Farage said more or less this on QT last night didn't he?
"I’m in favour of immigration, we’ve benefited from immigration, but I think the pressures – particularly on our public services – have been very great.
“I think we should be focusing on the pressure on our public services – on health and education and housing.”
@michaelsavage: Karie Murphy, who found herself at centre of THAT Falkirk row, is now working for Jeremy Corbyn, running his office: https://t.co/b67mxtRz0x
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
Britain is too small to prosper alone - we might survive by managing decline - some would say we've been doing that for over a century now - but if you think that makes us "shit" you need to take a look at yourself. A long look.
Thanks to Nick for the article, very good - lacking only a Labour view of TTIP and its relation to the EU, alas.
Britain is certainly not too small to prosper alone. Of course we will not be the Empire of a century ago but in case you missed it no one wants to be. The idea we need to be tied to the EU to survive is simply ludicrous and is the last refuge of the Europhile scoundrel.
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
That is not how I read it at all. As far as I can make out Nick is arguing that it is not in our best interests to be on our own, not that we could not be on our own. That's very different to saying we are a shit country and too small to survive. Mischaracterising people's arguments when we can all read them is not a winning strategy either.
He is absolutely saying that we couldn't survive on our own. The implication is that we are too shitty and small to go it alone. I think otherwise, of course, and I know you do as well, but Nick's position is very clear as is the position of most Europhiles, especially those on the left. On the right the argument is that having a seat at the big boys table is worth the compromise in terms of sovereignty, an argument I also disagree with. The left seems to have this strain of Britain bashing that you can't see.
It's surprising how three of the front runners for the presidency are aiming to hold that post in their 70s. Two more mooted rescue candidates, Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg, are also in their 70s.
For that matter, on this side of the Atlantic Jeremy Corbyn is in his late 60s and while he has many detractors none mention his age.
Is the cult of youth officially over?
No - Corbo has so many other weaknesses and flaws that the age card doesn't need to be played.
It's about no 3482 in the reasons he is utterly unsuitable to run a whelk stall nevermind be PM.
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
That is not how I read it at all. As far as I can make out Nick is arguing that it is not in our best interests to be on our own, not that we could not be on our own. That's very different to saying we are a shit country and too small to survive. Mischaracterising people's arguments when we can all read them is not a winning strategy either.
He is absolutely saying that we couldn't survive on our own. The implication is that we are too shitty and small to go it alone. I think otherwise, of course, and I know you do as well, but Nick's position is very clear as is the position of most Europhiles, especially those on the left. On the right the argument is that having a seat at the big boys table is worth the compromise in terms of sovereignty, an argument I also disagree with. The left seems to have this strain of Britain bashing that you can't see.
Well, Nick's told you that he is not saying that. You are looking for stuff that is not there because you think the left is wicked.
Trump is actually older than Hillary so she looks comparatively youthful against him and Sanders. As for Bloomberg most polls have him taking almost equally from Republicans and Democrats so I doubt he makes a great difference
Why would we want to cripple the functioning of the Euro area? How would we be able to prevent the ever closer union of the Euro area if we were not in the EU? What meaningful powers could we claim back if we were in the EEA and part of the single market? The ECHR is not the EU and it is the HRA and UK judges who pass crass verdicts in its name - this it seems is going to be repealed independently of the EU negotiations. How would we help create a single market in financial services if we were not in the EU? Is in not now law that any new treaty must pass a referendum before parliament passes it? How is it that Peter Lilley has suddenly become so so incisive in his political judgements?
Why isn't there already a single market in services? Are our EU partners frit?
Possibly. I do not know how complicated it is. The argument is that it would be of benefit to the wider EU and we are well placed to benefit specifically. I don't see how we benefit much or put limits on the Eurozone if outside the EU.
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
That is not how I read it at all. As far as I can make out Nick is arguing that it is not in our best interests to be on our own, not that we could not be on our own. That's very different to saying we are a shit country and too small to survive. Mischaracterising people's arguments when we can all read them is not a winning strategy either.
He is absolutely saying that we couldn't survive on our own. The implication is that we are too shitty and small to go it alone. I think otherwise, of course, and I know you do as well, but Nick's position is very clear as is the position of most Europhiles, especially those on the left. On the right the argument is that having a seat at the big boys table is worth the compromise in terms of sovereignty, an argument I also disagree with. The left seems to have this strain of Britain bashing that you can't see.
