If they couldn't prove who was driving the car how would tightening the law help?
Increase the penalty for not declaring the driver?
If you're the named hirer of a vehicle and it's involved in an accident, and fail to know who was driving it then the law should act as if you were the driver. If it's hired by a company, joint and several liability on the directors.
Sounds good to me.
What if it was stolen while on hire then, and you genuinely don't know who the driver was?
Vehicle reported as stolen; no public interest to prosecute; law framed as not being strict liability; magistrates discretion for mitigating factors e.g. Hire car stolen whilst left on employer's premises at weekend, involved in accident on Sunday before Directors realise it was stolen. If you frame the law as a strict liability, the directors have to be found guilty by the magistrates ! So you don't, although alot of motoring law is.
Oh... and there I was thinking you were interested in the future of your country, sorry, my mistake.
You need to a get a sense of humour chip.
Whether we are in or out of the EU, I will be optimistic about the future of this country, I care about it deeply.
Amen.
To be fair, I think Cameron sincerely believes the same: I have no doubt he's genuinely patriotic and thinks it's in the best interests of the UK to Remain part of the EU club. He thinks seats at tables like this are worth almost any price in the broader UK national interest, and doesn't think we'd get anything better if we left.
I think he's totally wrong, lacks confidence, imagination and negotiating skills, and is being disingenuous with the deal to the voters, and attempting to bully all his MPs, but I don't see him as someone who doesn't care about the UK.
Every single PM since we joined has ended up having European battles (except possibly Callaghan) and that is because, fundamentally, we simply have not addressed in an adult way the divide which exists between our conception of what Europe should be and the role of the nation state and the conception which is largely shared by most Continental European states of what Europe should be.
Nothing in this proposed deal addresses that. And so, regardless of a Remain result, which is what I expect, the EU will continue to be an unresolved running sore in British politics and will flare up from time to time, almost regardless of which party is in power.
The British political class has confused membership of international fora with having a strategy and using one's influence to achieve that. Appearance is all.
Maybe the post-Suez criticism that Britain has not yet found a role has some truth in it......
Tough to go much higher without breaching natural justice for what could just be an administrative oversight
This could surely be dealt with either by giving the courts discretion to be sensible about administrative oversight, or by having two different offences, one an 'aggravated' offence involving injury.
One of the issues with alot of motoring law is that it is all "strict liability" and courts have very little discretion. That's an error in my view.
Not all is lost. Some years back, I had six points on my licence. A speeding ticket came through for a car that both my wife and I used. We genuinely didn't know who had driven that car on the day concerned. I asked for a picture, but the rear view of the car from the camera didn't give any clues to the driver*. As it was registered in my name, I had to respond. Because of the 6 point penalty for not giving the name of the party driving, I said that I had to plead guilty because I couldn't risk 12 points and a ban.
It came before the magistrates - where the court refused to accept my guilty plea. The prosecutor got rather flustered - and couldn't show who was driving either. In the end, it got thrown out. So in that case, I felt the court had been eminently sensible!
*Cameras which face the car and take an image of the driver would cure this issue. But then, they would be much more visible - and wouldn't generate as much revenue.
Indeed, for many jurisdictions in the US, speeding (and to a far lesser extent, red light) tickets are all about revenue generation not road safety. A couple of places have elected officials on a platform of removing cameras as they are nothing more than an additional tax.
Generally speaking, if you are done for speeding or red light by a camera, the owner of the vehicle pays the fine but points cannot be put on the license as there is no proof of who was driving.
If they couldn't prove who was driving the car how would tightening the law help?
Increase the penalty for not declaring the driver?
If you're the named hirer of a vehicle and it's involved in an accident, and fail to know who was driving it then the law should act as if you were the driver. If it's hired by a company, joint and several liability on the directors.
Sounds good to me.
What if it was stolen while on hire then, and you genuinely don't know who the driver was?
As long as it is reported stolen within a set time scale of becoming aware of the theft then there could easily be an exemption.
Tough to go much higher without breaching natural justice for what could just be an administrative oversight
This could surely be dealt with either by giving the courts discretion to be sensible about administrative oversight, or by having two different offences, one an 'aggravated' offence involving injury.
One of the issues with alot of motoring law is that it is all "strict liability" and courts have very little discretion. That's an error in my view.
Not all is lost. Some years back, I had six points on my licence. A speeding ticket came through for a car that both my wife and I used. We genuinely didn't know who had driven that car on the day concerned. I asked for a picture, but the rear view of the car from the camera didn't give any clues to the driver*. As it was registered in my name, I had to respond. Because of the 6 point penalty for not giving the name of the party driving, I said that I had to plead guilty because I couldn't risk 12 points and a ban.
It came before the magistrates - where the court refused to accept my guilty plea. The prosecutor got rather flustered - and couldn't show who was driving either. In the end, it got thrown out. So in that case, I felt the court had been eminently sensible!
*Cameras which face the car and take an image of the driver would cure this issue. But then, they would be much more visible - and wouldn't generate as much revenue.
Blimey ! A court refusing to accept a guilty plea. That must be a very rare event for UK motoring law
Tough to go much higher without breaching natural justice for what could just be an administrative oversight
This could surely be dealt with either by giving the courts discretion to be sensible about administrative oversight, or by having two different offences, one an 'aggravated' offence involving injury.
