@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
Nor do I do they not have family or friends to support them until they find a job and contribute to society and earn security benefits or did they all just vanish once no longer 17?
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
Mr Royale in his post to which you were replying mention the UK Constitutional Court, I am fairly sure we don't have one. We do have something called a Supreme Court, which isn't in any way supreme because by treaty and statute the EU law over rides our own.
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
This is interesting. It means IMHO that the sticking point is Cameron being allowed to trigger this temporary mild restriction on EU worker benefits emergency brake for four years immediately after the referendum.
That would create an argument for Remain, in order to allow it to be triggered.
"He also said the European Commission had tabled a text saying that the UK meets the criteria for triggering an emergency brake on the payment of in-work benefits to EU migrants, describing this development as a "significant breakthrough".
This means Mr Cameron could deliver on his commitment to restrict in-work benefits to migrants for four years, he added."
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
But why let reality get in the way of a made up drama?
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
They do in some of them. I bet others have an exception for young workers, or a lower level of benefits for non-contributions.
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
Mr Royale in his post to which you were replying mention the UK Constitutional Court, I am fairly sure we don't have one. We do have something called a Supreme Court, which isn't in any way supreme because by treaty and statute the EU law over rides our own.
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Not just the EU, we are members of several treaties, including the EHCR and a number of trade treaties and intellectual property ones, all of which have precedence over our own courts in certain situations.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
Nor do I do they not have family or friends to support them until they find a job and contribute to society and earn security benefits or did they all just vanish once no longer 17?
What if their friends and family can't afford to look after them? Some people don't have loving families or middle class friends. Many on rough estates might just turn to drug trade to bring in fast cash.
Are really some people on PB speculating about which seats the LD will do OK in 2020?
At this point in time there is no point to speculate, people have not changed their voting preferences since the last election and I do not expect much change by 2020 baring an event. I'm expecting a LD recovery in about 40 years time, following past historical experience.
Speculating which 6 or 7 seats the libdems could win in 2020 is not the same as anticipating a recovery.
They will win Ceredigion, Norfolk N., Leeds NW and Westmorland.
" But as a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14.
By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget.
In 2015-16, borrowing falls further to £20 billion. "
Notice how the further you go into Osborne's borrowing predictions the more overborrowing occurs.
Ok. I give in. He's not omniscient or even psychic. Can we stop this nonsense now and focus on how he has dealt with the real world. Or has your visa expired?
...
And record employment. And the fastest growth in Europe despite having the worst starting place. And zero inflation.
Our BoP will improve as the deficit comes down. At the moment demand is being artificially increased to the tune of nearly £80bn in a year. It would be miraculous if that did not increase imports.
...
In the last year Robert but not since 2010.
But that's picking and choosing your dates. If we did since the beginning of 1999, then I'm fairly sure Spain would be ahead of Britain. If we did 2008, I'm sure Germany would be ahead of us. And if we did 2015, Spain would pip us again.
''It is probably also worth touching on Spain, where there is the biggest disconnect between employment, which rose from 14.8m at the beginning of 1999 to 17.3m at the end of 2014, and unemployment, which went from 2.7m to 5.5m in the same period'' '' in families where the working partner loses their job, then both parents suddenly become “unemployed”. '' I take this latter point, but how significant is it. And are the figures for youth unemployment so wrong?
Why are Spanish youths coming to work in McDonalds - indeed anywhere they can find work - and more importantly what is holding back the employment of all of our NEETs ? I consider this a real problem and its a home grown one. Its inertia coming from the liberal and socialist left that perpetuates it.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
Nor do I do they not have family or friends to support them until they find a job and contribute to society and earn security benefits or did they all just vanish once no longer 17?
What if their friends and family can't afford to look after them? Some people don't have loving families or middle class friends. Many on rough estates might just turn to drug trade to bring in fast cash.
What if they can't while 17?
I'd suggest they get themselves a job, any job and contribute to society and earn the right to get benefits would be the solution.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
But why let reality get in the way of a made up drama?
I'm guessing you don't know many poor people if you think young unemployed people depending on income support is 'made up drama'.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
So what should happen to them then? Are they supposed to magic food out of thin air?
I was ill for a couple of years and on benefits, before I had made 4 years of national insurance contributions. Should I have been denied them in your view?
Why are Spanish youths coming to work in McDonalds - indeed anywhere they can find work - and more importantly what is holding back the employment of all of our NEETs ? I consider this a real problem and its a home grown one. Its inertia coming from the liberal and socialist left that perpetuates it.
A perception that either they don't need to work, don't have to work or that they are "above" doing the jobs that are available so will do nothing instead.
Incidentally, as I've said before, if part of this "deal" Cameron gets involves taking benefits away from Britons (rather than just migrants), that will swing me to being a firm OUT.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
The principle that both parties went into the last election was, for youngsters, if you arent training, and you arent learning, you aint getting anything. Apparently so, but that was BC, Before Corbyn, now such a suggestion is the equivalent of the workhouses.
This government has a good story to tell with youth unemployment (13,7%). The EU average is 23%, France 24.7%, Italy almost 30%.
Remember, this is in a time when this country absorbed almost 270,000 people from the EU last year alone, mostly young people, while exporting about 90,000 mostly retired.
A few weeks back I posted that that all the parts were being put in place for some kind of concerted Western intervention in Libya against IS and that advance parties of casuals were turning up on recce.
Within Libya reports suggest action is imminent. UK, US, France, Italy. Certainly the diplomatic ground is being set but there is no obvious sign of the first strikes though some IS held towns seem remarkably lacking beards in the street in the last day or two.
In reality some interesting things are already going on. IS has sent some very senior figures from its Syrian/Iraqi base to Libya to prepare the ground for another heartland territory. Most notably one of their heads of internal security turned up a while back. Its been calling for imports to go to Libya as much as Syria and Iraq. This has not, however, been smooth sailing with some locals not always enamored with the new guys throwing the weight around. a Few senior IS officers in Libya also appear to have been done by snipers in what appears to be a small campaign to kill them off.
In reality IS is comparatively weak in Libya compared to the imagined Caliphate further east; numbers believed less than 10k. In territory terms the area held is small and well sandwiched. If there is one lesson from Syria and Iraq it is, if you are going to want to intervene, do it early and do it with commitment.
Why are Spanish youths coming to work in McDonalds - indeed anywhere they can find work - and more importantly what is holding back the employment of all of our NEETs ? I consider this a real problem and its a home grown one. Its inertia coming from the liberal and socialist left that perpetuates it.
A perception that either they don't need to work, don't have to work or that they are "above" doing the jobs that are available so will do nothing instead.
Oh look, more people who've never had to struggle a day in their life looking down their noses and diagnosing what's wrong with the peasants.
The BoP isn't caused by the level of the government deficit but by the UK's continual living beyond its means - something no government is willing to discourage.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that: the flow of foreign money into the UK, in particular into property, tends to create a balance of payments issue. Money in equals money out. And money flowing into the UK property market will tend to flow out in terms of imports.
In the mid 2000s, the Spanish property bubble (and Germans and Brits buying second homes there) caused a similar balance of payments issue.
Or perhaps it might be expressed as the UK flogging off its assets (from Mayfair mansions to football clubs to overseas holdings to government bonds) to pay to live beyond its wealth creating capacity.
Now if we weren't attracting foreign money to buy UK assets wouldn't sterling fall in value until it reached a level where exports and imports of trade and tourism were in balance ?
The balance of payments has many components and includes the income from overseas assets and, as an outgoing, the transfer of income abroad from assets here owned by foreigners. As we do well domestically and the rest of the world does less well then money perversely flows out. Its an indication of our economy doing relatively well.
Are you really trying to claim that the BoP deficit has doubled since 2010 because the UK is doing so well.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
Nor do I do they not have family or friends to support them until they find a job and contribute to society and earn security benefits or did they all just vanish once no longer 17?
