not sure if it makes a difference being in the EEA though.
We do not have 'literally open borders' now. We are not in Schengen.
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Yes, but people the people who can be convinced to vote for leave with immigration are already voting to leave. They are the hardcore 20% of people who will vote to leave whatever happens. Swinging moderate voters who are not convinced by remain or leave is the key to winning the referendum. Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. Anyway the immigration argument will be self-explanatory around the summer when the refugee crisis heats up again and another 3m people are the gates of Europe. There is not really going to be much need for the leave side to make the argument when it will be on the news every day from May to August.
Well okay, perhaps there's not much need to "bang on" about immigration because the unfolding events make the case for Out. But sotto voce the Out campaigns should remind people of the continuing danger with In.
We are not part of Schengen (like for instance an independent Scotland would have to be), so 'current events' do not affect us. The EU has no influence on our non EU immigration. We still have immigration from India and Pakistan which is nothing to do with the EU.
Exactly. And if we try to dramatically reduce Indian/Pakistani immigration dramatically, bang goes the Commonwealth.
Strangely enough, never discussed.
I think that the British electorate might be able to live with that.
I'm not sure it would. Those countries don't grant reciprocal rights as it is.
I don't understand why we grant special immigration privileges to the Commonwealth as a whole (well, OK I do - we do it for the subcontinent for community relations reasons mainly related to extended families, and for cultural affinity reasons for Australia, Canada and New Zealand but it's time we stopped treating the whole Commonwealth as one sort of continuity Empire-lite where we do all the heavy lifting for minimal benefit)
Yes, the EU can take proportionate countermeasures and it's never been used to date but the option is there.
There is no such option inside the EU.
Whilst that is so, it would only be temporary and in practice is not of much use; as you say, it's never actually been invoked.
Thanks. I'm glad you've very decently admitted that there is in fact a difference.
The EEA route (or something based on it) is the clearest - that Open Europe document you posted is a good summary. Economically it's probably pretty much neutral (although there would be some disruption in the negotiation period because of the uncertainty). Whether the improvement in sovereignty over a restricted range of issues outweighs the reduced say in the rules and the reduced institutional protection is ultimately a question of political judgement. Personally I don't think it does, but I see the attraction of the argument that it's a step in the right direction.
I find it really rather sad when opponents can't see a winner when presented with one. The same applies to Osborne and the transformation of our economy.
They want more. But fail to accept that their version of more isn't electorally possible.
bb63 I think winning elections can be quite an achievement..not many people can do that..how many have you won..
I'm sorry Mr Dodd but that is a ridiculous response. Cameron failed to win a majority against a man considered by Tories to be the worst ever PM.
You really don't understand elections do you? The electoral mountain to climb in 2010 was enormous and Cameron did enough to get Brown out. The fact that you don't get that is very revealing.
But he almost didn't. If he'd clocked just ten seats fewer a Lib/Lab coalition would have been viable and Cameron would have been out on his Nellie.
A majority was there for the taking but he had at least two people trying to run the campaign and the ghastly hybrid that he came up with lost that opportunity in January and February.
The first debate then compounded it.
A pointless argument given that he didn't get ten seats fewer.
People just want to hate Cameron. He has been successful pressing policies they disdain. It's pathetic. The Tories won nearly 100 seats an almost record achievement. Labour lost nearly 100, and yet it's presented as a failure for the Tories. In 2005 the Tories had 8.8 million votes. In 2015 they had 11.3 million. Fortunately I can recognise a bunch of sad narrow minded numpties when I see them.
The Cologne controversy shines a harsh light on the corrosion of the Enlightenment values Europe claims to hold to, on the decay of freedom and openness at the very heart of Europe; and we’re obsessing over the cultural habits of gangs of Arab blokes?
There were two alarming things about what happened in Cologne. The first was the attacks themselves, which, going by the women’s accounts, were awful. The second was the way the authorities, like rulers in some fictional dystopia, sought to cover up the nature of the attacks lest the revelations rattle the populace and provoke inter-communal tension. The police chief of Cologne consciously hid info about the backgrounds of the attackers. He told the media it was hard to know who carried out the assaults, a claim later contradicted by officers who were on the ground on the night in question, who say ‘the majority’ of those arrested had asylum-seeker IDs.
Like something out of Orwell, the police chief preferred to promote a lie of omission than allow the truth of the situation to start a discussion about Germany’s recent intake of immigrants from Syria and elsewhere. He appears to have tailored the facts, rewritten reality, in the name of keeping in check the passions of what he seems to view as the swirling German populace, better kept passive with untruths than made rowdy with uncomfortable facts.
It is always the cover up that gets you.
TSE has always argued, correctly, that most white people in Britain don't hold most Muslims responsible for the acts of some of their number; I'm sure the same is true of the majority of white Swedes, Germans, or French. The much-feared "backlash" against Muslims in Europe has never taken place. It's therefore pathetic for the authorities to try and cover up such crimes, out of fear of a pogrom.
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
Hi
To people that are not engaged in politics, which I would say is most people, immigration will be the key issue that makes them vote LEAVE. As @taffys says, Law X , Clause 3, para x etc of a treaty is literally noise to over 99% of voters, and anyway the economic effect on normal peoples lives is due to immigration
Politcal obsessives that enjoy long winded debate think mentioning immigration is dirty and beneath them... usually because it doesn't affect them. I would guess they think resorting to mentioning it means they have lost the intellectual argument; it sounds so more high minded, and makes them feel more important, to talk about abstract economic details, that people don't get, which means they can feel even more clever by explaining or pretending to be stupefied that other people don't understand them
If that approach is to work it is probably because headlines like these do the anti immigration peoples work for them, so perhaps, tactically, not mentioning about the "I" word while letting people read the papers could work for LEAVE
@sgadanlassie: @MichaelWhite Arnold Schwarzenegger born under US Constitution (US occupying power, Austria, 47); therefore legally eligible for prez
Anyone tell me the odds on Arnie as next President ?
Cobblers. We know Arnie is not a natural born citizen because he went through the naturalization process. Austria was never part of the US, even as an outlying possession.
Natural born citizen.
A citizen, but something more (rules out Arnie, as he was not born a citizen) A born citizen, but something more (rules out Cruz, as he owes his status to "congressional indulgence" See SCOTUS, Rogers v Bellei (1971)) A natural born citizen, a born citizen solely by the operation of natural law, "born in the country of parents who were its citizens" See SCOTUS Minor v Happersett (1875), rules out Obama, as his father was never an American citizen.
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Yes, but people the people who can be convinced to vote for leave with immigration are already voting to leave. They are the hardcore 20% of people who will vote to leave whatever happens. Swinging moderate voters who are not convinced by remain or leave is the key to winning the referendum. Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. Anyway the immigration argument will be self-explanatory around the summer when the refugee crisis heats up again and another 3m people are the gates of Europe. There is not really going to be much need for the leave side to make the argument when it will be on the news every day from May to August.
Well okay, perhaps there's not much need to "bang on" about immigration because the unfolding events make the case for Out. But sotto voce the Out campaigns should remind people of the continuing danger with In.