Six Nations: idle musing, but there was just 8 points, total, between the various teams last time (France won by 2, England by 6, and Ireland/Wales drew). Can't remember another opening weekend so tight.
Was tempted to back Ireland to beat France (playing in Paris) but the odds are only evens.
Scotland are going to get smashed this weekend barring a Lazarous like transformation in our ability to play rugby.
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
@Herald_Editor: If Scotland needs UK help to pay for the devo deal how could it possibly afford separation? Lord McCluskey in Agenda https://t.co/0krqpJEfhe
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
@Herald_Editor: If Scotland needs UK help to pay for the devo deal how could it possibly afford separation? Lord McCluskey in Agenda https://t.co/0krqpJEfhe
Profiteering from Back-to-Back property transactions will pay the bills. There are plenty of old ladies to rip off. And Scottish expertise is second to none.
For some reason Malky seems irritable this morning.
Nicola is in a pickle because the Smith commission talks have made abundantly clear for everyone just how a big a bung Scotland gets from the rest of the UK, and she is desperate to cling to that teat.
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
It's surprising how three of the front runners for the presidency are aiming to hold that post in their 70s. Two more mooted rescue candidates, Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg, are also in their 70s.
For that matter, on this side of the Atlantic Jeremy Corbyn is in his late 60s and while he has many detractors none mention his age.
Is the cult of youth officially over?
No - Corbo has so many other weaknesses and flaws that the age card doesn't need to be played.
It's about no 3482 in the reasons he is utterly unsuitable to run a whelk stall nevermind be PM.
It may, however, provide a good diplomatic reason for the PLP to move against him as and when he catches a cold or something "no, it's not about his politics, we respect the views of the Labour movement expressed in the election; unfortunately, his health isn't up to it and at his age you can't expect it to get better; at the end of a five year term as PM he'd be nearly 76 - that's asking a lot" etc. etc.
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
That is not how I read it at all. As far as I can make out Nick is arguing that it is not in our best interests to be on our own, not that we could not be on our own. That's very different to saying we are a shit country and too small to survive. Mischaracterising people's arguments when we can all read them is not a winning strategy either.
He is absolutely saying that we couldn't survive on our own. The implication is that we are too shitty and small to go it alone. I think otherwise, of course, and I know you do as well, but Nick's position is very clear as is the position of most Europhiles, especially those on the left. On the right the argument is that having a seat at the big boys table is worth the compromise in terms of sovereignty, an argument I also disagree with. The left seems to have this strain of Britain bashing that you can't see.
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
Six Nations: idle musing, but there was just 8 points, total, between the various teams last time (France won by 2, England by 6, and Ireland/Wales drew). Can't remember another opening weekend so tight.
Was tempted to back Ireland to beat France (playing in Paris) but the odds are only evens.
Scotland are going to get smashed this weekend barring a Lazarous like transformation in our ability to play rugby.
The games were banal and boring. And oh so slow. Pathetic really.
Well that's the implication by saying we wouldn't survive outside of the EU. I think that is why the Remain campaign is floundering so much, the message is being received in this way.
I'm sorry, but as others have pointed out you're misrepresenting me, and you've just done it again. Here's the article again.
Please point out anything in it that says or implies that (your first claim) "Britain is a shit country" or (your current claim) "Britain cannot survive outside the EU". You're making it up.
I think that if we left the EU and if they then moved to political union as e.g. Topping has suggested (a big if, but certainly a stated objective), our position would then be akin to Canada compared with the US. Canada is in no way not surviving, nor is there any interest in joining the USA. However, it's not really deniable that they are greatly affected by decisions made by their big neighbour, on which they have only modest influence. Does this mean they think they're shit, or are in danger of disappearing? Of course not. Does it mean that they are partly dependent on forces outside their control? Yes.
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
If Bernie Sanders gets Elizabeth Warren to stand with him as VPOTUS in waiting, it screws up the Clintons plans on so many levels. The main one, if that Sanders was to die in office then the US would have it's first woman president, without the Clintons baggage...
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
That is not how I read it at all. As far as I can make out Nick is arguing that it is not in our best interests to be on our own, not that we could not be on our own. That's very different to saying we are a shit country and too small to survive. Mischaracterising people's arguments when we can all read them is not a winning strategy either.