One of the issues with alot of motoring law is that it is all "strict liability" and courts have very little discretion. That's an error in my view.
Not all is lost. Some years back, I had six points on my licence. A speeding ticket came through for a car that both my wife and I used. We genuinely didn't know who had driven that car on the day concerned. I asked for a picture, but the rear view of the car from the camera didn't give any clues to the driver*. As it was registered in my name, I had to respond. Because of the 6 point penalty for not giving the name of the party driving, I said that I had to plead guilty because I couldn't risk 12 points and a ban.
It came before the magistrates - where the court refused to accept my guilty plea. The prosecutor got rather flustered - and couldn't show who was driving either. In the end, it got thrown out. So in that case, I felt the court had been eminently sensible!
*Cameras which face the car and take an image of the driver would cure this issue. But then, they would be much more visible - and wouldn't generate as much revenue.
Its perfectly possible - I have known it happen to a relative - with genuine extenuating circumstances if you get to 12 points to appeal against a disqualification and succeed. You still get the fine and the 12 points of course and you are on borrowed time until the previous convictions drop off. But a genuine need to drive, say an infirm relative or important work, can be a mitigating circumstance. The magistrates do seem to deliberate at length on it but its quite plausible.
I was interested to see that the letter seeking a delay to the referendum was signed not just by Nicola Sturgeon but also by the Carwyn Jones, Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness. This isn't just about the SNP vs Westminster, it's Westminster vs the devolved governments.
Nothing in this proposed deal addresses that. And so, regardless of a Remain result, which is what I expect, the EU will continue to be an unresolved running sore in British politics and will flare up from time to time, almost regardless of which party is in power.
It's not true that this proposed deal doesn't address that. It addresses it directly, with an explicit acknowledgement (I think for the first time in a formal EU document) of the reality that we are not going in the direction of closer union. In practical terms, that's an important move because it is likely to lead to an outer ring and an inner (Eurozone) ring, with closer union increasingly concentrated in the inner ring:
Tough to go much higher without breaching natural justice for what could just be an administrative oversight
This could surely be dealt with either by giving the courts discretion to be sensible about administrative oversight, or by having two different offences, one an 'aggravated' offence involving injury.
One of the issues with alot of motoring law is that it is all "strict liability" and courts have very little discretion. That's an error in my view.
Not all is lost. Some years back, I had six points on my licence. A speeding ticket came through for a car that both my wife and I used. We genuinely didn't know who had driven that car on the day concerned. I asked for a picture, but the rear view of the car from the camera didn't give any clues to the driver*. As it was registered in my name, I had to respond. Because of the 6 point penalty for not giving the name of the party driving, I said that I had to plead guilty because I couldn't risk 12 points and a ban.
It came before the magistrates - where the court refused to accept my guilty plea. The prosecutor got rather flustered - and couldn't show who was driving either. In the end, it got thrown out. So in that case, I felt the court had been eminently sensible!
*Cameras which face the car and take an image of the driver would cure this issue. But then, they would be much more visible - and wouldn't generate as much revenue.
Blimey ! A court refusing to accept a guilty plea. That must be a very rare event for UK motoring law
Nothing in this proposed deal addresses that. And so, regardless of a Remain result, which is what I expect, the EU will continue to be an unresolved running sore in British politics and will flare up from time to time, almost regardless of which party is in power.
It's not true that this proposed deal doesn't address that. It addresses it directly, with an explicit acknowledgement (I think for the first time in a formal EU document) of the reality that we are not going in the direction of closer union. In practical terms, that's an important move because it is likely to lead to an outer ring and an inner (Eurozone) ring, with closer union increasingly concentrated in the inner ring:
I really don't see how Cameron could conceivably have got more on this point.
But until someone tells the ECJ, which means changing its founding principles and the treaties it uses for guidance, we are all following the same path to ever closer union, regardless of the political niceties.
But until someone tells the ECJ, which means changing its founding principles and the treaties it uses for guidance, we are all following the same path to ever closer union, regardless of the political niceties.
They are telling the ECJ. That's what this legally-binding document is about. It will also be incorporated in the next treaty revision.
This is from the right-wing NY Observer, so caveats about the source. But if this is indeed true, things do not look good for Hillaryworld:
"Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.
"Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies."
She's still available to sell at 2.04 on Betfair for next President. I'd be selling all the way out to 2.4, maybe even to 2.5.
(Note in up to my eyeballs in this market, so may not be completely impartial.)
That will not be enough. If we're going to be truly independent, then we may have to live without a good trade deal with the EU., because in order to get a good deal we will have to make concessions on immigration etc, as Richard has eloquently pointed out.
We will need to build new alliances with countries not aligned to major power blocs, and many of these are probably our natural allies anyway.
We will need to spend much more on defence, in my view, and in particular Marine defence.
Not being an EU vassal via EU or EEA will have all sorts of implications, which will need to be explained.
This is from the right-wing NY Observer, so caveats about the source. But if this is indeed true, things do not look good for Hillaryworld:
"Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.
"Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies."
She's still available to sell at 2.04 on Betfair for next President. I'd be selling all the way out to 2.4, maybe even to 2.5.
(Note in up to my eyeballs in this market, so may not be completely impartial.)
Why would the SoS be given the real names of people like this, CIA operatives abroad? Why would these names be on any email server? Despite everything - what has Hillary done. Has she divulged the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence? I am not a Hillary fan BTW, but its a poor indictment of the USA that she is the most plausible candidate for president.