We are not part of Schengen (like for instance an independent Scotland would have to be), so 'current events' do not affect us. The EU has no influence on our non EU immigration. We still have immigration from India and Pakistan which is nothing to do with the EU.
Exactly. And if we try to dramatically reduce Indian/Pakistani immigration dramatically, bang goes the Commonwealth.
Strangely enough, never discussed.
I think that the British electorate might be able to live with that.
I'm not sure it would. Those countries don't grant reciprocal rights as it is.
I don't understand why we grant special immigration privileges to the Commonwealth as a whole (well, OK I do - we do it for the subcontinent for community relations reasons mainly related to extended families, and for cultural affinity reasons for Australia, Canada and New Zealand but it's time we stopped treating the whole Commonwealth as one sort of continuity Empire-lite where we do all the heavy lifting for minimal benefit)
Yeah, the Empire ended 50-60 years ago. Time to move on.
The sudden news of Bowie’s death sent the nation and the world into emotional convulsions. There were the same drunken eulogies and declarations of ‘grief’, the same hyperbole about ‘things never being the same again’, the sepulchral howling and emotionally attached BBC reporting, and, amid the gaseous exaltations, a total loss of proportion.
According to various sources, Bowie single-handedly paved the path for our sexually tolerant society, inspired space exploration (because ‘Space Oddity’ was in no way about drugs), and helped to bring about the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
He was a unique Renaissance man. He was the first hipster. He was gender-fluid and ‘trans’ before Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner. He was the first pop star and he will be the last. I’m only surprised the BBC didn’t claim that David Bowie created the NHS or invent the hovercraft.
Yes, the EU can take proportionate countermeasures and it's never been used to date but the option is there.
There is no such option inside the EU.
Whilst that is so, it would only be temporary and in practice is not of much use; as you say, it's never actually been invoked.
Thanks. I'm glad you've very decently admitted that there is in fact a difference.
The EEA route (or something based on it) is the clearest - that Open Europe document you posted is a good summary. Economically it's probably pretty much neutral (although there would be some disruption in the negotiation period because of the uncertainty). Whether the improvement in sovereignty over a restricted range of issues outweighs the reduced say in the rules and the reduced institutional protection is ultimately a question of political judgement. Personally I don't think it does, but I see the attraction of the argument that it's a step in the right direction.
There is no reduced say in the rules. In fact there is an increase in say in the rules compared to our current situation.
I think the way to convince the anti-immigration types is that within the EEA we can add conditionality and other clauses to come and work in the UK. Language tests, self-sufficiency rules etc... that we are currently unable to do within the EU. It won't be a big change, but it gives us a small amount of control where we currently have none.
No. As regards immigration itself, we'd be in exactly the same position as now - it's the same EU directive which applies, as I keep having to repeat. Language tests definitely a no-no. Self-sufficiency rules already apply to EU citizens.
There might be an advantage in terms of regaining the freedom to discriminate on benefits payment - I'm unsure on that point and I don't know of any authoritative source on it. In practice, though, Cameron will get something similar anyway, so I think it's academic.
The bottom line is that, if we leave the EU but sign up to the EEA, anyone who voted Leave because of immigration is going to be seriously and rightly pissed off.
Cameron is getting an emergency brake that the EC will have final say over. It is of little practical use unless Parliament has final say, which the EU will never give up since basically every other western EU nation will demand one as well.
I accept that the immigration situation isn't really going to change if we stay in the EEA. It changes from literally open borders to basically open borders.
Has the ECJ ruled on language tests, this is wording:
"Workers may not be discriminated against, for example with regard to language requirements, which may not go beyond what is reasonable and necessary for the job in question."
It is then up to the state to decide what is "reasonable and necessary" in terms of communication AIUI. I'm not sure if it makes a difference being in the EEA though.
We do not have 'literally open borders' now. We are not in Schengen.
Schengen is only a mechanism for managing (or rather not managing) movement at borders. It makes absolutely no difference to the basic rights of movement.
There is no reduced say in the rules. In fact there is an increase in say in the rules compared to our current situation.
From the doc Casino linked to:
- No veto in the European Council - No votes in the Council of Ministers - No MEPs or votes in the European parliament - No European Commissioner and no European Commission staff - No judges or staff at the ECJ.
I think the way to convince the anti-immigration types is that within the EEA we can add conditionality and other clauses to come and work in the UK. Language tests, self-sufficiency rules etc... that we are currently unable to do within the EU. It won't be a big change, but it gives us a small amount of control where we currently have none.
No. As regards immigration itself, we'd be in exactly the same position as now - it's the same EU directive which applies, as I keep having to repeat. Language tests definitely a no-no. Self-sufficiency rules already apply to EU citizens.
There might be an advantage in terms of regaining the freedom to discriminate on benefits payment - I'm unsure on that point and I don't know of any authoritative source on it. In practice, though, Cameron will get something similar anyway, so I think it's academic.
The bottom line is that, if we leave the EU but sign up to the EEA, anyone who voted Leave because of immigration is going to be seriously and rightly pissed off.
Cameron is getting an emergency brake that the EC will have final say over. It is of little practical use unless Parliament has final say, which the EU will never give up since basically every other western EU nation will demand one as well.
I accept that the immigration situation isn't really going to change if we stay in the EEA. It changes from literally open borders to basically open borders.
Has the ECJ ruled on language tests, this is wording:
"Workers may not be discriminated against, for example with regard to language requirements, which may not go beyond what is reasonable and necessary for the job in question."
It is then up to the state to decide what is "reasonable and necessary" in terms of communication AIUI. I'm not sure if it makes a difference being in the EEA though.
We do not have 'literally open borders' now. We are not in Schengen.
Schengen is only a mechanism for managing (or rather not managing) movement at borders. It makes absolutely no difference to the basic rights of movement.
But isn't the most substantial element of concern about people who do not have those rights?
Interesting to see general agreement this morning even among the Leave ranks that Leave should move on from immigration. Is isam around any more? I know he felt the opposite.
I don't think that's right. The biggest fear about the current EU is that quite a few of Merkel's million(s) will move here. Staying in the EU outsources our immigration policy to the German leader's historical brainfart.
Yes, but people the people who can be convinced to vote for leave with immigration are already voting to leave. They are the hardcore 20% of people who will vote to leave whatever happens. Swinging moderate voters who are not convinced by remain or leave is the key to winning the referendum. Banging on about immigration isn't going to help convince those people. Anyway the immigration argument will be self-explanatory around the summer when the refugee crisis heats up again and another 3m people are the gates of Europe. There is not really going to be much need for the leave side to make the argument when it will be on the news every day from May to August.
Well okay, perhaps there's not much need to "bang on" about immigration because the unfolding events make the case for Out. But sotto voce the Out campaigns should remind people of the continuing danger with In.
We are not part of Schengen (like for instance an independent Scotland would have to be), so 'current events' do not affect us. The EU has no influence on our non EU immigration. We still have immigration from India and Pakistan which is nothing to do with the EU.
Exactly. And if we try to dramatically reduce Indian/Pakistani immigration dramatically, bang goes the Commonwealth.
Strangely enough, never discussed.