What if their friends and family can't afford to look after them? Some people don't have loving families or middle class friends. Many on rough estates might just turn to drug trade to bring in fast cash.
What if they can't while 17?
I'd suggest they get themselves a job, any job and contribute to society and earn the right to get benefits would be the solution.
Your exchange illustrates the difficulty was referring to in my previous comment
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
Nor do I do they not have family or friends to support them until they find a job and contribute to society and earn security benefits or did they all just vanish once no longer 17?
What if their friends and family can't afford to look after them? Some people don't have loving families or middle class friends. Many on rough estates might just turn to drug trade to bring in fast cash.
What if they can't while 17?
I'd suggest they get themselves a job, any job and contribute to society and earn the right to get benefits would be the solution.
At 17 many are only getting decent nutrition from free school lunches and breakfast clubs. It can take months to find a job in some parts of the country. How do they eat in the mean time?
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
But why let reality get in the way of a made up drama?
I'm guessing you don't know many poor people if you think young unemployed people depending on income support is 'made up drama'.
I don't know many poor people with absolutely zero friends or family, no. Even the poor people I know with no family (and I do know some tragic cases) make friends whom they can share flats with to cut costs etc
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
This is the important bit... the benefits stuff is a sideshow. Watch Gove. He holds the Ace and everyone is currently looking the other way.
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
Mr Royale in his post to which you were replying mention the UK Constitutional Court, I am fairly sure we don't have one. We do have something called a Supreme Court, which isn't in any way supreme because by treaty and statute the EU law over rides our own.
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Not just the EU, we are members of several treaties, including the EHCR and a number of trade treaties and intellectual property ones, all of which have precedence over our own courts in certain situations.
I wasn't aware that trade treaties and IP treaties come with their own courts that can override our own. The contents of such treaties may well be part of UK law but the application and interpretation of that law is a matter for UK courts alone.
Incidentally, as I've said before, if part of this "deal" Cameron gets involves taking benefits away from Britons (rather than just migrants), that will swing me to being a firm OUT.
And when you vote OUT, and LEAVE wins, and Cameron takes benefits away anyway, I'll remind you you said that.
Are really some people on PB speculating about which seats the LD will do OK in 2020?
At this point in time there is no point to speculate, people have not changed their voting preferences since the last election and I do not expect much change by 2020 baring an event. I'm expecting a LD recovery in about 40 years time, following past historical experience.
Speculating which 6 or 7 seats the libdems could win in 2020 is not the same as anticipating a recovery.
They will win Ceredigion, Norfolk N., Leeds NW and Westmorland.
Southport is too close too call at the moment.
Hence I went for 'could'!
Edit to add: I think they'll probably win O&S once Carmichael has gone.
I don't think they'll hold Southport or Leeds NW.
And it's possible they'll win a seat in SW London, depending on how the boundary review goes, and with Cable gone.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
But why let reality get in the way of a made up drama?
I'm guessing you don't know many poor people if you think young unemployed people depending on income support is 'made up drama'.
I don't know many poor people with absolutely zero friends or family, no. Even the poor people I know with no family (and I do know some tragic cases) make friends whom they can share flats with to cut costs etc
It don't matter how much you cut costs if you got no income to pay them. Is it really Tory thinking to say 'the young unemployed can just rely on their mates being rich enough to spare the cash'??
The BoP isn't caused by the level of the government deficit but by the UK's continual living beyond its means - something no government is willing to discourage.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that: the flow of foreign money into the UK, in particular into property, tends to create a balance of payments issue. Money in equals money out. And money flowing into the UK property market will tend to flow out in terms of imports.
In the mid 2000s, the Spanish property bubble (and Germans and Brits buying second homes there) caused a similar balance of payments issue.
Or perhaps it might be expressed as the UK flogging off its assets (from Mayfair mansions to football clubs to overseas holdings to government bonds) to pay to live beyond its wealth creating capacity.
Now if we weren't attracting foreign money to buy UK assets wouldn't sterling fall in value until it reached a level where exports and imports of trade and tourism were in balance ?
The balance of payments has many components and includes the income from overseas assets and, as an outgoing, the transfer of income abroad from assets here owned by foreigners. As we do well domestically and the rest of the world does less well then money perversely flows out. Its an indication of our economy doing relatively well.
Are you really trying to claim that the BoP deficit has doubled since 2010 because the UK is doing so well.
Do you have an alternative reason why? The BoP raises when we do better than our trading partners and shrinks when we do worse. Plus ca change.
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
Mr Royale in his post to which you were replying mention the UK Constitutional Court, I am fairly sure we don't have one. We do have something called a Supreme Court, which isn't in any way supreme because by treaty and statute the EU law over rides our own.
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Not just the EU, we are members of several treaties, including the EHCR and a number of trade treaties and intellectual property ones, all of which have precedence over our own courts in certain situations.
If memory serves, the supreme arbiter of the Geneva Convention is...the UN Security Council.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
But why let reality get in the way of a made up drama?
I'm guessing you don't know many poor people if you think young unemployed people depending on income support is 'made up drama'.
I don't know many poor people with absolutely zero friends or family, no. Even the poor people I know with no family (and I do know some tragic cases) make friends whom they can share flats with to cut costs etc
It don't matter how much you cut costs if you got no income to pay them. Is it really Tory thinking to say 'the young unemployed can just rely on their mates being rich enough to spare the cash'??
No I repeatedly that they should get a job. Is it really your thinking that people can endlessly and without contribution rely on taxpayers to fund their lives?
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
Mr Royale in his post to which you were replying mention the UK Constitutional Court, I am fairly sure we don't have one. We do have something called a Supreme Court, which isn't in any way supreme because by treaty and statute the EU law over rides our own.
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Not just the EU, we are members of several treaties, including the EHCR and a number of trade treaties and intellectual property ones, all of which have precedence over our own courts in certain situations.
We invented the ECHR c1950. British citizens have always been able to appeal to it. But under Labour its jurisdiction could be interpreted by British judges; the convention was incorporated in the HRA.
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
Mr Royale in his post to which you were replying mention the UK Constitutional Court, I am fairly sure we don't have one. We do have something called a Supreme Court, which isn't in any way supreme because by treaty and statute the EU law over rides our own.
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Not just the EU, we are members of several treaties, including the EHCR and a number of trade treaties and intellectual property ones, all of which have precedence over our own courts in certain situations.
I wasn't aware that trade treaties and IP treaties come with their own courts that can override our own. The contents of such treaties may well be part of UK law but the application and interpretation of that law is a matter for UK courts alone.
Yes they do: that is the nature of ISDS tribunals, which I would note are usually held in secret.
So: the government of Quebec's ban of certain GM foods was over-ruled by a NAFTA ISDS tribunal following an appeal by Monsanto.
Incidentally, as I've said before, if part of this "deal" Cameron gets involves taking benefits away from Britons (rather than just migrants), that will swing me to being a firm OUT.
And when you vote OUT, and LEAVE wins, and Cameron takes benefits away anyway, I'll remind you you said that.
Even if that happened, it would be much politically easier to restore them if theres no immigrant card to play against you. But it don't sound like Cameron needs to. He'll get his four year ban and he'll try to use that, even if its a one-off and benefits get restored in two years. His successor can deal with fallout.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
But why let reality get in the way of a made up drama?
I'm guessing you don't know many poor people if you think young unemployed people depending on income support is 'made up drama'.
I don't know many poor people with absolutely zero friends or family, no. Even the poor people I know with no family (and I do know some tragic cases) make friends whom they can share flats with to cut costs etc
It don't matter how much you cut costs if you got no income to pay them. Is it really Tory thinking to say 'the young unemployed can just rely on their mates being rich enough to spare the cash'??
Who has suggested that young people will get nothing?