He is absolutely saying that we couldn't survive on our own. The implication is that we are too shitty and small to go it alone. I think otherwise, of course, and I know you do as well, but Nick's position is very clear as is the position of most Europhiles, especially those on the left. On the right the argument is that having a seat at the big boys table is worth the compromise in terms of sovereignty, an argument I also disagree with. The left seems to have this strain of Britain bashing that you can't see.
Well, Nick's told you that he is not saying that. You are looking for stuff that is not there because you think the left is wicked.
He is looking for stuff thats not there because he is anxious to smear anyone who might vote Remain. I do not like Mr Palmer particularly or necessarily agree with him. But he is not saying the UK is shit. Its a pathetic accusation. Putting it a bit simplistically I think the argument is we will decline relatively if 'on our own' and not be able to apply any leverage to our opinions. Its a fair argument. It may or may not be more right than wrong (it may be irrelevant), but it deserves a serious response not a sneering one.
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
Fair play to Tory councillors holding Cameron to account. They make clear that, in top of not meeting Cameron's four goals, the renegotiation fails the last Tory manifesto in several areas.
"It made the specific commitment that "changes to welfare to cut EU migration will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation". That "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years. That "if an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid." And "To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave."
We are also mindful of the commitment to reduce migration to the UK to the "tens of thousands", and how reliant on a fundamental change to the principle of free movement of people within the EU this commitment is.
We do not feel these manifesto commitments alone were enough to represent a good deal for Britain in Europe, but given the clarity of the commitment they were at least the minimum outcome we could hope for in any renegotiation.
As they have not been met, the only responsible and honest thing for the Conservative Party – and for those in it – to do, is campaign for Britain's exit from the European Union."
Article also makes clear City of London leaders are panicking about latest draft showing them being signed up to the banking union's single rulebook and have sent an urgent delegation to Downing Street.
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
That is not how I read it at all. As far as I can make out Nick is arguing that it is not in our best interests to be on our own, not that we could not be on our own. That's very different to saying we are a shit country and too small to survive. Mischaracterising people's arguments when we can all read them is not a winning strategy either.
He is absolutely saying that we couldn't survive on our own. The implication is that we are too shitty and small to go it alone. I think otherwise, of course, and I know you do as well, but Nick's position is very clear as is the position of most Europhiles, especially those on the left. On the right the argument is that having a seat at the big boys table is worth the compromise in terms of sovereignty, an argument I also disagree with. The left seems to have this strain of Britain bashing that you can't see.
Possibly because you've made it up.
Says the man who was just bashing Britain.
When was I doing that?
Your comment I replied to earlier "Britain is too small to prosper alone "
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
A quarter of female victims are aged just 14 or under, while 9% are not even as old as 10 when they are attacked.
The statistics, from a detailed breakdown of the age and gender of victims of alleged sexual offences, were recorded from March 2014-15 from 13 police forces in England and Wales.
Holy Moly indeed. If it is right, it is horrendous, but it doesn't sound very plausible to me.
I wonder if it is at least partly a question of definition - I think I'm right in saying that any sex, even if consensual in the everyday sense of the word, with an underage girl is classed as rape, which would skew the figures.
That wouldn't explain the under-10 figure, though. Can it really be right?
England have both Wales and Ireland at home in the 6 nations. Wales have 3 home matches. Italy and Scotland have both lost a match already Wales are probably the best team but they're playing the 2nd best team? away from home so the fixtures maybe fall for England (Wales at home is a biggy (And Ireland))
Italy 50-1 Scotland 20-1 France 7-1 Ireland 3-1 Wales 9-4 England 9-4
Perhaps something like that ?
Prices not available btw, and I've not looked at the actual odds to try and keep the exercise neutral.
It's surprising how three of the front runners for the presidency are aiming to hold that post in their 70s. Two more mooted rescue candidates, Joe Biden and Michael Bloomberg, are also in their 70s.
For that matter, on this side of the Atlantic Jeremy Corbyn is in his late 60s and while he has many detractors none mention his age.
Is the cult of youth officially over?
No - Corbo has so many other weaknesses and flaws that the age card doesn't need to be played.
It's about no 3482 in the reasons he is utterly unsuitable to run a whelk stall nevermind be PM.