I struggle with that. I've not heard peep from the subcontinent about the Commonwealth depending on such. Fact is we've already cut non-EU immigration already with no complaint.
I'm in two minds about what Remain campaign should do. By my reckoning, migration be a major factor out in the country and by far above 20% of public as said below. On other hand, banging on it too much tars them with the UKIP brush among the middle class. Should probably keep it as one of multiple arguments, not drop it nor base campaign round it.
Yes, it's a very good article (someone posted a link to it earlier).
I can kinda get the equalising of constituencies, although it will mean losing some ancient and well-understood boundaries between existing constituencies, but the reduction to 600 is bonkers IMHO. The quality of potential ministers is pretty ropey already frankly - this further reduces the pool.
The Cologne controversy shines a harsh light on the corrosion of the Enlightenment values Europe claims to hold to, on the decay of freedom and openness at the very heart of Europe; and we’re obsessing over the cultural habits of gangs of Arab blokes?
There were two alarming things about what happened in Cologne. The first was the attacks themselves, which, going by the women’s accounts, were awful. The second was the way the authorities, like rulers in some fictional dystopia, sought to cover up the nature of the attacks lest the revelations rattle the populace and provoke inter-communal tension. The police chief of Cologne consciously hid info about the backgrounds of the attackers. He told the media it was hard to know who carried out the assaults, a claim later contradicted by officers who were on the ground on the night in question, who say ‘the majority’ of those arrested had asylum-seeker IDs.
Like something out of Orwell, the police chief preferred to promote a lie of omission than allow the truth of the situation to start a discussion about Germany’s recent intake of immigrants from Syria and elsewhere. He appears to have tailored the facts, rewritten reality, in the name of keeping in check the passions of what he seems to view as the swirling German populace, better kept passive with untruths than made rowdy with uncomfortable facts.
It is always the cover up that gets you.
TSE has always argued, correctly, that most white people in Britain don't hold most Muslims responsible for the acts of some of their number; I'm sure the same is true of the majority of white Swedes, Germans, or French. The much-feared "backlash" against Muslims in Europe has never taken place. It's therefore pathetic for the authorities to try and cover up such crimes, out of fear of a pogrom.
I read the home minister in Westphalia said right wing comments in chat rooms were as bad as the attacks themselves. Some folk seem to be on a different planet.
You are pretty touchy - men can be like that. However, merely suggesting that the two most electorally successful politicans (since Anthony Blair) in recent UK history know more about Scottish opinion than you do is hardly a grievous insult - just a fact!
Not touchy at all, you were the one who posted a capitalised rant saying I had a death wish and didn't know what I was talking about.
Scottish nationalists can be like that.
So can all pedants, PB posters, Tories, Labour , Scottish , English , Welsh , etc etc. Your bigotry is shining bright
There is no reduced say in the rules. In fact there is an increase in say in the rules compared to our current situation.
From the doc Casino linked to:
- No veto in the European Council - No votes in the Council of Ministers - No MEPs or votes in the European parliament - No European Commissioner and no European Commission staff - No judges or staff at the ECJ.
Also no veto on EU treaty changes, of course.
1. We have no vetoes left of consequence. 2. 1 of 28, out vote is of no consequence. 3. Our MEPs are vastly outnumbered by the other 27 nations and we are not part of the current ruling bloc, they are of no consequence. 4. 1 commissioner out of 28 who answers to a federalist europhile, he has no influence. 5. The ECJ is already openly hostile to any nation which doesn't support the integration and federalist cause, having no staff there would mean very little change in the real world. 6. Treaties or treaty changes would never be brought forward by the EC if Britain had a Tory government, they learned the lessons of Maastricht and would only bring forwards Treaties when we have a Labour government so it can be mindlessly voted through. Lisbon is the classic example where they scrambled the manpower to ensure it was done by the time Labour left office.
Richard, you have listed all these as net benefits of membership vs being in the EEA, but given how marginalised we are at the moment even with all these items I don't see how leaving will change anything.
"An example [of Labour's reselection problem for 2020] is the four London Boroughs of Camden, Islington, Hackney and Haringey which currently contains eight constituencies and eight Labour MPs. This area will almost certainly lose one constituency and possibly two due to low levels of registration. How eight will go down to six in that locality raises some interesting questions for Labour"
Interesting indeed. Those eight MPs are:
Tulip Siddiq Kier Starmer Jeremy Corbyn Emily Thornberry Diane Abbott Meg Hillier Catherine West David Lammy
Coming up in the next couple of days on PB - Henry G's top tip for Corbyn's replacement.
Someone should open a market on what the tip will be
Clive Lewis?
On previous evidence, Henry is plugged in to the unions. So I'd expect a solid, left-wing but not Corbynista, male. Tom Watson's a possibility, but Owen Smith looks more likely.
There is no reduced say in the rules. In fact there is an increase in say in the rules compared to our current situation.
From the doc Casino linked to:
- No veto in the European Council - No votes in the Council of Ministers - No MEPs or votes in the European parliament - No European Commissioner and no European Commission staff - No judges or staff at the ECJ.
Also no veto on EU treaty changes, of course.
I have been over this god knows how many times before.
Almost everything you have listed there is completely immaterial if we are in the EEA because those bodies have no influence on EEA members or where they do the EEA has a veto.
- The European Council cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members.
- The Council of Ministers and European Parliament vote on new Directives on a basis of either QMV or unanimity. Currently if the UK does not agree with a Directive and it is under QMV then they can have it imposed on them. EEA members have a veto where new directives relate to them (basically only single market) .
- The EU Commission cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members. Commission staff develop new directives and the initiation and development of those directives where they relate to the EEA (basically only single market) has full input from EEA members.
- The ECJ has no jurisdiction over EEA members.
- EU treaty changes cannot have effect on the EEA members except via the EEA agreement. Over which EEA members have a veto.
Basically your objections are the same as complaining that we have no influence over the US Supreme Court and the US Senate.
TSE has always argued, correctly, that most white people in Britain don't hold most Muslims responsible for the acts of some of their number; I'm sure the same is true of the majority of white Swedes, Germans, or French. The much-feared "backlash" against Muslims in Europe has never taken place. It's therefore pathetic for the authorities to try and cover up such crimes, out of fear of a pogrom.
There's far too many people in this country that seem to want to denigrate our country, on the left, the Rhodes are fallers, who think this country's past, present and future is of nothing but racism and oppression.
To them I'd say cobblers, my Grandfather went from being under the Dominion of the UK to being a respected citizen of this country in less than 20 years. He did very well from this country, something he always kept on reminding me about.
You shouldn't not prosecute people on their background, that's just as bad as purely prosecuting people based on their background. You break the law, you get punished.
Take the murder of Lee Rigsby, a vile and horrific act, people realised it was nothing but a small minority and there's been no backlash. Just like there wasn't any major backlash against the Irish community when soldiers were being murdered at Republican funerals.
It may well be that the next Prime Minister of this country is a Muslim who is the son of an immigrant. Most people in this country wont care about that, they will vote purely on whether he's the best candidate to be party leader/PM.
There's some on the right who say this country is going to the dogs, to them I say this country isn't, we've always have an optimistic future.