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
But why let reality get in the way of a made up drama?
I'm guessing you don't know many poor people if you think young unemployed people depending on income support is 'made up drama'.
I don't know many poor people with absolutely zero friends or family, no. Even the poor people I know with no family (and I do know some tragic cases) make friends whom they can share flats with to cut costs etc
It don't matter how much you cut costs if you got no income to pay them. Is it really Tory thinking to say 'the young unemployed can just rely on their mates being rich enough to spare the cash'??
Who has suggested that young people will get nothing?
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
But why let reality get in the way of a made up drama?
I'm guessing you don't know many poor people if you think young unemployed people depending on income support is 'made up drama'.
I don't know many poor people with absolutely zero friends or family, no. Even the poor people I know with no family (and I do know some tragic cases) make friends whom they can share flats with to cut costs etc
It don't matter how much you cut costs if you got no income to pay them. Is it really Tory thinking to say 'the young unemployed can just rely on their mates being rich enough to spare the cash'??
No I repeatedly that they should get a job. Is it really your thinking that people can endlessly and without contribution rely on taxpayers to fund their lives?
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
Mr Royale in his post to which you were replying mention the UK Constitutional Court, I am fairly sure we don't have one. We do have something called a Supreme Court, which isn't in any way supreme because by treaty and statute the EU law over rides our own.
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Not just the EU, we are members of several treaties, including the EHCR and a number of trade treaties and intellectual property ones, all of which have precedence over our own courts in certain situations.
We invented the ECHR c1950. British citizens have always been able to appeal to it. But under Labour its jurisdiction could be interpreted by British judges; the convention was incorporated in the HRA.
We were members of the EU pre-1997. We could remain in the EU and repeal Labour's HRA and revert to the status quo ante, all it would take is a government willing to force through Parliament a bill repealing the HRA.
If Parliament isn't willing to do that then the EU is a moot subject.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
But why let reality get in the way of a made up drama?
I'm guessing you don't know many poor people if you think young unemployed people depending on income support is 'made up drama'.
I don't know many poor people with absolutely zero friends or family, no. Even the poor people I know with no family (and I do know some tragic cases) make friends whom they can share flats with to cut costs etc
It don't matter how much you cut costs if you got no income to pay them. Is it really Tory thinking to say 'the young unemployed can just rely on their mates being rich enough to spare the cash'??
Who has suggested that young people will get nothing?
Is that not what's implied when it's said that people have to "contribute" before they get benefits?
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
But why let reality get in the way of a made up drama?
I'm guessing you don't know many poor people if you think young unemployed people depending on income support is 'made up drama'.
I don't know many poor people with absolutely zero friends or family, no. Even the poor people I know with no family (and I do know some tragic cases) make friends whom they can share flats with to cut costs etc
It don't matter how much you cut costs if you got no income to pay them. Is it really Tory thinking to say 'the young unemployed can just rely on their mates being rich enough to spare the cash'??
Who has suggested that young people will get nothing?
No I repeatedly that they should get a job. Is it really your thinking that people can endlessly and without contribution rely on taxpayers to fund their lives?
So involuntary unemployment don't exist??
Long term or frictional? Frictional unemployment will always exist and is just a matter of time while people look for and take a job, long term unemployment (barring illness or disability which is a separate issue) is caused by the welfare system not needing contributions it is not a necessary feature. If people need a job they will take a job rather than turn their nose up at working.
Are really some people on PB speculating about which seats the LD will do OK in 2020?
At this point in time there is no point to speculate, people have not changed their voting preferences since the last election and I do not expect much change by 2020 baring an event. I'm expecting a LD recovery in about 40 years time, following past historical experience.
Speculating which 6 or 7 seats the libdems could win in 2020 is not the same as anticipating a recovery.
They will win Ceredigion, Norfolk N., Leeds NW and Westmorland.
Southport is too close too call at the moment.
Hence I went for 'could'!
The tiny Welsh seats will be changed out of all recognition by 2020 -- the most likely fate of Ceredigion is that it will acquire parts of Preseli Pembrokeshire and possibly Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
Nor do I do they not have family or friends to support them until they find a job and contribute to society and earn security benefits or did they all just vanish once no longer 17?
What if their friends and family can't afford to look after them? Some people don't have loving families or middle class friends. Many on rough estates might just turn to drug trade to bring in fast cash.
What if they can't while 17?
I'd suggest they get themselves a job, any job and contribute to society and earn the right to get benefits would be the solution.
At 17 many are only getting decent nutrition from free school lunches and breakfast clubs. It can take months to find a job in some parts of the country. How do they eat in the mean time?
utter piffle, only in the most extreme situations, maybe in the case of an abusive household, or a substance abuse. If you are on benefits, on a household with children, it take pi** poor financial mismanagement to end up with no nutrition. In fact the very cheapest fast foods are abundant in the most important nutritions of all, fat and sugar.
The funny thing is, in my view, it's often the self-proclaimed Tory "centrists" who have the most chilling and uncompassionate view towards people in genuine need. Prats like Philip Thompson, Rcs1000 and George Osborne seem to think they're centrist just because they do a bit of virtue-signalling on things like Europe, yet when it comes to benefits, it's often the Tory "rightwingers" who rebel against the "centrists" (especially tax credits).
Going to bed, but one last thought on emergency brake being applied immediately on benefits. Don't this mean that at every Euro summit where UK is being difficult, the Eurozone can just demand UK agrees or they'll end emergency brake, upping UK benefits bill by billions? Any pro-EU govt would have to back down unless they wanted to risk Brexit.
The funny thing is, in my view, it's often the self-proclaimed Tory "centrists" who have the most chilling and uncompassionate view towards people in genuine need. Prats like Philip Thompson, Rcs1000 and George Osborne seem to think they're centrist just because they do a bit of virtue-signalling on things like Europe, yet when it comes to benefits, it's often the Tory "rightwingers" who rebel against the "centrists" (especially tax credits).
As my target - much repeated on this site - for government spending is 6% of GDP, I'd really struggle to describe myself as a centrist.
@DavidJonesMP: Tusk says "no deal"; so #Brexit it is
Í don't see the problem. Just change the benefit rules so that you need 4 years residency to claim benefits, even if you are British
That's clearly the endgame. If you were an EU head of state, you might be asking why it is your problem that we the British have a welfare system that has practically zero contributory principle and acts like a magnet for unskilled workers, who you are glad to get rid of as it reduces your unemployment problems.
Irrespective of whether we are in the EU or not, getting benefits (of any kind) should require four years of National Insurance payments.
Fully agreed. I'm far more concerned with the natively born and bred population getting benefits without contributing than I am with migrants doing so; I have no doubt that the former is a much greater number of people.
I don't see why 18 year olds what come of age during a recession should be thrown on the streets.
They don't get thrown onto the streets in other countries which have contributory based benefits systems.
But why let reality get in the way of a made up drama?
I'm guessing you don't know many poor people if you think young unemployed people depending on income support is 'made up drama'.
I don't know many poor people with absolutely zero friends or family, no. Even the poor people I know with no family (and I do know some tragic cases) make friends whom they can share flats with to cut costs etc
Poor people tend to have poor friends and family. Poor friends and family do not have money to help with. I make no reference to the goodness or badness of benefits. But it is entirely possible to have nobody to help.
The funny thing is, in my view, it's often the self-proclaimed Tory "centrists" who have the most chilling and uncompassionate view towards people in genuine need. Prats like Philip Thompson, Rcs1000 and George Osborne seem to think they're centrist just because they do a bit of virtue-signalling on things like Europe, yet when it comes to benefits, it's often the Tory "rightwingers" who rebel against the "centrists" (especially tax credits).
I have never claimed to be a "centrist".
On a Political Compass I am economically very right wing and socially very liberal. The last thing I am is a centrist, centrism is for people with no principles and nothing to believe in.