That's the problem they have now, squabbling over post Leave world.
I guess there's a role for a powerful country that scoops up alliances with countries that are outside the power bloc world eg Australia and New Zealand, Norway, Canada, Iceland, etc.
Whether these countries want or need our increased friendship, or backing, is quite another matter, however.
That will not be enough. If we're going to be truly independent, then we may have to live without a good trade deal with the EU., because in order to get a good deal we will have to make concessions on immigration etc, as Richard has eloquently pointed out.
We will need to build new alliances with countries not aligned to major power blocs, and many of these are probably our natural allies anyway.
We will need to spend much more on defence, in my view, and in particular Marine defence.
Not being an EU vassal via EU or EEA will have all sorts of implications, which will need to be explained.
Our defence is governed by our relations with NATO, not the EU. None of that changes with Brexit.
I cannot see that a good negotiator - which Cameron clearly is not - would have problems getting a good trade deal for the UK with the EU. They need access to our economy as much as we need access to theirs. We would (should) not be approaching the negotiating table as beggars, but as any other business looking at a proposed transaction.
This is from the right-wing NY Observer, so caveats about the source. But if this is indeed true, things do not look good for Hillaryworld:
"Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.
"Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies."
If that source gets supported, then it is about as bad as it can get for Hillary.
Biden and Warren bets looking a whole lotta rosy....
That will not be enough. If we're going to be truly independent, then we may have to live without a good trade deal with the EU., because in order to get a good deal we will have to make concessions on immigration etc, as Richard has eloquently pointed out.
We will need to build new alliances with countries not aligned to major power blocs, and many of these are probably our natural allies anyway.
We will need to spend much more on defence, in my view, and in particular Marine defence.
Not being an EU vassal via EU or EEA will have all sorts of implications, which will need to be explained.
I've heard it said that Mexico has a free trade deal inc services with EU.
This is from the right-wing NY Observer, so caveats about the source. But if this is indeed true, things do not look good for Hillaryworld:
"Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.
"Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies."
She's still available to sell at 2.04 on Betfair for next President. I'd be selling all the way out to 2.4, maybe even to 2.5.
(Note in up to my eyeballs in this market, so may not be completely impartial.)
Why would the SoS be given the real names of people like this, CIA operatives abroad? Why would these names be on any email server? Despite everything - what has Hillary done. Has she divulged the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence? I am not a Hillary fan BTW, but its a poor indictment of the USA that she is the most plausible candidate for president.
I find it baffling that you have a hard time understanding why what she is alleged to have done in this article would be a problem for her either legally or politically.
As I was watching the final tally on the Republican side, I noticed that the result coincidentally matched what I would expect from a rigged election.
I’m not saying the election was rigged. I have no evidence of such a thing, and I’m sure the good people of Iowa are honest and competent.
But just for fun, watch me build my case for a rigged election.
If you had the power to rig the vote in Iowa – either to hurt Trump, or help Rubio – what election result would do the best job?
A Rubio first-place win would raise too many questions. Even a second-place finish would raise questions. But how about a strong third? Yes, that’s the ticket. You would engineer the vote so Rubio got the strongest possible third-place showing without overtaking Trump. And that is exactly how the vote tally went.
As a hypothetical vote-rigger, you don’t care too much about Cruz winning Iowa because he will have trouble in New Hampshire where Rubio will get another shot at surprising.
I’m not saying the vote in Iowa was rigged. I’m just saying the result is exactly the same as what one would expect from a well-engineered and rigged election. But that could be a coincidence.
This is from the right-wing NY Observer, so caveats about the source. But if this is indeed true, things do not look good for Hillaryworld:
"Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.
"Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies."
She's still available to sell at 2.04 on Betfair for next President. I'd be selling all the way out to 2.4, maybe even to 2.5.
(Note in up to my eyeballs in this market, so may not be completely impartial.)
Why would the SoS be given the real names of people like this, CIA operatives abroad? Why would these names be on any email server? Despite everything - what has Hillary done. Has she divulged the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence? I am not a Hillary fan BTW, but its a poor indictment of the USA that she is the most plausible candidate for president.
I find it baffling that you have a hard time understanding why what she is alleged to have done in this article would be a problem for her either legally or politically.
I think alot of Democrat voters would vote for Hilary even if she was charged tbh.
This is from the right-wing NY Observer, so caveats about the source. But if this is indeed true, things do not look good for Hillaryworld:
"Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.
"Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies."
She's still available to sell at 2.04 on Betfair for next President. I'd be selling all the way out to 2.4, maybe even to 2.5.
(Note in up to my eyeballs in this market, so may not be completely impartial.)
Why would the SoS be given the real names of people like this, CIA operatives abroad? Why would these names be on any email server? Despite everything - what has Hillary done. Has she divulged the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence? I am not a Hillary fan BTW, but its a poor indictment of the USA that she is the most plausible candidate for president.
I find it baffling that you have a hard time understanding why what she is alleged to have done in this article would be a problem for her either legally or politically.
But until someone tells the ECJ, which means changing its founding principles and the treaties it uses for guidance, we are all following the same path to ever closer union, regardless of the political niceties.
They are telling the ECJ. That's what this legally-binding document is about. It will also be incorporated in the next treaty revision.
But until someone tells the ECJ, which means changing its founding principles and the treaties it uses for guidance, we are all following the same path to ever closer union, regardless of the political niceties.