As Douglas Carswell quite rightly put it, political parties should sunshine and optimism
"Think Labour looks out of touch now? Wait until the EU referendum campaign starts... In arguing against Brexit, Labour will alienate precisely the same Eurosceptic working class voters it desperately needs to win back"
Good piece. The EU debate is of course only one of many issues where there is a disconnect between the WWC in Labour's heartlands and the university-educated middle class Islington party leadership.
Agree - I think Labour's problem (a bit like the Nats) is that its becoming a self-selecting echo chamber
'Everyone agrees, how could anyone possibly think that?
Unless they are a Tory, of course!'
Ha Ha Ha, not enough in Scotland for anyone to care what the nasty party think.
Aye.
'Everyone agrees that Ruth Davidson is awesome, how could anyone possibly not think that? '
Doesn't that rather prove that the SCons are not that much of a 'hated party'? Or at the minimum, Davidson isn't representative of it?
The SCons are, as they have been for a long time, polling in the mid-teens. That gives somewhat over 80% of the voting public against the Cons, one way or another. Yet a net rating of -6 implies fairly substantial approval from supporters of other parties, or even more widespread abstentions.
All it shows is that Ruthie is the best of a bad Unionist lot.
Consider, Rennie is a supporter of A Liar Carmichael, Dugdale is the embodiment of SLAB. That Davidson can barely sneak past these two toxic non-entities does not suggest she has much popularity outside the Holyrood bubble.
There is no reduced say in the rules. In fact there is an increase in say in the rules compared to our current situation.
From the doc Casino linked to:
- No veto in the European Council - No votes in the Council of Ministers - No MEPs or votes in the European parliament - No European Commissioner and no European Commission staff - No judges or staff at the ECJ.
Also no veto on EU treaty changes, of course.
I have been over this god knows how many times before.
Almost everything you have listed there is completely immaterial if we are in the EEA because those bodies have no influence on EEA members or where they do the EEA has a veto.
- The European Council cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members.
- The Council of Ministers and European Parliament vote on new Directives on a basis of either QMV or unanimity. Currently if the UK does not agree with a Directive and it is under QMV then they can have it imposed on them. EEA members have a veto where new directives relate to them (basically only single market) .
- The EU Commission cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members. Commission staff develop new directives and the initiation and development of those directives where they relate to the EEA (basically only single market) has full input from EEA members.
- The ECJ has no jurisdiction over EEA members.
- EU treaty changes cannot have effect on the EEA members except via the EEA agreement. Over which EEA members have a veto.
Basically your objections are the same as complaining that we have no influence over the US Supreme Court and the US Senate.
TSE has always argued, correctly, that most white people in Britain don't hold most Muslims responsible for the acts of some of their number; I'm sure the same is true of the majority of white Swedes, Germans, or French. The much-feared "backlash" against Muslims in Europe has never taken place. It's therefore pathetic for the authorities to try and cover up such crimes, out of fear of a pogrom.
There's far too many people in this country that seem to want to denigrate our country, on the left, the Rhodes are fallers, who think this country's past, present and future is of nothing but racism and oppression.
To them I'd say cobblers, my Grandfather went from being under the Dominion of the UK to being a respected citizen of this country in less than 20 years. He did very well from this country, something he always kept on reminding me about.
You shouldn't not prosecute people on their background, that's just as bad as purely prosecuting people based on their background. You break the law, you get punished.
Take the murder of Lee Rigsby, a vile and horrific act, people realised it was nothing but a small minority and there's been no backlash. Just like there wasn't any major backlash against the Irish community when soldiers were being murdered at Republican funerals.
It may well be that the next Prime Minister of this country is a Muslim who is the son of an immigrant. Most people in this country wont care about that, they will vote purely on whether he's the best candidate to be party leader/PM.
There's some on the right who say this country is going to the dogs, to them I say this country isn't, we've always have an optimistic future.
As Douglas Carswell quite rightly put it, political parties should sunshine and optimism
What your grandfather says is not all that different to what mine says about this country. I think the key difference between our respective family stories and others from Indian or Pakistani backgrounds is the element of integration into British society. There is too much ghettoisation and them vs us attitude, especially from recent arrivals. Indians who come from directly from India seem to have this problem and tend not to integrate into the "British way of life". That, for me, is a big problem one which needs to be solved. I'm sure it isn't that different for the Pakistani community in Britain as well.
I think the way to convince the anti-immigration types is that within the EEA we can add conditionality and other clauses to come and work in the UK. Language tests, self-sufficiency rules etc... that we are currently unable to do within the EU. It won't be a big change, but it gives us a small amount of control where we currently have none.
No. As regards immigration itself, we'd be in exactly the same position as now - it's the same EU directive which applies, as I keep having to repeat. Language tests definitely a no-no. Self-sufficiency rules already apply to EU citizens.
There might be an advantage in terms of regaining the freedom to discriminate on benefits payment - I'm unsure on that point and I don't know of any authoritative source on it. In practice, though, Cameron will get something similar anyway, so I think it's academic.
The bottom line is that, if we leave the EU but sign up to the EEA, anyone who voted Leave because of immigration is going to be seriously and rightly pissed off.
Cameron is getting an emergency brake that the EC will have final say over. It is of little practical use unless Parliament has final say, which the EU will never give up since basically every other western EU nation will demand one as well.
I accept that the immigration situation isn't really going to change if we stay in the EEA. It changes from literally open borders to basically open borders.
Has the ECJ ruled on language tests, this is wording:
"Workers may not be discriminated against, for example with regard to language requirements, which may not go beyond what is reasonable and necessary for the job in question."
It is then up to the state to decide what is "reasonable and necessary" in terms of communication AIUI. I'm not sure if it makes a difference being in the EEA though.
We do not have 'literally open borders' now. We are not in Schengen.
Schengen is only a mechanism for managing (or rather not managing) movement at borders. It makes absolutely no difference to the basic rights of movement.
But isn't the most substantial element of concern about people who do not have those rights?
Anyone who is accepted into one Schengen area country can travel freely to another Schengen area country.
Richard, you have listed all these as net benefits of membership vs being in the EEA, but given how marginalised we are at the moment even with all these items I don't see how leaving will change anything.
Well, leaving and joining the EEA won't change much. Reduced say in the rules (we can quibble about how much say we currently have, but we'd certainly have less if we left), gains in sovereignty on a limited range of issues. If BOOers are happy with that, then fair enough. As I said, I don't personally think the advantages are sufficient to justify leaving, but others may disagree. As long as everyone realises that we'd still not have 'control of our borders', and that we'd still be subject to EU rules on a big range of issues, then it's an honest and arguable position.
The sudden news of Bowie’s death sent the nation and the world into emotional convulsions. There were the same drunken eulogies and declarations of ‘grief’, the same hyperbole about ‘things never being the same again’, the sepulchral howling and emotionally attached BBC reporting, and, amid the gaseous exaltations, a total loss of proportion.
According to various sources, Bowie single-handedly paved the path for our sexually tolerant society, inspired space exploration (because ‘Space Oddity’ was in no way about drugs), and helped to bring about the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
He was a unique Renaissance man. He was the first hipster. He was gender-fluid and ‘trans’ before Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner. He was the first pop star and he will be the last. I’m only surprised the BBC didn’t claim that David Bowie created the NHS or invent the hovercraft.