No I repeatedly that they should get a job. Is it really your thinking that people can endlessly and without contribution rely on taxpayers to fund their lives?
So involuntary unemployment don't exist??
Long term or frictional? Frictional unemployment will always exist and is just a matter of time while people look for and take a job, long term unemployment (barring illness or disability which is a separate issue) is caused by the welfare system not needing contributions it is not a necessary feature. If people need a job they will take a job rather than turn their nose up at working.
Strange how long term unemployment of lazy people not wanting jobs rose massively in 2008 with no change to welfare system. Spose it was coincidental that it coincided with reckless bankers destroying our economy.
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
Mr Royale in his post to which you were replying mention the UK Constitutional Court, I am fairly sure we don't have one. We do have something called a Supreme Court, which isn't in any way supreme because by treaty and statute the EU law over rides our own.
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Not just the EU, we are members of several treaties, including the EHCR and a number of trade treaties and intellectual property ones, all of which have precedence over our own courts in certain situations.
We invented the ECHR c1950. British citizens have always been able to appeal to it. But under Labour its jurisdiction could be interpreted by British judges; the convention was incorporated in the HRA.
We were members of the EU pre-1997. We could remain in the EU and repeal Labour's HRA and revert to the status quo ante, all it would take is a government willing to force through Parliament a bill repealing the HRA.
If Parliament isn't willing to do that then the EU is a moot subject.
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
Mr Royale in his post to which you were replying mention the UK Constitutional Court, I am fairly sure we don't have one. We do have something called a Supreme Court, which isn't in any way supreme because by treaty and statute the EU law over rides our own.
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Not just the EU, we are members of several treaties, including the EHCR and a number of trade treaties and intellectual property ones, all of which have precedence over our own courts in certain situations.
I wasn't aware that trade treaties and IP treaties come with their own courts that can override our own. The contents of such treaties may well be part of UK law but the application and interpretation of that law is a matter for UK courts alone.
Yes they do: that is the nature of ISDS tribunals, which I would note are usually held in secret.
So: the government of Quebec's ban of certain GM foods was over-ruled by a NAFTA ISDS tribunal following an appeal by Monsanto.
I think any negotiation to enter NAFTA will have to include a modification of the ISDS tribunal for member states to have equal rights with US states, and to make them more public.
The funny thing is, in my view, it's often the self-proclaimed Tory "centrists" who have the most chilling and uncompassionate view towards people in genuine need. Prats like Philip Thompson, Rcs1000 and George Osborne seem to think they're centrist just because they do a bit of virtue-signalling on things like Europe, yet when it comes to benefits, it's often the Tory "rightwingers" who rebel against the "centrists" (especially tax credits).
I have never claimed to be a "centrist".
On a Political Compass I am economically very right wing and socially very liberal. The last thing I am is a centrist, centrism is for people with no principles and nothing to believe in.
Centrism is for people who can often see both sides of an argument.
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
Mr Royale in his post to which you were replying mention the UK Constitutional Court, I am fairly sure we don't have one. We do have something called a Supreme Court, which isn't in any way supreme because by treaty and statute the EU law over rides our own.
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Not just the EU, we are members of several treaties, including the EHCR and a number of trade treaties and intellectual property ones, all of which have precedence over our own courts in certain situations.
I wasn't aware that trade treaties and IP treaties come with their own courts that can override our own. The contents of such treaties may well be part of UK law but the application and interpretation of that law is a matter for UK courts alone.
Yes they do: that is the nature of ISDS tribunals, which I would note are usually held in secret.
So: the government of Quebec's ban of certain GM foods was over-ruled by a NAFTA ISDS tribunal following an appeal by Monsanto.
I think any negotiation to enter NAFTA will have to include a modification of the ISDS tribunal for member states to have equal rights with US states, and to make them more public.
The US would not allow us into NAFTA without us accepting the same ISDS provisions the Canadians and Mexicans do, because the treaties do not allow for variation, and the Canadians would veto us having special terms.
The funny thing is, in my view, it's often the self-proclaimed Tory "centrists" who have the most chilling and uncompassionate view towards people in genuine need. Prats like Philip Thompson, Rcs1000 and George Osborne seem to think they're centrist just because they do a bit of virtue-signalling on things like Europe, yet when it comes to benefits, it's often the Tory "rightwingers" who rebel against the "centrists" (especially tax credits).
I have never claimed to be a "centrist".
On a Political Compass I am economically very right wing and socially very liberal. The last thing I am is a centrist, centrism is for people with no principles and nothing to believe in.
Centrism is for people who can often see both sides of an argument.
No I repeatedly that they should get a job. Is it really your thinking that people can endlessly and without contribution rely on taxpayers to fund their lives?
So involuntary unemployment don't exist??
Long term or frictional? Frictional unemployment will always exist and is just a matter of time while people look for and take a job, long term unemployment (barring illness or disability which is a separate issue) is caused by the welfare system not needing contributions it is not a necessary feature. If people need a job they will take a job rather than turn their nose up at working.
Strange how long term unemployment of lazy people not wanting jobs rose massively in 2008 with no change to welfare system. Spose it was coincidental that it coincided with reckless bankers destroying our economy.
You do realise there is such a thing as structural unemployment and cyclical?
No I repeatedly that they should get a job. Is it really your thinking that people can endlessly and without contribution rely on taxpayers to fund their lives?
So involuntary unemployment don't exist??
Long term or frictional? Frictional unemployment will always exist and is just a matter of time while people look for and take a job, long term unemployment (barring illness or disability which is a separate issue) is caused by the welfare system not needing contributions it is not a necessary feature. If people need a job they will take a job rather than turn their nose up at working.
Strange how long term unemployment of lazy people not wanting jobs rose massively in 2008 with no change to welfare system. Spose it was coincidental that it coincided with reckless bankers destroying our economy.
Reckless bankers had nothing to do with the destroying our economy, bankers have paid back via taxation into the system many times over. Reckless socialists did tremendous damage to our economy on the other hand.
The BoP isn't caused by the level of the government deficit but by the UK's continual living beyond its means - something no government is willing to discourage.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that: the flow of foreign money into the UK, in particular into property, tends to create a balance of payments issue. Money in equals money out. And money flowing into the UK property market will tend to flow out in terms of imports.
In the mid 2000s, the Spanish property bubble (and Germans and Brits buying second homes there) caused a similar balance of payments issue.
Or perhaps it might be expressed as the UK flogging off its assets (from Mayfair mansions to football clubs to overseas holdings to government bonds) to pay to live beyond its wealth creating capacity.
Now if we weren't attracting foreign money to buy UK assets wouldn't sterling fall in value until it reached a level where exports and imports of trade and tourism were in balance ?
The balance of payments has many components and includes the income from overseas assets and, as an outgoing, the transfer of income abroad from assets here owned by foreigners. As we do well domestically and the rest of the world does less well then money perversely flows out. Its an indication of our economy doing relatively well.
Are you really trying to claim that the BoP deficit has doubled since 2010 because the UK is doing so well.
Do you have an alternative reason why? The BoP raises when we do better than our trading partners and shrinks when we do worse. Plus ca change.
1) The BoP increases when the UK overconsumption increases and falls when the UK overconsumption decreases.
2) To pay for this overconsumption the UK flogs off its overseas assets and sells its own assets to foreigners. This leads to investment earnings changing from net positive for the UK to net negative.
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
Mr Royale in his post to which you were replying mention the UK Constitutional Court, I am fairly sure we don't have one. We do have something called a Supreme Court, which isn't in any way supreme because by treaty and statute the EU law over rides our own.
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Not just the EU, we are members of several treaties, including the EHCR and a number of trade treaties and intellectual property ones, all of which have precedence over our own courts in certain situations.