They are telling the ECJ. That's what this legally-binding document is about. It will also be incorporated in the next treaty revision.
What happens to our deal if the treaty fails to be ratified by one or more member states?
As I was watching the final tally on the Republican side, I noticed that the result coincidentally matched what I would expect from a rigged election.
I’m not saying the election was rigged. I have no evidence of such a thing, and I’m sure the good people of Iowa are honest and competent.
But just for fun, watch me build my case for a rigged election.
If you had the power to rig the vote in Iowa – either to hurt Trump, or help Rubio – what election result would do the best job?
A Rubio first-place win would raise too many questions. Even a second-place finish would raise questions. But how about a strong third? Yes, that’s the ticket. You would engineer the vote so Rubio got the strongest possible third-place showing without overtaking Trump. And that is exactly how the vote tally went.
As a hypothetical vote-rigger, you don’t care too much about Cruz winning Iowa because he will have trouble in New Hampshire where Rubio will get another shot at surprising.
I’m not saying the vote in Iowa was rigged. I’m just saying the result is exactly the same as what one would expect from a well-engineered and rigged election. But that could be a coincidence.
What happens to our deal if the treaty fails to be ratified by one or more member states?
Dunno.
But really, this line of argument is silly. After all, if we leave, we've got a much, much bigger example of the same problem, negotiating with exactly the same people, requiring the same 28 country unanimity, from a position of likely ill-will, and with no pre-agreed starting position.
*Cameras which face the car and take an image of the driver would cure this issue. But then, they would be much more visible - and wouldn't generate as much revenue.
In Scotland, this was a feature, not a bug. Images that showed faces clearly were deemed a threat to privacy (as i understand it), not because you might identify the driver, but because you might identify a passenger
What happens to our deal if the treaty fails to be ratified by one or more member states?
Dunno.
But really, this line of argument is silly. After all, if we leave, we've got a much, much bigger example of the same problem, negotiating with exactly the same people, requiring the same 28 country unanimity, from a position of likely ill-will, and with no pre-agreed starting position.
That is not necessarily the case if treaty ratification by law requires referenda in some member states - and the population use it as an opportunity to express eurosceptic sentiments without disagreeing with our proposals. Whereas the parliament's government is in favor.
What happens to our deal if the treaty fails to be ratified by one or more member states?
Dunno.
But really, this line of argument is silly. After all, if we leave, we've got a much, much bigger example of the same problem, negotiating with exactly the same people, requiring the same 28 country unanimity, from a position of likely ill-will, and with no pre-agreed starting position.
Careful now - its not the done thing to talk the bleedin obvious to outers.
That is not necessarily the case if treaty ratification by law requires referenda in some member states - and the population use it as an opportunity to express eurosceptic sentiments without disagreeing with our proposals. Whereas the parliament's government is in favor.
In that case the proposed binding legal agreement would still be in place. Getting it fully incorporated in the treaties would mean waiting till the next time.
BTW it's a common misconception that the treaties are not revised. They are sometimes revised with minor technical changes without triggering referendums etc.
This is from the right-wing NY Observer, so caveats about the source. But if this is indeed true, things do not look good for Hillaryworld:
"Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.
"Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies."
She's still available to sell at 2.04 on Betfair for next President. I'd be selling all the way out to 2.4, maybe even to 2.5.
(Note in up to my eyeballs in this market, so may not be completely impartial.)
Why would the SoS be given the real names of people like this, CIA operatives abroad? Why would these names be on any email server? Despite everything - what has Hillary done. Has she divulged the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence? I am not a Hillary fan BTW, but its a poor indictment of the USA that she is the most plausible candidate for president.
I find it baffling that you have a hard time understanding why what she is alleged to have done in this article would be a problem for her either legally or politically.
I find it baffling that you think the SoS has access to all information all the time.... The idea that the SoS would want to have the names of people working undercover is utterly implausible....
''After all, if we leave, we've got a much, much bigger example of the same problem, negotiating with exactly the same people, requiring the same 28 country unanimity, from a position of likely ill-will, and with no pre-agreed starting position. ''
True but we'd be bargaining from a much, much stronger position. Our own courts, our own border controls, our own laws, the supremacy of parliament, and outside all these ludicrous treaty obligations signed by the likes of Blair.
In order to keep all these things, and not get steamrollered like Norway into accepting an EEA type arrangement, the trade deal might end up being pretty sh8t.
So effing what. The EU is shrinking in terms of importance all the time.
Checking through the issues (Rand Paul is NOT his Dad), Cruz and Paul are very closely aligned on taxes and guns, opposites on foreign policy (So Paul is to Rubio too though).
Immigration is an interesting one - Paul looks to be more 'c' conservative and less libertarian than his Dad on that one. Not a million miles from Cruz.
*Cameras which face the car and take an image of the driver would cure this issue. But then, they would be much more visible - and wouldn't generate as much revenue.
In Scotland, this was a feature, not a bug. Images that showed faces clearly were deemed a threat to privacy (as i understand it), not because you might identify the driver, but because you might identify a passenger
Given the extraordinary level of cctv coverage across the UK, hard to see how that one flies...
'This is why Cameron's deal is so bad, it expressly provides the means for a new hegemon, the eurozone, to lord it over us, "objectively".'
The FO used to argue that being in the EU would allow us to prevent that, of course. And while we had veto powers, that argument had some force.