Jamie Ross A man on Scottish Resistance Facebook page has posted a video of himself smashing a packet of teacakes with a hammer https://t.co/bm9jQmg3YJ
Loyalists can focus on the isolated nutters as much as they like.
The problem is that the Loyalist nutters are not isolated loners. They are substantial numbers such as thousands of those at Ibrox every second Saturday and tens of thousands attending bigotry seminars Lodges every week.
In general the population is aware of this and the media just further isolate themselves from general opinion.
Here's Dan Hodges' elliptical tip for Next Labour Leader:
Actually, there may be some value in the Beckett report after all. It could be retained, but with the date on the front cover amended to 8 May, 2020. Then when Labour loses again, it can simply be reissued with a minimum of fuss.
In fact, “Why Labour Lost” could become a regular publication. Awaited with the same anticipation in the political world as a publication like Wisden, or the new edition of the Oxford English dictionary. “So what’s your favourite edition of “Why Labour Lost”?”. “Hard one. Have to say, I have a special fondness for the bound, Lisa Nandy, 2025 version."
I think the way to convince the anti-immigration types is that within the EEA we can add conditionality and other clauses to come and work in the UK. Language tests, self-sufficiency rules etc... that we are currently unable to do within the EU. It won't be a big change, but it gives us a small amount of control where we currently have none.
No. As regards immigration itself, we'd be in exactly the same position as now - it's the same EU directive which applies, as I keep having to repeat. Language tests definitely a no-no. Self-sufficiency rules already apply to EU citizens.
There might be an advantage in terms of regaining the freedom to discriminate on benefits payment - I'm unsure on that point and I don't know of any authoritative source on it. In practice, though, Cameron will get something similar anyway, so I think it's academic.
The bottom line is that, if we leave the EU but sign up to the EEA, anyone who voted Leave because of immigration is going to be seriously and rightly pissed off.
Cameron is getting an emergency brake that the EC will have final say over. It is of little practical use unless Parliament has final say, which the EU will never give up since basically every other western EU nation will demand one as well.
I accept that the immigration situation isn't really going to change if we stay in the EEA. It changes from literally open borders to basically open borders.
Has the ECJ ruled on language tests, this is wording:
"Workers may not be discriminated against, for example with regard to language requirements, which may not go beyond what is reasonable and necessary for the job in question."
It is then up to the state to decide what is "reasonable and necessary" in terms of communication AIUI. I'm not sure if it makes a difference being in the EEA though.
We do not have 'literally open borders' now. We are not in Schengen.
Schengen is only a mechanism for managing (or rather not managing) movement at borders. It makes absolutely no difference to the basic rights of movement.
But isn't the most substantial element of concern about people who do not have those rights?
Schengen is a massive red herring to be perfectly honest. We're not in it and it doesn't give people the right to resettle in any EU nation of their choosing, just passport-free travel. It's really got nothing to do with us.
@politicshome: Labour says Ken Livingstone's role has not changed, despite his numerous comments re chairing the defence review. https://t.co/456wbhk1RY
Richard, you have listed all these as net benefits of membership vs being in the EEA, but given how marginalised we are at the moment even with all these items I don't see how leaving will change anything.
Well, leaving and joining the EEA won't change much. Reduced say in the rules (we can quibble about how much say we currently have, but we'd certainly have less if we left), gains in sovereignty on a limited range of issues. If BOOers are happy with that, then fair enough. As I said, I don't personally think the advantages are sufficient to justify leaving, but others may disagree. As long as everyone realises that we'd still not have 'control of our borders', and that we'd still be subject to EU rules on a big range of issues, then it's an honest and arguable position.
Well we would also save a boatload of money given that we would no longer be party to the CAP.
TSE has always argued, correctly, that most white people in Britain don't hold most Muslims responsible for the acts of some of their number; I'm sure the same is true of the majority of white Swedes, Germans, or French. The much-feared "backlash" against Muslims in Europe has never taken place. It's therefore pathetic for the authorities to try and cover up such crimes, out of fear of a pogrom.
Yes, I agree - most people are perfectly able to distinguish between dangerous individuals and entire communities, though some are not (including one or two posters here). It's a bit like (but much more serious than) the belief that you mustn't say Happy Christmas because it might offend someone - in reality, absolutely nobody is offended.
The cover-up phenomenon is sometimes because extremists have already tried to exploit it, so you get authorities feeling that they mustn't get any kind of validation. But if a crime has been committed, the fact that someone we don't like has tried to exploit it unscrupulously doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to prosecute it properly.
bb63 I think winning elections can be quite an achievement..not many people can do that..how many have you won..
I'm sorry Mr Dodd but that is a ridiculous response. Cameron failed to win a majority against a man considered by Tories to be the worst ever PM.
You really don't understand elections do you? The electoral mountain to climb in 2010 was enormous and Cameron did enough to get Brown out. The fact that you don't get that is very revealing.
But he almost didn't. If he'd clocked just ten seats fewer a Lib/Lab coalition would have been viable and Cameron would have been out on his Nellie.
...
I'm not sure that's true. Firstly, Clegg said during the campaign that whoever won most votes would get first crack at putting together a government; that would still have been the Tories. Secondly, Cameron was keen and ready (in both senses) to do a deal; Labour wasn't. And thirdly - and critically - for the Lib Dems to have done a deal with Labour, they'd have either had to work with Brown or a blank space.
And that final one is the killer: can you imagine the Lib Dems propping up a Labour government that had lost its majority and moral mandate, with Balls at No 11 and the whole bunker attitude? On the other hand, if Brown had resigned, who on earth were the Lib Dems supposed to negotiate a deal with, and on what authority?
The senior Lib Dems were clearly keener to do a deal with the Tories for various reasons and I think it's quite likely that even if the numbers had stacked up for a Lib-Lab pact, they'd still have gone Blue - though they'd have got a higher price.
Fair point. It wouldn't have ruled out a coalition of Tory/LD but it would have made it much harder. And by the same token Cameron would have found it even harder to get it past his own Backbenchers. As would Clegg if there had been a left wing alternative, unless he got a better electoral reform deal.
We're into the luxury of hindsight terrority here and we'll never know but if Labour had known a LD/Labour deal was viable without many "moving parts" the attitude of the like of Harman, Mandelson and Blunkett might have been quite different.
I think the negotiations would have gone on longer on both sides but Brown was willing to stand down to stop the Tories - it would have been a question of how and when.
Of course, if there'd been AV in 2010, the LDs would have had the option to go with either side:
I've Sky News as my default station, and most of the time they cover a bit less than enough of rolling news. Too much on lefty liberal US stuff when a white kills a black etc. And Michael Jackson is still dead along with Pictorias.
They all need a wider brief, but it costs. BBC News is boring and an hour or more behind them. Pointless.
The sudden news of Bowie’s death sent the nation and the world into emotional convulsions. There were the same drunken eulogies and declarations of ‘grief’, the same hyperbole about ‘things never being the same again’, the sepulchral howling and emotionally attached BBC reporting, and, amid the gaseous exaltations, a total loss of proportion.