I wasn't aware that trade treaties and IP treaties come with their own courts that can override our own. The contents of such treaties may well be part of UK law but the application and interpretation of that law is a matter for UK courts alone.
Yes they do: that is the nature of ISDS tribunals, which I would note are usually held in secret.
So: the government of Quebec's ban of certain GM foods was over-ruled by a NAFTA ISDS tribunal following an appeal by Monsanto.
EFTA has a court -- in Luxenbourg. I do believe that a lot of people have a very naive view of international arrangements, trade and treaties.
The odd one as a young person is that you can claim full JSA etc if you live with your folks, but move in with someone and you get diddly squat :P
That would be as a couple, you become a household in which you keep each other. You can claim JSA but it needs to be contribution based JSA.
Oh for sure I understand the principle, just was a bit annoying after my partner moved in with me following her Masters at Uni. She noted if she was at home the Gov't would be paying her ~£50 a week more than she otherwise was getting. I wonder how many young couples still live "at home" if they're unemployed...
No I repeatedly that they should get a job. Is it really your thinking that people can endlessly and without contribution rely on taxpayers to fund their lives?
So involuntary unemployment don't exist??
Long term or frictional? Frictional unemployment will always exist and is just a matter of time while people look for and take a job, long term unemployment (barring illness or disability which is a separate issue) is caused by the welfare system not needing contributions it is not a necessary feature. If people need a job they will take a job rather than turn their nose up at working.
Strange how long term unemployment of lazy people not wanting jobs rose massively in 2008 with no change to welfare system. Spose it was coincidental that it coincided with reckless bankers destroying our economy.
Reckless bankers had nothing to do with the destroying our economy, bankers have paid back via taxation into the system many times over. Reckless socialists did tremendous damage to our economy on the other hand.
I have to say everyone who made money from doing nothing in the gigantic house price boom are just as part responsible as the banking system.
Oh for sure I understand the principle, just was a bit annoying after my partner moved in with me following her Masters at Uni. She noted if she was at home the Gov't would be paying her ~£50 a week more than she otherwise was getting.
I'm sure the joy of living with you was worth £50 a week, Pulpstar!
The odd one as a young person is that you can claim full JSA etc if you live with your folks, but move in with someone and you get diddly squat :P
That would be as a couple, you become a household in which you keep each other. You can claim JSA but it needs to be contribution based JSA.
Oh for sure I understand the principle, just was a bit annoying after my partner moved in with me following her Masters at Uni. She noted if she was at home the Gov't would be paying her ~£50 a week more than she otherwise was getting. I wonder how many young couples still live "at home" if they're unemployed...
Part of growing up though... And of course the welfare system works to corrupt normal family relationships.
Oh for sure I understand the principle, just was a bit annoying after my partner moved in with me following her Masters at Uni. She noted if she was at home the Gov't would be paying her ~£50 a week more than she otherwise was getting.
I'm sure the joy of living with you was worth £50 a week, Pulpstar!
Trump crowed about how he cost Fox News money because the ratings were lower without his presence.
His counter programming vet fund raiser, shown live on CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN, drew less than a quarter of the rating for the Fox News debate.
The debate got 12.5 million viewers, up from the Fox Business Network 11 million. FBN is less available than Fox News, so it's not a 1 to 1 comparison.
In any election cycle but this one, 11 or 12 million viewers for a political debate is something parties could only dream of.
Fun fact - Trump flew in to an event yesterday, and allowed kids - but no parents - to enter and run about on his 757.
The BoP isn't caused by the level of the government deficit but by the UK's continual living beyond its means - something no government is willing to discourage.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that: the flow of foreign money into the UK, in particular into property, tends to create a balance of payments issue. Money in equals money out. And money flowing into the UK property market will tend to flow out in terms of imports.
In the mid 2000s, the Spanish property bubble (and Germans and Brits buying second homes there) caused a similar balance of payments issue.
Or perhaps it might be expressed as the UK flogging off its assets (from Mayfair mansions to football clubs to overseas holdings to government bonds) to pay to live beyond its wealth creating capacity.
Now if we weren't attracting foreign money to buy UK assets wouldn't sterling fall in value until it reached a level where exports and imports of trade and tourism were in balance ?
The balance of payments has many components and includes the income from overseas assets and, as an outgoing, the transfer of income abroad from assets here owned by foreigners. As we do well domestically and the rest of the world does less well then money perversely flows out. Its an indication of our economy doing relatively well.
Are you really trying to claim that the BoP deficit has doubled since 2010 because the UK is doing so well.
Do you have an alternative reason why? The BoP raises when we do better than our trading partners and shrinks when we do worse. Plus ca change.
1) The BoP increases when the UK overconsumption increases and falls when the UK overconsumption decreases.
2) To pay for this overconsumption the UK flogs off its overseas assets and sells its own assets to foreigners. This leads to investment earnings changing from net positive for the UK to net negative.
So when the BoP deficit dramatically fell in 1990 when we entered recession and again in 2007/08 when we did so again that was due to the UK doing well in your eyes?
I should also add, I think Michael Gove will time an announcement (coordinating with Cameron) that the UK Supreme Court will become the UK constitutional court in future, and the British Bill of Rights will effectively act as our constitution-lite.
So it will be written into statute that the UK constitutional court will take precedence over the ECtHR in future disputes where there is a clash.
Nothing to do with the renegotiation, but it will be useful mood music for Remain.
And that is absolutely the right legal framework for our nation (or indeed any nation) - we need control over our own judicial system. Though we need to get rid of a generation of judges who seem to be driven by their own agendas rather than natural justice.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Not just the EU, we are members of several treaties, including the EHCR and a number of trade treaties and intellectual property ones, all of which have precedence over our own courts in certain situations.
I wasn't aware that trade treaties and IP treaties come with their own courts that can override our own. The contents of such treaties may well be part of UK law but the application and interpretation of that law is a matter for UK courts alone.
Yes they do: that is the nature of ISDS tribunals, which I would note are usually held in secret.
So: the government of Quebec's ban of certain GM foods was over-ruled by a NAFTA ISDS tribunal following an appeal by Monsanto.
I think any negotiation to enter NAFTA will have to include a modification of the ISDS tribunal for member states to have equal rights with US states, and to make them more public.
The US would not allow us into NAFTA without us accepting the same ISDS provisions the Canadians and Mexicans do, because the treaties do not allow for variation, and the Canadians would veto us having special terms.
We are not Canada or Mexico to do what the US wants on free trade matters, for once we are twice as big economically, Canada and Mexico should pressure for the equal rights with our support.
Suddenly you see why the US would never accept the UK or any other major economy in NAFTA, we would dilute their dominance of it, like EU expansion killed french influence in europe. From a political perceptive it will be unacceptable for the US.
Oh for sure I understand the principle, just was a bit annoying after my partner moved in with me following her Masters at Uni. She noted if she was at home the Gov't would be paying her ~£50 a week more than she otherwise was getting.
I'm sure the joy of living with you was worth £50 a week, Pulpstar!
Arf, I had to act as the state for a bit !
Or... The State had to act for you for a bit, previously.....
Suddenly you see why the US would never accept the UK or any other major economy in NAFTA, we would dilute their dominance of it, like EU expansion killed french influence in europe. From a political perceptive it will be unacceptable for the US.
The odd one as a young person is that you can claim full JSA etc if you live with your folks, but move in with someone and you get diddly squat :P
That would be as a couple, you become a household in which you keep each other. You can claim JSA but it needs to be contribution based JSA.
Oh for sure I understand the principle, just was a bit annoying after my partner moved in with me following her Masters at Uni. She noted if she was at home the Gov't would be paying her ~£50 a week more than she otherwise was getting. I wonder how many young couples still live "at home" if they're unemployed...
Just out of interest, why was the state paying your lady anything and why should she have been given even more money (£50 a week is serious dosh when one is hard up) is she lived with her parents?