But then we gave them all away. So now that old chestnut of an argument is redundant. Instead we negotiate empty forms of words or hope people will be nice to us.
Oh... and there I was thinking you were interested in the future of your country, sorry, my mistake.
You need to a get a sense of humour chip.
Whether we are in or out of the EU, I will be optimistic about the future of this country, I care about it deeply.
Amen.
UK.
Every single PM since we joined has ended up having European battles (except possibly Callaghan) and that is because, fundamentally, we simply have not addressed in an adult way the divide which exists between our conception of what Europe should be and the role of the nation state and the conception which is largely shared by most Continental European states of what Europe should be.
Nothing in this proposed deal addresses that. And so, regardless of a Remain result, which is what I expect, the EU will continue to be an unresolved running sore in British politics and will flare up from time to time, almost regardless of which party is in power.
The British political class has confused membership of international fora with having a strategy and using one's influence to achieve that. Appearance is all.
Maybe the post-Suez criticism that Britain has not yet found a role has some truth in it......
Every sovereign of Great Britain, and every king or queen of England, since the days of Athelstan, has wrestled with the same problem. We are an island offshore a continent, when that continent coalesces under a hegemon - Spain of the armada, Napoleonic France, Hitler's Germany - it generally means trouble for us.
So we are best served by keeping Europe balanced and divided. This is why Cameron's deal is so bad, it expressly provides the means for a new hegemon, the eurozone, to lord it over us, "objectively".
There is an argument (in which the Foreign Office have been very consistent) that we should be pro-Europe so we can be anti-Europe for precisely those reasons.
However, time and time again we have been pro-Europe and got Europe being anti-UK rather than anti-Europe in the interests of the UK, so I have no idea why they cleave to this line other than the perks.
I rather agree with Robert Smithson. This strategic position is now best served by the UK leading an outer ring of non-eurozone countries through a beefed-up UK dominated EFTA with ad-hoc alliances with EU states on an ad-hoc basis according to our national interest.
We are an island offshore a continent, when that continent coalesces under a hegemon - Spain of the armada, Napoleonic France, Hitler's Germany - it generally means trouble for us.
That is true but the game is changing. Communications are getting better all the time and its getting easier and easier to develop relationships with countries far more amenable to Britain's outlook than Europe.
In fifty years a new age jet will take you to Sydney in two hours, Jo'burg in 45 minutes. That's the future. Lets turn France into a flyover state.
We are an island offshore a continent, when that continent coalesces under a hegemon - Spain of the armada, Napoleonic France, Hitler's Germany - it generally means trouble for us.
That is true but the game is changing. Communications are getting better all the time and its getting easier and easier to develop relationships with countries far more amenable to Britain's outlook than Europe.
In fifty years a new age jet will take you to Sydney in two hours, Jo'burg in 45 minutes. That's the future. Lets turn France into a flyover state.
I hope you are right about the plane... It sounds really cool
'This is why Cameron's deal is so bad, it expressly provides the means for a new hegemon, the eurozone, to lord it over us, "objectively".'
The FO used to argue that being in the EU would allow us to prevent that, of course. And while we had veto powers, that argument had some force.
But then we gave them all away. So now that old chestnut of an argument is redundant. Instead we negotiate empty forms of words or hope people will be nice to us.
In the old days of that policy, Europe was the centre of world power (at least as far as it applied to us). If we want to apply the same principle to the modern era then we should be trying to finesse a multi-polar world where no single block, whether the US or the Eurozone or Russia or China dominates.
@realDonaldTrump: Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!
@realDonaldTrump: Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.
Nothing in this proposed deal addresses that. And so, regardless of a Remain result, which is what I expect, the EU will continue to be an unresolved running sore in British politics and will flare up from time to time, almost regardless of which party is in power.
It's not true that this proposed deal doesn't address that. It addresses it directly, with an explicit acknowledgement (I think for the first time in a formal EU document) of the reality that we are not going in the direction of closer union. In practical terms, that's an important move because it is likely to lead to an outer ring and an inner (Eurozone) ring, with closer union increasingly concentrated in the inner ring:
I really don't see how Cameron could conceivably have got more on this point.
I disagree. We get nothing out of this acknowledgment (or statement of the bleeding obvious, as it might also be known). Laws can still be imposed on us without our consent and we can now be discriminated against. So being in that outer ring brings us no advantages beyond what we already have now and one pretty appalling disadvantage, an acceptance that we can be discriminated against. Why is that an advantage to us?
We are an island offshore a continent, when that continent coalesces under a hegemon - Spain of the armada, Napoleonic France, Hitler's Germany - it generally means trouble for us.
That is true but the game is changing. Communications are getting better all the time and its getting easier and easier to develop relationships with countries far more amenable to Britain's outlook than Europe.
In fifty years a new age jet will take you to Sydney in two hours, Jo'burg in 45 minutes. That's the future. Lets turn France into a flyover state.
I hope you are right about the plane... It sounds really cool
I'm glad I will never fly at 5000mph. Any notion of what the ticket would cost? Its a preposterous notion to hang an anti French prejudice against. Just who are the countries where its easier to get a relationship better than our current allies? As far as I can see the Outer policy is to fall over themselves to create a whole list of new enemies.
This is from the right-wing NY Observer, so caveats about the source. But if this is indeed true, things do not look good for Hillaryworld:
"Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.
"Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies."
She's still available to sell at 2.04 on Betfair for next President. I'd be selling all the way out to 2.4, maybe even to 2.5.
(Note in up to my eyeballs in this market, so may not be completely impartial.)
Why would the SoS be given the real names of people like this, CIA operatives abroad? Why would these names be on any email server? Despite everything - what has Hillary done. Has she divulged the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence? I am not a Hillary fan BTW, but its a poor indictment of the USA that she is the most plausible candidate for president.
I find it baffling that you have a hard time understanding why what she is alleged to have done in this article would be a problem for her either legally or politically.
I find it baffling that you think the SoS has access to all information all the time.... The idea that the SoS would want to have the names of people working undercover is utterly implausible....
Are you missing the point that this report is about emails on her server - i.e. emails sent to her in her official capacity? And what does her wanting the names have to do with anything? If emails identifying the names were on her private server in her house, then she is responsible for that information being there.
This is not 'access to all the information all the time', this is information alleged to have been sent to her and kept on her private server in her private home.
That is not necessarily the case if treaty ratification by law requires referenda in some member states - and the population use it as an opportunity to express eurosceptic sentiments without disagreeing with our proposals. Whereas the parliament's government is in favor.
In that case the proposed binding legal agreement would still be in place. Getting it fully incorporated in the treaties would mean waiting till the next time.
BTW it's a common misconception that the treaties are not revised. They are sometimes revised with minor technical changes without triggering referendums etc.
I am sure John Major shared your confidence about the ECJ being unable to override or circumvent agreed 'legally binding' deals right up until the moment the ECJ did just that. You should go back and reread Major's rather sad and angry letter of September 1996 where he makes clear how badly he was duped.
What happens to our deal if the treaty fails to be ratified by one or more member states?
Dunno.
But really, this line of argument is silly. After all, if we leave, we've got a much, much bigger example of the same problem, negotiating with exactly the same people, requiring the same 28 country unanimity, from a position of likely ill-will, and with no pre-agreed starting position.
Except for the existing ENP program which details how the EU behaves in terms of trade and relationships with neighbouring countries, including the requirement to negotiate trade agreements on the most generous of terms.
We are an island offshore a continent, when that continent coalesces under a hegemon - Spain of the armada, Napoleonic France, Hitler's Germany - it generally means trouble for us.
That is true but the game is changing. Communications are getting better all the time and its getting easier and easier to develop relationships with countries far more amenable to Britain's outlook than Europe.
In fifty years a new age jet will take you to Sydney in two hours, Jo'burg in 45 minutes. That's the future. Lets turn France into a flyover state.
I hope you are right about the plane... It sounds really cool
I'm glad I will never fly at 5000mph. Any notion of what the ticket would cost? Its a preposterous notion to hang an anti French prejudice against. Just who are the countries where its easier to get a relationship better than our current allies? As far as I can see the Outer policy is to fall over themselves to create a whole list of new enemies.
Presumably this fancy airplane will be powered by the fusion reactors we've been waiting for since the 1960s?
As if any aircraft will be flying at 5000 mph. Military maybe, and probably unmanned, but passenger? No, not unless the self loading freight is wearing a G suit, and is willing to die in a quite spectacular way if anything goes wrong.
'This is why Cameron's deal is so bad, it expressly provides the means for a new hegemon, the eurozone, to lord it over us, "objectively".'
The FO used to argue that being in the EU would allow us to prevent that, of course. And while we had veto powers, that argument had some force.
But then we gave them all away. So now that old chestnut of an argument is redundant. Instead we negotiate empty forms of words or hope people will be nice to us.
In the old days of that policy, Europe was the centre of world power (at least as far as it applied to us). If we want to apply the same principle to the modern era then we should be trying to finesse a multi-polar world where no single block, whether the US or the Eurozone or Russia or China dominates.
So that mean we should not attach ourselves to any one but swing between them as needed. Leave it is then.
'This is why Cameron's deal is so bad, it expressly provides the means for a new hegemon, the eurozone, to lord it over us, "objectively".'
The FO used to argue that being in the EU would allow us to prevent that, of course. And while we had veto powers, that argument had some force.
But then we gave them all away. So now that old chestnut of an argument is redundant. Instead we negotiate empty forms of words or hope people will be nice to us.
In the old days of that policy, Europe was the centre of world power (at least as far as it applied to us). If we want to apply the same principle to the modern era then we should be trying to finesse a multi-polar world where no single block, whether the US or the Eurozone or Russia or China dominates.
So that mean we should not attach ourselves to any one but swing between them as needed. Leave it is then.
''Just who are the countries where its easier to get a relationship better than our current allies? As far as I can see the Outer policy is to fall over themselves to create a whole list of new enemies. ''
Just as no in deal would ever please some Skeptics, so no out deal would ever please you.
The biggest revelation at today’s PMQs was not that Cameron’s backbenchers are divided over Europe or that Labour backbenchers are phoning Dignitas for leadership advice.
No, it’s that the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are too thick to handle democracy. At least, you could conclude that from what the supremely pompous Angus Robertson, the SNP’s Westminster leader, told the chamber today.
''Just who are the countries where its easier to get a relationship better than our current allies? As far as I can see the Outer policy is to fall over themselves to create a whole list of new enemies. ''
Just as no in deal would ever please some Skeptics, so no out deal would ever please you.