According to various sources, Bowie single-handedly paved the path for our sexually tolerant society, inspired space exploration (because ‘Space Oddity’ was in no way about drugs), and helped to bring about the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
He was a unique Renaissance man. He was the first hipster. He was gender-fluid and ‘trans’ before Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner. He was the first pop star and he will be the last. I’m only surprised the BBC didn’t claim that David Bowie created the NHS or invent the hovercraft.
Well we would also save a boatload of money given that we would no longer be party to the CAP.
We'd save a bit, but not enough for it to be a factor in the decision IMO.
I think it would be more than "a bit". If we made the same per capita contribution as Norway it would be £2.9bn vs about £9bn we currently pay. I think that's a fairly large sum of money with which we could have our own agricultural subsidies programme and have money left over.
TSE has always argued, correctly, that most white people in Britain don't hold most Muslims responsible for the acts of some of their number; I'm sure the same is true of the majority of white Swedes, Germans, or French. The much-feared "backlash" against Muslims in Europe has never taken place. It's therefore pathetic for the authorities to try and cover up such crimes, out of fear of a pogrom.
Yes, I agree - most people are perfectly able to distinguish between dangerous individuals and entire communities, though some are not (including one or two posters here). It's a bit like (but much more serious than) the belief that you mustn't say Happy Christmas because it might offend someone - in reality, absolutely nobody is offended.
The cover-up phenomenon is sometimes because extremists have already tried to exploit it, so you get authorities feeling that they mustn't get any kind of validation. But if a crime has been committed, the fact that someone we don't like has tried to exploit it unscrupulously doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to prosecute it properly.
Your last paragraph is key, I think. Extremists will more likely be successful at exploiting something if the mainstream ignores the problem. That is why it is so important for the mainstream not to ignore the issue and to speak about it openly and honestly and put all the facts out there, however uncomfortable they may be.
To refuse to speak honestly for fear of extremism is more likely to feed extremism, not least because it displays utter contempt for the people.
There is no reduced say in the rules. In fact there is an increase in say in the rules compared to our current situation.
From the doc Casino linked to:
- No veto in the European Council - No votes in the Council of Ministers - No MEPs or votes in the European parliament - No European Commissioner and no European Commission staff - No judges or staff at the ECJ.
Also no veto on EU treaty changes, of course.
I have been over this god knows how many times before.
Almost everything you have listed there is completely immaterial if we are in the EEA because those bodies have no influence on EEA members or where they do the EEA has a veto.
- The European Council cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members.
- The Council of Ministers and European Parliament vote on new Directives on a basis of either QMV or unanimity. Currently if the UK does not agree with a Directive and it is under QMV then they can have it imposed on them. EEA members have a veto where new directives relate to them (basically only single market) .
- The EU Commission cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members. Commission staff develop new directives and the initiation and development of those directives where they relate to the EEA (basically only single market) has full input from EEA members.
- The ECJ has no jurisdiction over EEA members.
- EU treaty changes cannot have effect on the EEA members except via the EEA agreement. Over which EEA members have a veto.
Basically your objections are the same as complaining that we have no influence over the US Supreme Court and the US Senate.
Yep. That is exactly the point I made. the ECJ has no jurisdiction. To quote from the ECJ own interpretation of the EEA agreement over the EFTA court:
ECJ opinion 1/91 on the EEA Court, [1991] ECR p. I-06079:
”Although, under the agreement, the Court of the European Economic Area is under a duty to interpret the provisions of the agreement in the light of the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice given prior to the date of signature of the agreement, the Court of the European Economic Area will no longer be subject to any such obligation in the case of decisions given by the Court of Justice after that date."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35304528 Lord Janner 'abused 12 at children's homes' Twelve former residents of children's homes say they were abused by Lord Janner, a BBC investigation has found, as criminal proceedings end.
Isn't it marvelous that Janner escaped prosecution while he was alive. Was it because he was a QC and a Lord, and therefore had clout and some power?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35304528 Lord Janner 'abused 12 at children's homes' Twelve former residents of children's homes say they were abused by Lord Janner, a BBC investigation has found, as criminal proceedings end.
Isn't it marvelous that Janner escaped prosecution while he was alive. Was it because he was a QC and a Lord, and therefore had clout and some power?
There is no reduced say in the rules. In fact there is an increase in say in the rules compared to our current situation.
From the doc Casino linked to:
- No veto in the European Council - No votes in the Council of Ministers - No MEPs or votes in the European parliament - No European Commissioner and no European Commission staff - No judges or staff at the ECJ.
Also no veto on EU treaty changes, of course.
I have been over this god knows how many times before.
Almost everything you have listed there is completely immaterial if we are in the EEA because those bodies have no influence on EEA members or where they do the EEA has a veto.
- The European Council cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members.
- The Council of Ministers and European Parliament vote on new Directives on a basis of either QMV or unanimity. Currently if the UK does not agree with a Directive and it is under QMV then they can have it imposed on them. EEA members have a veto where new directives relate to them (basically only single market) .
- The EU Commission cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members. Commission staff develop new directives and the initiation and development of those directives where they relate to the EEA (basically only single market) has full input from EEA members.
- The ECJ has no jurisdiction over EEA members.
- EU treaty changes cannot have effect on the EEA members except via the EEA agreement. Over which EEA members have a veto.
Basically your objections are the same as complaining that we have no influence over the US Supreme Court and the US Senate.
Yep. That is exactly the point I made. the ECJ has no jurisdiction. To quote from the ECJ own interpretation of the EEA agreement over the EFTA court:
ECJ opinion 1/91 on the EEA Court, [1991] ECR p. I-06079:
”Although, under the agreement, the Court of the European Economic Area is under a duty to interpret the provisions of the agreement in the light of the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice given prior to the date of signature of the agreement, the Court of the European Economic Area will no longer be subject to any such obligation in the case of decisions given by the Court of Justice after that date."
Richard, you have listed all these as net benefits of membership vs being in the EEA, but given how marginalised we are at the moment even with all these items I don't see how leaving will change anything.
Well, leaving and joining the EEA won't change much. Reduced say in the rules (we can quibble about how much say we currently have, but we'd certainly have less if we left), gains in sovereignty on a limited range of issues. If BOOers are happy with that, then fair enough. As I said, I don't personally think the advantages are sufficient to justify leaving, but others may disagree. As long as everyone realises that we'd still not have 'control of our borders', and that we'd still be subject to EU rules on a big range of issues, then it's an honest and arguable position.
We would have more say over the rules governing the Single Market than we do now not less. Anywhere where we currently have to abide by QMV we would ultimately have a veto.
There is no reduced say in the rules. In fact there is an increase in say in the rules compared to our current situation.
From the doc Casino linked to:
- No veto in the European Council - No votes in the Council of Ministers - No MEPs or votes in the European parliament - No European Commissioner and no European Commission staff - No judges or staff at the ECJ.
Also no veto on EU treaty changes, of course.
I have been over this god knows how many times before.