I neither make nor imply any criticism I just seek information.
Trump crowed about how he cost Fox News money because the ratings were lower without his presence.
His counter programming vet fund raiser, shown live on CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN, drew less than a quarter of the rating for the Fox News debate.
The debate got 12.5 million viewers, up from the Fox Business Network 11 million. FBN is less available than Fox News, so it's not a 1 to 1 comparison.
In any election cycle but this one, 11 or 12 million viewers for a political debate is something parties could only dream of.
Fun fact - Trump flew in to an event yesterday, and allowed kids - but no parents - to enter and run about on his 757.
12.5 million people saw Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio get shafted by Fox. While 3 million people saw Trump playing nice to people.
Trump crowed about how he cost Fox News money because the ratings were lower without his presence.
His counter programming vet fund raiser, shown live on CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN, drew less than a quarter of the rating for the Fox News debate.
The debate got 12.5 million viewers, up from the Fox Business Network 11 million. FBN is less available than Fox News, so it's not a 1 to 1 comparison.
In any election cycle but this one, 11 or 12 million viewers for a political debate is something parties could only dream of.
Fun fact - Trump flew in to an event yesterday, and allowed kids - but no parents - to enter and run about on his 757.
12.5 million people saw Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio get shafted by Fox. While 3 million people saw Trump playing nice to people.
Which side do you think is more happy?
That's not worthy of a response, so I shall refrain.
Suddenly you see why the US would never accept the UK or any other major economy in NAFTA, we would dilute their dominance of it, like EU expansion killed french influence in europe. From a political perceptive it will be unacceptable for the US.
I agree with that.
I'm not so sure - we would be another (somewhat bigger) Canada, in their eyes.
The French influence thing really died when Germany re-united and became bigger than them and regained their confidence...
The detailed politics would be interesting. There would be a big group in Congress who would agree with the UK joining - how big?
Suddenly you see why the US would never accept the UK or any other major economy in NAFTA, we would dilute their dominance of it, like EU expansion killed french influence in europe. From a political perceptive it will be unacceptable for the US.
I agree with that.
But nothing is impossible as long as you bribe, sorry lobby Congress, after all the EU did expand and the eurozone was created contrary to the interests of the members, thanks to a lot of corruption.
The odd one as a young person is that you can claim full JSA etc if you live with your folks, but move in with someone and you get diddly squat :P
That would be as a couple, you become a household in which you keep each other. You can claim JSA but it needs to be contribution based JSA.
Oh for sure I understand the principle, just was a bit annoying after my partner moved in with me following her Masters at Uni. She noted if she was at home the Gov't would be paying her ~£50 a week more than she otherwise was getting. I wonder how many young couples still live "at home" if they're unemployed...
Just out of interest, why was the state paying your lady anything and why should she have been given even more money (£50 a week is serious dosh when one is hard up) is she lived with her parents?
I neither make nor imply any criticism I just seek information.
It's just the way the system works - the state didn't pay her anything, but would have done as a counterfactual if she was living with her parents. I too question why that is the theoretical case.
When I was living back with my parents I made the fatal error of declaring that I had some savings. Oops ! The JSA man (This is going back like 18 years or so) told me that if I hadn't put anything down there was no way they could track my savings.
I've always viewed the tiny bit of JSA I have claimed as a forward advance on future taxes to be completely honest.
My coworker often notes how much she'd get if she was seperate from her husband too !
Regarding the Clinton email scandal, it was revealed over the weekend that the person responsible for looking after Lois Lerner's email at Treasury has now transferred to State and is heading up the Clinton email release effort. Some things are beyond laughing at.
The FBI is doing its own investigation and evaluation of Clinton's emails, working with the intel agencies and State.
Suddenly you see why the US would never accept the UK or any other major economy in NAFTA, we would dilute their dominance of it, like EU expansion killed french influence in europe. From a political perceptive it will be unacceptable for the US.
I agree with that.
I'm not so sure - we would be another (somewhat bigger) Canada, in their eyes.
The French influence thing really died when Germany re-united and became bigger than them and regained their confidence...
The detailed politics would be interesting. There would be a big group in Congress who would agree with the UK joining - how big?
The GOP. But not Trump, not without a deal.
It will require political skills and bribery to give equal rights to member states in exchange for Britain entering NAFTA. You only have to provide convincing fig leaves plus bags of money to Congress and the White House to overrule the State Department. Political corruption is endemic in america but the bureaucrats in the State Department will be the problem, they are very idealistic and stubborn and have lots of people in the media to press their case.
Or perhaps it might be expressed as the UK flogging off its assets (from Mayfair mansions to football clubs to overseas holdings to government bonds) to pay to live beyond its wealth creating capacity.
Now if we weren't attracting foreign money to buy UK assets wouldn't sterling fall in value until it reached a level where exports and imports of trade and tourism were in balance ?
The balance of payments has many components and includes the income from overseas assets and, as an outgoing, the transfer of income abroad from assets here owned by foreigners. As we do well domestically and the rest of the world does less well then money perversely flows out. Its an indication of our economy doing relatively well.
Are you really trying to claim that the BoP deficit has doubled since 2010 because the UK is doing so well.
Do you have an alternative reason why? The BoP raises when we do better than our trading partners and shrinks when we do worse. Plus ca change.
1) The BoP increases when the UK overconsumption increases and falls when the UK overconsumption decreases.
2) To pay for this overconsumption the UK flogs off its overseas assets and sells its own assets to foreigners. This leads to investment earnings changing from net positive for the UK to net negative.
So when the BoP deficit dramatically fell in 1990 when we entered recession and again in 2007/08 when we did so again that was due to the UK doing well in your eyes?
As to the late eighties and nineties there was a surge in the BoP deficit caused by the Lawson Boom overconsumption followed by a return to the norm in the recession and then a continued fall as the economy strengthened in the mid 1990s.
Notice that 1997 had the lowest BoP deficit - was that because the economy was doing so badly or was it because wealth creation and wealth consumption were nearly in balance ?
The odd one as a young person is that you can claim full JSA etc if you live with your folks, but move in with someone and you get diddly squat :P
That would be as a couple, you become a household in which you keep each other. You can claim JSA but it needs to be contribution based JSA.
Oh for sure I understand the principle, just was a bit annoying after my partner moved in with me following her Masters at Uni. She noted if she was at home the Gov't would be paying her ~£50 a week more than she otherwise was getting. I wonder how many young couples still live "at home" if they're unemployed...
Just out of interest, why was the state paying your lady anything and why should she have been given even more money (£50 a week is serious dosh when one is hard up) is she lived with her parents?
I neither make nor imply any criticism I just seek information.
It's just the way the system works - the state didn't pay her anything, but would have done as a counterfactual if she was living with her parents. I too question why that is the theoretical case.
When I was living back with my parents I made the fatal error of declaring that I had some savings. Oops ! The JSA man (This is going back like 18 years or so) told me that if I hadn't put anything down there was no way they could track my savings.
I've always viewed the tiny bit of JSA I have claimed as a forward advance on future taxes to be completely honest.
My coworker often notes how much she'd get if she was seperate from her husband too !
Thanks for that, Mr Star. The benefits system in this country is a bit of a mystery to me but it does seem to create some perverse incentives.
I've always viewed the tiny bit of JSA I have claimed as a forward advance on future taxes to be completely honest.
Quite. For all the nonsense about "people taking out before they've put in", most young people will repay all the benefits they "borrow" in taxes over the course of time.
I'd also add that, if I'd been locked out of the benefits system before I'd "contributed" as some PB Rightwingers apparently want, I almost certainly wouldn't be in a position to be earning and contributing to the economy today -- apart from anything else, I needed to pay for private therapy to sort my problems out, since the NHS treatment available was so shockingly poor.