Personally I just scroll past, his unique combination of punctuation-free cut and paste, and frothing incoherence, needs more effort to decode than I can be bothered to spend.
For some reason futurologists are obsessed with flying. In Back to the Future they thought we'd have flying cars in 2015 but still be using fax machines. The real revolution with the internet and mobile communications seems to have taken them by surprise.
For some reason futurologists are obsessed with flying. In Back to the Future they thought we'd have flying cars in 2015 but still be using fax machines. The real revolution with the internet and mobile communications seems to have taken them by surprise.
''Just who are the countries where its easier to get a relationship better than our current allies? As far as I can see the Outer policy is to fall over themselves to create a whole list of new enemies. ''
Just as no in deal would ever please some Skeptics, so no out deal would ever please you.
Personally I just scroll past, his unique combination of punctuation-free cut and paste, and frothing incoherence, needs more effort to decode than I can be bothered to spend.
Oh dear dedums then - too hard to try a bit of comprehension, better not to try thinking?. Your own very comment is meaningless - and no list of countries.
That is not necessarily the case if treaty ratification by law requires referenda in some member states - and the population use it as an opportunity to express eurosceptic sentiments without disagreeing with our proposals. Whereas the parliament's government is in favor.
In that case the proposed binding legal agreement would still be in place. Getting it fully incorporated in the treaties would mean waiting till the next time.
BTW it's a common misconception that the treaties are not revised. They are sometimes revised with minor technical changes without triggering referendums etc.
I am sure John Major shared your confidence about the ECJ being unable to override or circumvent agreed 'legally binding' deals right up until the moment the ECJ did just that. You should go back and reread Major's rather sad and angry letter of September 1996 where he makes clear how badly he was duped.
Have you a link to the Major letter? Would make interesting reading with the passage of time.
I disagree. We get nothing out of this acknowledgment (or statement of the bleeding obvious, as it might also be known). Laws can still be imposed on us without our consent and we can now be discriminated against. So being in that outer ring brings us no advantages beyond what we already have now and one pretty appalling disadvantage, an acceptance that we can be discriminated against. Why is that an advantage to us?
It depends what you mean by an advantage.
In a formal sense, compared with what we could have negotiated before Blair and Brown threw away most of the vetos and other bargaining chips, it's poor. Compared with the immediate pre-negotiation situation, where ever-closer union was built into the treaties and we were theoretically at least all moving in the same direction, albeit at different speeds, it's an improvement.
In a practical sense, and admittedly somewhat optimistically, I think this could mark the beginning of a change of approach. Rather than seeing us as deadweights impeding what they want to do (and everyone agrees the Eurozone has severe structural issues), it provides a route by which, without losing face, they can get on with their ever-closer union and not involve us. It will be so much easier for them to do so that I'm moderately confident that that is how it will work out.
For some reason futurologists are obsessed with flying. In Back to the Future they thought we'd have flying cars in 2015 but still be using fax machines. The real revolution with the internet and mobile communications seems to have taken them by surprise.
I have an old Osborne book of Computer published back in 1983 (I think) thought that in 30 years time everyone would have a palm sized pocket computer with a touch screen, voice recognition and connected over a radio network.
Comments
e.g. Hire car stolen whilst left on employer's premises at weekend, involved in accident on Sunday before Directors realise it was stolen.
If you frame the law as a strict liability, the directors have to be found guilty by the magistrates ! So you don't, although alot of motoring law is.
Nothing in this proposed deal addresses that. And so, regardless of a Remain result, which is what I expect, the EU will continue to be an unresolved running sore in British politics and will flare up from time to time, almost regardless of which party is in power.
The British political class has confused membership of international fora with having a strategy and using one's influence to achieve that. Appearance is all.
Maybe the post-Suez criticism that Britain has not yet found a role has some truth in it......
Generally speaking, if you are done for speeding or red light by a camera, the owner of the vehicle pays the fine but points cannot be put on the license as there is no proof of who was driving.
In passing, I note that of the many LEAVE campaigns, only @Grassroots_Out has a website with a clear message. https://t.co/aoQwECPcdZ
My red on Bush is only half the size needed to pinch £2 I'm afraid.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-architecture-analysis-idUKKCN0VB1UT
I really don't see how Cameron could conceivably have got more on this point.
Might have been worse. Could have been their knee-caps that were threatened....
Yes this is a debate we never have in the UK. What kind of country do we want to be? what are we aiming at? What's our identity?
As Richard Nabavi points out, what is leave's vision?
(Note in up to my eyeballs in this market, so may not be completely impartial.)
The wrong sort of Leave voters.
That will not be enough. If we're going to be truly independent, then we may have to live without a good trade deal with the EU., because in order to get a good deal we will have to make concessions on immigration etc, as Richard has eloquently pointed out.
We will need to build new alliances with countries not aligned to major power blocs, and many of these are probably our natural allies anyway.
We will need to spend much more on defence, in my view, and in particular Marine defence.
Not being an EU vassal via EU or EEA will have all sorts of implications, which will need to be explained.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!
During primetime of the Iowa Caucus, Cruz put out a release that @RealBenCarson was quitting the race, and to caucus (or vote) for Cruz.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3383217/New-group-mobilise-Brexit-vote-Campaign-group-Grassroots-aims-target-ordinary-voters-want-leave.html
Should benefit Trump though, who stole his foreign policies and thus most of his voters.