Almost everything you have listed there is completely immaterial if we are in the EEA because those bodies have no influence on EEA members or where they do the EEA has a veto.
- The European Council cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members.
- The Council of Ministers and European Parliament vote on new Directives on a basis of either QMV or unanimity. Currently if the UK does not agree with a Directive and it is under QMV then they can have it imposed on them. EEA members have a veto where new directives relate to them (basically only single market) .
- The EU Commission cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members. Commission staff develop new directives and the initiation and development of those directives where they relate to the EEA (basically only single market) has full input from EEA members.
- The ECJ has no jurisdiction over EEA members.
- EU treaty changes cannot have effect on the EEA members except via the EEA agreement. Over which EEA members have a veto.
Basically your objections are the same as complaining that we have no influence over the US Supreme Court and the US Senate.
Yep. That is exactly the point I made. the ECJ has no jurisdiction. To quote from the ECJ own interpretation of the EEA agreement over the EFTA court:
ECJ opinion 1/91 on the EEA Court, [1991] ECR p. I-06079:
”Although, under the agreement, the Court of the European Economic Area is under a duty to interpret the provisions of the agreement in the light of the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice given prior to the date of signature of the agreement, the Court of the European Economic Area will no longer be subject to any such obligation in the case of decisions given by the Court of Justice after that date."
Efta court based in Luxembourg
It makes no difference where it is based. What matters is its jurisdiction and how it makes its decisions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35304528 Lord Janner 'abused 12 at children's homes' Twelve former residents of children's homes say they were abused by Lord Janner, a BBC investigation has found, as criminal proceedings end.
Isn't it marvelous that Janner escaped prosecution while he was alive. Was it because he was a QC and a Lord, and therefore had clout and some power?
Comments
I accept that the immigration situation isn't really going to change if we stay in the EEA. It changes from literally open borders to basically open borders.
Has the ECJ ruled on language tests, this is wording:
"Workers may not be discriminated against, for example with regard to language requirements, which may not go beyond what is reasonable and necessary for the job in question."
It is then up to the state to decide what is "reasonable and necessary" in terms of communication AIUI. I'm not sure if it makes a difference being in the EEA though.
Lay the draw.
Scott - Salmond chaired the Games Committee from 2007. Lord Smith chaired the Organising Company. I'm surprised that the Tory research department haven't read Salmond's book - see section on Pumeza and Hamish Henderson's Freedom Cam O Ye.
Peter - I didn't have to be at wedding it was reported on media. As was the point that Salmond served plain chocolate caramel wafers to the Weirs and Rupert Murdoch at Bute House (not at the same time!).
Anyway point is Salmond's class and sense of humour of which unionists (of which I used to be one) are almosr completely devoid in their desperation to forestall the coming SNP landslide.
I do wonder if that (the freedom of movement rules) will change over the next year or two if the current crisis continues to escalate.
It's the nature of betting.
You may well ask why UK insurance has so many exclusions, yet is more expensive than other countries. It is not Doctors fees - these are paid at lower rates than 20 years ago, while premiums are substantially ahead of inflation. It is not my colleagues that are fleecing the public!
If there's a moderator about, there's some spam that needs clearing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aida-manduley/david-bowie-time-to-mourn-or-call-out_b_8969486.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay Voices
Strangely enough, never discussed.
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/
Yes, the EU can take proportionate countermeasures and it's never been used to date but the option is there.
There is no such option inside the EU.
In the real world, voters know that when it suits the whole edifice is thrown out of the window. EG Schengen. Cornerstone founding principles become polystyrene.
So I think the approach of 'we can't do this because of article C paragraph 2 of treaty X' is not an approach that will work for IN.
"Does Norway have an ‘emergency brake’ on EU free movement?
The EEA Agreement grants member states the ability to take ‘safeguard measures’, which potentially allows the EEA/EFTA countries to temporarily suspend parts of the EEA agreement, including the free movement of people. Such measures are only meant to be temporary. Unlike the veto described above, which applies to new legislation, the safeguard measures can be applied to the existing agreement. The safeguard measures can be triggered by a country unilaterally but the agreement also allows the EU to take retaliatory “proportionate rebalancing measures”.91 The use of safeguard measures triggers a negotiation between the EEA/EFTA countries and the European Commission “with a view to nding a commonly acceptable solution.”
The EEA Agreement does therefore include an emergency brake as a ‘nuclear option’, which could be used to bring the EU to the negotiating table rather than as an inde nite policy tool. The outcome of any such negotiations would ultimately be determined politically. Norway has never used the safeguard measures for this purpose but, in the late 1990s, Liechtenstein applied safeguard measures to restrict free movement while
it negotiated the ability to apply restrictions on foreign EEA nationals’ residence and employment which it has applied since 2000."
It's a ranting polemic from the hard left of the LBGTQ lot. File for the bin.
But frankly I believe to attractions for the voluable Leavers have moved beyond economics and sovereignty and are just a cover for more crude motives. The split between Carswell and Farage gives us the clue.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
We're into the luxury of hindsight terrority here and we'll never know but if Labour had known a LD/Labour deal was viable without many "moving parts" the attitude of the like of Harman, Mandelson and Blunkett might have been quite different.
I think the negotiations would have gone on longer on both sides but Brown was willing to stand down to stop the Tories - it would have been a question of how and when.
Fortunately I can recognise a bunch of sad narrow minded numpties when I see them.
I don't understand why we grant special immigration privileges to the Commonwealth as a whole (well, OK I do - we do it for the subcontinent for community relations reasons mainly related to extended families, and for cultural affinity reasons for Australia, Canada and New Zealand but it's time we stopped treating the whole Commonwealth as one sort of continuity Empire-lite where we do all the heavy lifting for minimal benefit)
http://labourlist.org/2016/01/a-beginners-guide-to-the-boundary-review/
They want more. But fail to accept that their version of more isn't electorally possible.
TSE has always argued, correctly, that most white people in Britain don't hold most Muslims responsible for the acts of some of their number; I'm sure the same is true of the majority of white Swedes, Germans, or French. The much-feared "backlash" against Muslims in Europe has never taken place. It's therefore pathetic for the authorities to try and cover up such crimes, out of fear of a pogrom.
To people that are not engaged in politics, which I would say is most people, immigration will be the key issue that makes them vote LEAVE. As @taffys says, Law X , Clause 3, para x etc of a treaty is literally noise to over 99% of voters, and anyway the economic effect on normal peoples lives is due to immigration
Politcal obsessives that enjoy long winded debate think mentioning immigration is dirty and beneath them... usually because it doesn't affect them. I would guess they think resorting to mentioning it means they have lost the intellectual argument; it sounds so more high minded, and makes them feel more important, to talk about abstract economic details, that people don't get, which means they can feel even more clever by explaining or pretending to be stupefied that other people don't understand them
If that approach is to work it is probably because headlines like these do the anti immigration peoples work for them, so perhaps, tactically, not mentioning about the "I" word while letting people read the papers could work for LEAVE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3400842/German-leisure-centre-ban-migrants-schoolgirl-sexually-assaulted-public-swimming-pool-Syrian-teenagers.html
Natural born citizen.