I've always viewed the tiny bit of JSA I have claimed as a forward advance on future taxes to be completely honest.
Quite. For all the nonsense about "people taking out before they've put in", most young people will repay all the benefits they "borrow" in taxes over the course of time.
I'd also add that, if I'd been locked out of the benefits system before I'd "contributed" as some PB Rightwingers apparently want, I almost certainly wouldn't be in a position to be earning and contributing to the economy today -- apart from anything else, I needed to pay for private therapy to sort my problems out, since the NHS treatment available was so shockingly poor.
I dont think anyone would want to cut out someone who cant work.
The odd one as a young person is that you can claim full JSA etc if you live with your folks, but move in with someone and you get diddly squat :P
That would be as a couple, you become a household in which you keep each other. You can claim JSA but it needs to be contribution based JSA.
Oh for sure I understand the principle, just was a bit annoying after my partner moved in with me following her Masters at Uni. She noted if she was at home the Gov't would be paying her ~£50 a week more than she otherwise was getting. I wonder how many young couples still live "at home" if they're unemployed...
Just out of interest, why was the state paying your lady anything and why should she have been given even more money (£50 a week is serious dosh when one is hard up) is she lived with her parents?
I neither make nor imply any criticism I just seek information.
I've always viewed the tiny bit of JSA I have claimed as a forward advance on future taxes to be completely honest.
Rightly so.
And you can be sure that somewhere along the line the government is going to shaft you.
Or perhaps it might be expressed as the UK flogging off its assets (from Mayfair mansions to football clubs to overseas holdings to government bonds) to pay to live beyond its wealth creating capacity.
Now if we weren't attracting foreign money to buy UK assets wouldn't sterling fall in value until it reached a level where exports and imports of trade and tourism were in balance ?
The balance of payments has many components and includes the income from overseas assets and, as an outgoing, the transfer of income abroad from assets here owned by foreigners. As we do well domestically and the rest of the world does less well then money perversely flows out. Its an indication of our economy doing relatively well.
Are you really trying to claim that the BoP deficit has doubled since 2010 because the UK is doing so well.
Do you have an alternative reason why? The BoP raises when we do better than our trading partners and shrinks when we do worse. Plus ca change.
1) The BoP increases when the UK overconsumption increases and falls when the UK overconsumption decreases.
2) To pay for this overconsumption the UK flogs off its overseas assets and sells its own assets to foreigners. This leads to investment earnings changing from net positive for the UK to net negative.
So when the BoP deficit dramatically fell in 1990 when we entered recession and again in 2007/08 when we did so again that was due to the UK doing well in your eyes?
As to the late eighties and nineties there was a surge in the BoP deficit caused by the Lawson Boom overconsumption followed by a return to the norm in the recession and then a continued fall as the economy strengthened in the mid 1990s.
Notice that 1997 had the lowest BoP deficit - was that because the economy was doing so badly or was it because wealth creation and wealth consumption were nearly in balance ?
Britain was doing great by 1997 economically. The one thing I will give credit to Ken Clarke is that he knew how to manage the economy.
Though I'm hearing about a snowstorm on Tuesday for Iowa.
Thanks for the smile - it makes about as much sense to go to the Washington Post to get the weather in Iowa as it does to go to the BBC for US political news.
The arrival time of the storm depends on wind speeds etc, which are somewhat imprecise.
...When I was living back with my parents I made the fatal error of declaring that I had some savings. Oops ! The JSA man (This is going back like 18 years or so) told me that if I hadn't put anything down there was no way they could track my savings....
Transfer the money to your parents for the duration, then transfer it back when you get back on your feet. Or conversely just lie, but I try to avoid that.
Or perhaps it might be expressed as the UK flogging off its assets (from Mayfair mansions to football clubs to overseas holdings to government bonds) to pay to live beyond its wealth creating capacity.
Now if we weren't attracting foreign money to buy UK assets wouldn't sterling fall in value until it reached a level where exports and imports of trade and tourism were in balance ?
The balance of payments has many components and includes the income from overseas assets and, as an outgoing, the transfer of income abroad from assets here owned by foreigners. As we do well domestically and the rest of the world does less well then money perversely flows out. Its an indication of our economy doing relatively well.
Are you really trying to claim that the BoP deficit has doubled since 2010 because the UK is doing so well.
Do you have an alternative reason why? The BoP raises when we do better than our trading partners and shrinks when we do worse. Plus ca change.
1) The BoP increases when the UK overconsumption increases and falls when the UK overconsumption decreases.
2) To pay for this overconsumption the UK flogs off its overseas assets and sells its own assets to foreigners. This leads to investment earnings changing from net positive for the UK to net negative.
So when the BoP deficit dramatically fell in 1990 when we entered recession and again in 2007/08 when we did so again that was due to the UK doing well in your eyes?
Notice that 1997 had the lowest BoP deficit - was that because the economy was doing so badly or was it because wealth creation and wealth consumption were nearly in balance ?
Britain was doing great by 1997 economically. The one thing I will give credit to Ken Clarke is that he knew how to manage the economy.
Apologies if I am making a point that may have been made previously by others. I have not been following the GOP race closely. But when I have looked at comments here and in the media, I repeatedly see the view expressed that Trump has been a master tactician in the race. Is this actually true?
My superficial analysis of the situation is that Trump has been outlandish, populist and opportunistic and that the cards have landed very nicely for him as a result of this play. The GOP electorate have lapped it up and the more of the same he's given them, the more they've liked it.
It seems to me he keeps playing the same cards the same way and that it's working very well for him, so far at least. As it did for Jeremy Corbyn - although he wasn't playing a game, just being himself. Playing the same hand repeatedly the same way doesn't strike me as tactically brilliant. Where have I gone wrong here?
Disgraceful headline on the front of a couple of newspapers, stating 800,000 have "lost the right to vote". They have done nothing of the sort. They still very much have the right to vote if they spend 2 mins filling in one simple online form. I had to do it for GE2015 and it couldn't have been easier, unless that is you don't exist or perhaps you have no intention of actually voting.
This is not the US, where some states people do actually lose the right to vote e.g. if they once committed a crime.
Interesting that this weeks Good Wife, which often runs storylines which match what would be considered important real world events, have covered the whole issue of "safe spaces" on university campuses.
In reality IS is comparatively weak in Libya compared to the imagined Caliphate further east; numbers believed less than 10k. In territory terms the area held is small and well sandwiched. If there is one lesson from Syria and Iraq it is, if you are going to want to intervene, do it early and do it with commitment.
A lesson we hadn't learnt at the time of the original intervention in Libya, otherwise we would have been on the other side.
So he "wins" a temporary measure. This PB Tory is not amused.
That's can't really be "it", surely? Something temporary on migrant benefits but nothing at all on QMV, sovereignty, CAP and budgetary commitments? If that's really it I'm a Leave, so I suspect will be a few members of the Cabinet and a large bunch of Tory MPs.
So he "wins" a temporary measure. This PB Tory is not amused.
That's can't really be "it", surely? Something temporary on migrant benefits but nothing at all on QMV, sovereignty, CAP and budgetary commitments? If that's really it I'm a Leave, so I suspect will be a few members of the Cabinet and a large bunch of Tory MPs.
Comments
Judges can only interpret and apply the law. Whilst we may all from time to time get cross about the decisions of some judges in some cases, to blame them for Parliament's failures is a bit rich.
So, all in all, if we want UK courts to be the final arbiter of law in the UK is not the only solution is to leave the EU and to withdraw from the ECHR.
Southport is too close too call at the moment.
'' in families where the working partner loses their job, then both parents suddenly become “unemployed”. ''
I take this latter point, but how significant is it. And are the figures for youth unemployment so wrong?
Why are Spanish youths coming to work in McDonalds - indeed anywhere they can find work - and more importantly what is holding back the employment of all of our NEETs ?