Unless it's him.
Dig out your Rubio betting slips.
Despite everything - what has Hillary done. Has she divulged the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence?
I am not a Hillary fan BTW, but its a poor indictment of the USA that she is the most plausible candidate for president.
Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.
No comment...
I guess there's a role for a powerful country that scoops up alliances with countries that are outside the power bloc world eg Australia and New Zealand, Norway, Canada, Iceland, etc.
Whether these countries want or need our increased friendship, or backing, is quite another matter, however.
I cannot see that a good negotiator - which Cameron clearly is not - would have problems getting a good trade deal for the UK with the EU. They need access to our economy as much as we need access to theirs. We would (should) not be approaching the negotiating table as beggars, but as any other business looking at a proposed transaction.
Biden and Warren bets looking a whole lotta rosy....
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/138541628036/news-flash-cartoonist-gets-one-wrong
As I was watching the final tally on the Republican side, I noticed that the result coincidentally matched what I would expect from a rigged election.
I’m not saying the election was rigged. I have no evidence of such a thing, and I’m sure the good people of Iowa are honest and competent.
But just for fun, watch me build my case for a rigged election.
If you had the power to rig the vote in Iowa – either to hurt Trump, or help Rubio – what election result would do the best job?
A Rubio first-place win would raise too many questions. Even a second-place finish would raise questions. But how about a strong third? Yes, that’s the ticket. You would engineer the vote so Rubio got the strongest possible third-place showing without overtaking Trump. And that is exactly how the vote tally went.
As a hypothetical vote-rigger, you don’t care too much about Cruz winning Iowa because he will have trouble in New Hampshire where Rubio will get another shot at surprising.
I’m not saying the vote in Iowa was rigged. I’m just saying the result is exactly the same as what one would expect from a well-engineered and rigged election. But that could be a coincidence.
Of course this is America so...
Hard to believe that the Russians and the Chinese for example wouldn't be constantly trawling for a bit of stupidity such as this.
But really, this line of argument is silly. After all, if we leave, we've got a much, much bigger example of the same problem, negotiating with exactly the same people, requiring the same 28 country unanimity, from a position of likely ill-will, and with no pre-agreed starting position.
BTW it's a common misconception that the treaties are not revised. They are sometimes revised with minor technical changes without triggering referendums etc.
True but we'd be bargaining from a much, much stronger position. Our own courts, our own border controls, our own laws, the supremacy of parliament, and outside all these ludicrous treaty obligations signed by the likes of Blair.
In order to keep all these things, and not get steamrollered like Norway into accepting an EEA type arrangement, the trade deal might end up being pretty sh8t.
So effing what. The EU is shrinking in terms of importance all the time.
Immigration is an interesting one - Paul looks to be more 'c' conservative and less libertarian than his Dad on that one. Not a million miles from Cruz.
The FO used to argue that being in the EU would allow us to prevent that, of course. And while we had veto powers, that argument had some force.
But then we gave them all away. So now that old chestnut of an argument is redundant. Instead we negotiate empty forms of words or hope people will be nice to us.
However, time and time again we have been pro-Europe and got Europe being anti-UK rather than anti-Europe in the interests of the UK, so I have no idea why they cleave to this line other than the perks.
I rather agree with Robert Smithson. This strategic position is now best served by the UK leading an outer ring of non-eurozone countries through a beefed-up UK dominated EFTA with ad-hoc alliances with EU states on an ad-hoc basis according to our national interest.
That is true but the game is changing. Communications are getting better all the time and its getting easier and easier to develop relationships with countries far more amenable to Britain's outlook than Europe.
In fifty years a new age jet will take you to Sydney in two hours, Jo'burg in 45 minutes. That's the future. Lets turn France into a flyover state.
In that respect, you have to feel a bit sorry for Dave. Between here and Brussels must be like between here and Mars.
@realDonaldTrump: Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.
Just who are the countries where its easier to get a relationship better than our current allies? As far as I can see the Outer policy is to fall over themselves to create a whole list of new enemies.
This is not 'access to all the information all the time', this is information alleged to have been sent to her and kept on her private server in her private home.
Heh.
As if any aircraft will be flying at 5000 mph. Military maybe, and probably unmanned, but passenger? No, not unless the self loading freight is wearing a G suit, and is willing to die in a quite spectacular way if anything goes wrong.
F1: Renault's new car looks alright:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35482377
Just as no in deal would ever please some Skeptics, so no out deal would ever please you.
OK hands up, its FOUR hours to Sydney.
But this is by 2030, mind.
Sadly the Cubs couldn't fulfil the prophecy.
Would make interesting reading with the passage of time.
In a formal sense, compared with what we could have negotiated before Blair and Brown threw away most of the vetos and other bargaining chips, it's poor. Compared with the immediate pre-negotiation situation, where ever-closer union was built into the treaties and we were theoretically at least all moving in the same direction, albeit at different speeds, it's an improvement.
In a practical sense, and admittedly somewhat optimistically, I think this could mark the beginning of a change of approach. Rather than seeing us as deadweights impeding what they want to do (and everyone agrees the Eurozone has severe structural issues), it provides a route by which, without losing face, they can get on with their ever-closer union and not involve us. It will be so much easier for them to do so that I'm moderately confident that that is how it will work out.
The fools!
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/carson-other-campaigns-sabotaged-us-dirty-tricks-n509396