A citizen, but something more (rules out Arnie, as he was not born a citizen)
A born citizen, but something more (rules out Cruz, as he owes his status to "congressional indulgence" See SCOTUS, Rogers v Bellei (1971))
A natural born citizen, a born citizen solely by the operation of natural law, "born in the country of parents who were its citizens" See SCOTUS Minor v Happersett (1875), rules out Obama, as his father was never an American citizen.
- No veto in the European Council
- No votes in the Council of Ministers
- No MEPs or votes in the European parliament
- No European Commissioner and no European Commission staff
- No judges or staff at the ECJ.
Also no veto on EU treaty changes, of course.
I'm in two minds about what Remain campaign should do. By my reckoning, migration be a major factor out in the country and by far above 20% of public as said below. On other hand, banging on it too much tars them with the UKIP brush among the middle class. Should probably keep it as one of multiple arguments, not drop it nor base campaign round it.
I read the home minister in Westphalia said right wing comments in chat rooms were as bad as the attacks themselves. Some folk seem to be on a different planet.
Corbynism supporters
@RaheemKassam Could be worse https://t.co/pTcFSON8XL
2. 1 of 28, out vote is of no consequence.
3. Our MEPs are vastly outnumbered by the other 27 nations and we are not part of the current ruling bloc, they are of no consequence.
4. 1 commissioner out of 28 who answers to a federalist europhile, he has no influence.
5. The ECJ is already openly hostile to any nation which doesn't support the integration and federalist cause, having no staff there would mean very little change in the real world.
6. Treaties or treaty changes would never be brought forward by the EC if Britain had a Tory government, they learned the lessons of Maastricht and would only bring forwards Treaties when we have a Labour government so it can be mindlessly voted through. Lisbon is the classic example where they scrambled the manpower to ensure it was done by the time Labour left office.
Richard, you have listed all these as net benefits of membership vs being in the EEA, but given how marginalised we are at the moment even with all these items I don't see how leaving will change anything.
Smith
Lewis
Khan
"An example [of Labour's reselection problem for 2020] is the four London Boroughs of Camden, Islington, Hackney and Haringey which currently contains eight constituencies and eight Labour MPs. This area will almost certainly lose one constituency and possibly two due to low levels of registration. How eight will go down to six in that locality raises some interesting questions for Labour"
Interesting indeed. Those eight MPs are:
Tulip Siddiq
Kier Starmer
Jeremy Corbyn
Emily Thornberry
Diane Abbott
Meg Hillier
Catherine West
David Lammy
Some big names there playing musical chairs.
Almost everything you have listed there is completely immaterial if we are in the EEA because those bodies have no influence on EEA members or where they do the EEA has a veto.
- The European Council cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members.
- The Council of Ministers and European Parliament vote on new Directives on a basis of either QMV or unanimity. Currently if the UK does not agree with a Directive and it is under QMV then they can have it imposed on them. EEA members have a veto where new directives relate to them (basically only single market) .
- The EU Commission cannot make or modify rules affecting EEA members. Commission staff develop new directives and the initiation and development of those directives where they relate to the EEA (basically only single market) has full input from EEA members.
- The ECJ has no jurisdiction over EEA members.
- EU treaty changes cannot have effect on the EEA members except via the EEA agreement. Over which EEA members have a veto.
Basically your objections are the same as complaining that we have no influence over the US Supreme Court and the US Senate.
To them I'd say cobblers, my Grandfather went from being under the Dominion of the UK to being a respected citizen of this country in less than 20 years. He did very well from this country, something he always kept on reminding me about.
You shouldn't not prosecute people on their background, that's just as bad as purely prosecuting people based on their background. You break the law, you get punished.
Take the murder of Lee Rigsby, a vile and horrific act, people realised it was nothing but a small minority and there's been no backlash. Just like there wasn't any major backlash against the Irish community when soldiers were being murdered at Republican funerals.
It may well be that the next Prime Minister of this country is a Muslim who is the son of an immigrant. Most people in this country wont care about that, they will vote purely on whether he's the best candidate to be party leader/PM.
There's some on the right who say this country is going to the dogs, to them I say this country isn't, we've always have an optimistic future.
As Douglas Carswell quite rightly put it, political parties should sunshine and optimism
Consider, Rennie is a supporter of A Liar Carmichael, Dugdale is the embodiment of SLAB. That Davidson can barely sneak past these two toxic non-entities does not suggest she has much popularity outside the Holyrood bubble.
I was personally quite said because I was a fan in the 70s but the whole episode showed up the lack of any real need for 24 hours news channels.
The problem is that the Loyalist nutters are not isolated loners. They are substantial numbers such as thousands of those at Ibrox every second Saturday and tens of thousands attending bigotry seminars Lodges every week.
In general the population is aware of this and the media just further isolate themselves from general opinion.
Actually, there may be some value in the Beckett report after all. It could be retained, but with the date on the front cover amended to 8 May, 2020. Then when Labour loses again, it can simply be reissued with a minimum of fuss.
In fact, “Why Labour Lost” could become a regular publication. Awaited with the same anticipation in the political world as a publication like Wisden, or the new edition of the Oxford English dictionary. “So what’s your favourite edition of “Why Labour Lost”?”. “Hard one. Have to say, I have a special fondness for the bound, Lisa Nandy, 2025 version."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12101832/We-already-know-exactly-why-Labour-lost.-But-nobody-in-the-party-cares.html
@politicshome: Labour says Ken Livingstone's role has not changed, despite his numerous comments re chairing the defence review. https://t.co/456wbhk1RY
The cover-up phenomenon is sometimes because extremists have already tried to exploit it, so you get authorities feeling that they mustn't get any kind of validation. But if a crime has been committed, the fact that someone we don't like has tried to exploit it unscrupulously doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to prosecute it properly.
http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/parlij/gsq042.pdf
Maybe someone should do a thread on that under-discussed voting system?
They all need a wider brief, but it costs. BBC News is boring and an hour or more behind them. Pointless. I was personally quite said because I was a fan in the 70s but the whole episode showed up the lack of any real need for 24 hours news channels.
Well what's £6 billion between friends?
New Thread New Thread
To refuse to speak honestly for fear of extremism is more likely to feed extremism, not least because it displays utter contempt for the people.
We need to speak openly about the facts and we need to speak openly about values and culture, our own and that of others. The attached article is quite interesting in this regard: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/je-suis-charlie-then-challenge-the-islamophobia-industry/16455#.Vpj1Nmxi_X4.
Oh and a very good post below from TSE.
ECJ opinion 1/91 on the EEA Court, [1991] ECR p. I-06079:
”Although, under the agreement, the Court of the European Economic Area is under a duty to interpret the provisions of the agreement in the light of the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice given prior to the date of signature of the agreement, the Court of the European Economic Area will no longer be subject to any such obligation in the case of decisions given by the Court of Justice after that date."
Lord Janner 'abused 12 at children's homes'
Twelve former residents of children's homes say they were abused by Lord Janner, a BBC investigation has found, as criminal proceedings end.
Isn't it marvelous that Janner escaped prosecution while he was alive. Was it because he was a QC and a Lord, and therefore had clout and some power?