It may, however, provide a good diplomatic reason for the PLP to move against him as and when he catches a cold or something "no, it's not about his politics, we respect the views of the Labour movement expressed in the election; unfortunately, his health isn't up to it and at his age you can't expect it to get better; at the end of a five year term as PM he'd be nearly 76 - that's asking a lot" etc. etc.
Then I could collect on the nice McDonnell bet that was proposed on these very blog pages a couple of weeks ago.
One other problem is that Clinton is wrapping up the votes in the Democratic Convention (which actually decides who is going to stand for the President) and if Sanders does win the country vote in the primaries it could lead to an ever so slight problem for the Democrats and the Clintons in particular. http://www.thisnation.com/question/021.html
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
Tory lady Haw Haw supporting her inept Labour chums, just say SNPBAD save having to read your drivel
Quite the reverse!
Didn't you know that the Tories and SNP are as one on austerity and not increasing taxes?
Us Tories, Tartan and otherwise are better together to coin a phrase.....
Tories are nonentities in Scotland, their opinion counts for nothing, they just utter their nasty crap and get ignored
If thats the case its nice to see the SNP implementing Tory policies
Pop quiz.
If becoming independent was going to cost £100-£120 million......why is only setting up a separate Welfare system going to cost £300 - £600 million?
Dear Dear how desperate can Tories get to think they are important. Poor attention seekers.
I am watching Teenage ninja mutant turtles with a 6 year old. He is more mature than Carlotta and the ugly bunch. I am being very restrained, Karabunga.
PS: they have numbchucks in this cartoon as well, wonder if the ugly buncn have a patent on it.
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
That is not how I read it at all. As far as I can make out Nick is arguing that it is not in our best interests to be on our own, not that we could not be on our own. That's very different to saying we are a shit country and too small to survive. Mischaracterising people's arguments when we can all read them is not a winning strategy either.
He is absolutely saying that we couldn't survive on our own. The implication is that we are too shitty and small to go it alone. I think otherwise, of course, and I know you do as well, but Nick's position is very clear as is the position of most Europhiles, especially those on the left. On the right the argument is that having a seat at the big boys table is worth the compromise in terms of sovereignty, an argument I also disagree with. The left seems to have this strain of Britain bashing that you can't see.
Possibly because you've made it up.
Says the man who was just bashing Britain.
When was I doing that?
Your comment I replied to earlier "Britain is too small to prosper alone "
So is almost every other country. A list of those that can was supplied earlier (by S O Else). In your world if it ain't puffing it's bashing, apparently. Not much I can do about that.
A quarter of female victims are aged just 14 or under, while 9% are not even as old as 10 when they are attacked.
The statistics, from a detailed breakdown of the age and gender of victims of alleged sexual offences, were recorded from March 2014-15 from 13 police forces in England and Wales.
Holy Moly indeed. If it is right, it is horrendous, but it doesn't sound very plausible to me.
I wonder if it is at least partly a question of definition - I think I'm right in saying that any sex, even if consensual in the everyday sense of the word, with an underage girl is classed as rape, which would skew the figures.
It wouldn't explain the under-10 figure, though. Can it really be right?
Well that's the implication by saying we wouldn't survive outside of the EU. I think that is why the Remain campaign is floundering so much, the message is being received in this way.
I'm sorry, but as others have pointed out you're misrepresenting me, and you've just done it again. Here's the article again.
Please point out anything in it that says or implies that (your first claim) "Britain is a shit country" or (your current claim) "Britain cannot survive outside the EU". You're making it up.
I think that if we left the EU and if they then moved to political union as e.g. Topping has suggested (a big if, but certainly a stated objective), our position would then be akin to Canada compared with the US. Canada is in no way not surviving, nor is there any interest in joining the USA. However, it's not really deniable that they are greatly affected by decisions made by their big neighbour, on which they have only modest influence. Does this mean they think they're shit, or are in danger of disappearing? Of course not. Does it mean that they are partly dependent on forces outside their control? Yes.
Which is of course exactly what is now happening inside the EU. France and Gernany and othwr Eurozone nations make a decision together, and we're forced to go along with it as they can pass it under QMV whether we like it or not. We saw that with Juncker's election. We saw that with Cameron's first renegotiation that you yourself accept as token. And we have just seen it with one of our most important sectors being signed up for the banking union's single rulebook against our wishes.