I consider this a real problem and its a home grown one. Its inertia coming from the liberal and socialist left that perpetuates it.
I'd suggest they get themselves a job, any job and contribute to society and earn the right to get benefits would be the solution.
I was ill for a couple of years and on benefits, before I had made 4 years of national insurance contributions. Should I have been denied them in your view?
This government has a good story to tell with youth unemployment (13,7%). The EU average is 23%, France 24.7%, Italy almost 30%.
Remember, this is in a time when this country absorbed almost 270,000 people from the EU last year alone, mostly young people, while exporting about 90,000 mostly retired.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/01/franklin_pierce_herald_poll_rivals_need_iowa_win_to_catch_trump_sanders_in
A few weeks back I posted that that all the parts were being put in place for some kind of concerted Western intervention in Libya against IS and that advance parties of casuals were turning up on recce.
Within Libya reports suggest action is imminent. UK, US, France, Italy. Certainly the diplomatic ground is being set but there is no obvious sign of the first strikes though some IS held towns seem remarkably lacking beards in the street in the last day or two.
In reality some interesting things are already going on. IS has sent some very senior figures from its Syrian/Iraqi base to Libya to prepare the ground for another heartland territory. Most notably one of their heads of internal security turned up a while back. Its been calling for imports to go to Libya as much as Syria and Iraq. This has not, however, been smooth sailing with some locals not always enamored with the new guys throwing the weight around. a Few senior IS officers in Libya also appear to have been done by snipers in what appears to be a small campaign to kill them off.
In reality IS is comparatively weak in Libya compared to the imagined Caliphate further east; numbers believed less than 10k. In territory terms the area held is small and well sandwiched. If there is one lesson from Syria and Iraq it is, if you are going to want to intervene, do it early and do it with commitment.
Watch Gove. He holds the Ace and everyone is currently looking the other way.
Edit to add: I think they'll probably win O&S once Carmichael has gone.
I don't think they'll hold Southport or Leeds NW.
And it's possible they'll win a seat in SW London, depending on how the boundary review goes, and with Cable gone.
But under Labour its jurisdiction could be interpreted by British judges; the convention was incorporated in the HRA.
So: the government of Quebec's ban of certain GM foods was over-ruled by a NAFTA ISDS tribunal following an appeal by Monsanto.
If Parliament isn't willing to do that then the EU is a moot subject.
The changes will not help the LibDems,
Just a thought.
On a Political Compass I am economically very right wing and socially very liberal. The last thing I am is a centrist, centrism is for people with no principles and nothing to believe in.
2) To pay for this overconsumption the UK flogs off its overseas assets and sells its own assets to foreigners. This leads to investment earnings changing from net positive for the UK to net negative.
I wonder how many young couples still live "at home" if they're unemployed...
Trump crowed about how he cost Fox News money because the ratings were lower without his presence.
His counter programming vet fund raiser, shown live on CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN, drew less than a quarter of the rating for the Fox News debate.
The debate got 12.5 million viewers, up from the Fox Business Network 11 million. FBN is less available than Fox News, so it's not a 1 to 1 comparison.
In any election cycle but this one, 11 or 12 million viewers for a political debate is something parties could only dream of.
Fun fact - Trump flew in to an event yesterday, and allowed kids - but no parents - to enter and run about on his 757.
Suddenly you see why the US would never accept the UK or any other major economy in NAFTA, we would dilute their dominance of it, like EU expansion killed french influence in europe. From a political perceptive it will be unacceptable for the US.
Or... The State had to act for you for a bit, previously.....
I neither make nor imply any criticism I just seek information.
While 3 million people saw Trump playing nice to people.
Which side do you think is more happy?
The French influence thing really died when Germany re-united and became bigger than them and regained their confidence...
The detailed politics would be interesting. There would be a big group in Congress who would agree with the UK joining - how big?
When I was living back with my parents I made the fatal error of declaring that I had some savings. Oops ! The JSA man (This is going back like 18 years or so) told me that if I hadn't put anything down there was no way they could track my savings.
I've always viewed the tiny bit of JSA I have claimed as a forward advance on future taxes to be completely honest.
My coworker often notes how much she'd get if she was seperate from her husband too !
The FBI is doing its own investigation and evaluation of Clinton's emails, working with the intel agencies and State.
But not Trump, not without a deal.
It will require political skills and bribery to give equal rights to member states in exchange for Britain entering NAFTA.
You only have to provide convincing fig leaves plus bags of money to Congress and the White House to overrule the State Department.
Political corruption is endemic in america but the bureaucrats in the State Department will be the problem, they are very idealistic and stubborn and have lots of people in the media to press their case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/25/your-real-time-iowa-caucus-weather-tracker/?postshare=4391453753657190&tid=ss_tw
Though I'm hearing about a snowstorm on Tuesday for Iowa.
2005 £17bn
2006 £32bn
2007 £38bn
2008 £55bn
2009 £45bn
2010 £44bn
Is that what you call 'dramatically fell' ?
As to the late eighties and nineties there was a surge in the BoP deficit caused by the Lawson Boom overconsumption followed by a return to the norm in the recession and then a continued fall as the economy strengthened in the mid 1990s.
1986 £4bn
1987 £8bn
1988 £19bn
1989 £25bn
1990 £20bn
1991 £9bn
1992 £11bn
1993 £10bn
1994 £4bn
1995 £5bn
1996 £5bn
1997 £1bn
Notice that 1997 had the lowest BoP deficit - was that because the economy was doing so badly or was it because wealth creation and wealth consumption were nearly in balance ?
I'd also add that, if I'd been locked out of the benefits system before I'd "contributed" as some PB Rightwingers apparently want, I almost certainly wouldn't be in a position to be earning and contributing to the economy today -- apart from anything else, I needed to pay for private therapy to sort my problems out, since the NHS treatment available was so shockingly poor.
And you can be sure that somewhere along the line the government is going to shaft you.
The one thing I will give credit to Ken Clarke is that he knew how to manage the economy.
Also new N.H. poll by CNN:
N.H, CNN WMUR
Trump 30 -4
Cruz 12 -2
Rubio 11 +1
Kasich 9 +3
Christie 8 +2
Bush 6 -4
Fiorina 4 0
Carson 3 0
Paul 3 -3
Huckabee 1 0
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/01/31/topnh2.pdf
Goodnight.
The arrival time of the storm depends on wind speeds etc, which are somewhat imprecise.
Sanders 57%
Clinton 34%
O'Malley 1%
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/new-hampshire-polls-trump-sanders-218493#ixzz3ys046tjr
My superficial analysis of the situation is that Trump has been outlandish, populist and opportunistic and that the cards have landed very nicely for him as a result of this play. The GOP electorate have lapped it up and the more of the same he's given them, the more they've liked it.
It seems to me he keeps playing the same cards the same way and that it's working very well for him, so far at least. As it did for Jeremy Corbyn - although he wasn't playing a game, just being himself. Playing the same hand repeatedly the same way doesn't strike me as tactically brilliant. Where have I gone wrong here?
GOP
Donald Trump – 34%
Ted Cruz – 25%
Marco Rubio – 14%
Ben Carson – 7%
Jeb Bush – 5%
Rand Paul – 3%
John Kasich – 3%
Chris Christie – 1%
Carly Fiorina – 1%
Other – 2%
Undecided – 3%
http://overtimepolitics.com/trump-leads-cruz-by-9-points-in-iowa-on-the-eve-of-the-caucuses-34-25/
Dems
Sanders 48%
Clinton 47%
O'Malley 3%
http://overtimepolitics.com/sanders-leads-clinton-by-1-point-in-iowa-the-day-before-the-caucuses-48-47/
So he "wins" a temporary measure. This PB Tory is not amused.
This is not the US, where some states people do actually lose the right to vote e.g. if they once committed a crime.