You say youre concerned " that we will bob along in the slipstream of decisions made by others " as you hypothesize that happen outside EU, but ignore it when it is already happening inside EU.
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
A quarter of female victims are aged just 14 or under, while 9% are not even as old as 10 when they are attacked.
The statistics, from a detailed breakdown of the age and gender of victims of alleged sexual offences, were recorded from March 2014-15 from 13 police forces in England and Wales.
Holy Moly indeed. If it is right, it is horrendous, but it doesn't sound very plausible to me.
I wonder if it is at least partly a question of definition - I think I'm right in saying that any sex, even if consensual in the everyday sense of the word, with an underage girl is classed as rape, which would skew the figures.
It wouldn't explain the under-10 figure, though. Can it really be right?
You should always complain if you are compelled against consent. For good of other potential victims, rapists must be put away.
Well that's the implication by saying we wouldn't survive outside of the EU. I think that is why the Remain campaign is floundering so much, the message is being received in this way.
I'm sorry, but as others have pointed out you're misrepresenting me, and you've just done it again. Here's the article again.
Please point out anything in it that says or implies that (your first claim) "Britain is a shit country" or (your current claim) "Britain cannot survive outside the EU". You're making it up.
I think that if we left the EU and if they then moved to political union as e.g. Topping has suggested (a big if, but certainly a stated objective), our position would then be akin to Canada compared with the US. Canada is in no way not surviving, nor is there any interest in joining the USA. However, it's not really deniable that they are greatly affected by decisions made by their big neighbour, on which they have only modest influence. Does this mean they think they're shit, or are in danger of disappearing? Of course not. Does it mean that they are partly dependent on forces outside their control? Yes.
Which is of course exactly what is now happening inside the EU. France and Gernany and othwr Eurozone nations make a decision together, and we're forced to go along with it as they can pass it under QMV whether we like it or not. We saw that with Juncker's election. We saw that with Cameron's first renegotiation that you yourself accept as token. And we have just seen it with one of our most important sectors being signed up for the banking union's single rulebook against our wishes.
You say youre concerned " that we will bob along in the slipstream of decisions made by others " as you hypothesize that happen outside EU, but ignore it when it is already happening inside EU.
If it will happen in either case why are we having a referendum?
Oh, look - it's 1975 and the psychopathology of the governing Party's activists needs soothing
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
That is not how I read it at all. As far as I can make out Nick is arguing that it is not in our best interests to be on our own, not that we could not be on our own. That's very different to saying we are a shit country and too small to survive. Mischaracterising people's arguments when we can all read them is not a winning strategy either.
He is absolutely saying that we couldn't survive on our own. The implication is that we are too shitty and small to go it alone. I think otherwise, of course, and I know you do as well, but Nick's position is very clear as is the position of most Europhiles, especially those on the left. On the right the argument is that having a seat at the big boys table is worth the compromise in terms of sovereignty, an argument I also disagree with. The left seems to have this strain of Britain bashing that you can't see.
Possibly because you've made it up.
Says the man who was just bashing Britain.
When was I doing that?
Your comment I replied to earlier "Britain is too small to prosper alone "
So is almost every other country. A list of those that can was supplied earlier (by S O Else). In your world if it ain't puffing it's bashing, apparently. Not much I can do about that.
Fair play to Tory councillors holding Cameron to account. They make clear that, in top of not meeting Cameron's four goals, the renegotiation fails the last Tory manifesto in several areas.
"It made the specific commitment that "changes to welfare to cut EU migration will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation". That "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years. That "if an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid." And "To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave."
We are also mindful of the commitment to reduce migration to the UK to the "tens of thousands", and how reliant on a fundamental change to the principle of free movement of people within the EU this commitment is.
We do not feel these manifesto commitments alone were enough to represent a good deal for Britain in Europe, but given the clarity of the commitment they were at least the minimum outcome we could hope for in any renegotiation.
As they have not been met, the only responsible and honest thing for the Conservative Party – and for those in it – to do, is campaign for Britain's exit from the European Union."
Article also makes clear City of London leaders are panicking about latest draft showing them being signed up to the banking union's single rulebook and have sent an urgent delegation to Downing Street.
I see. So it is now the contention of Leavers that the only way that Conservatives can vote is Leave. Anything else will lead to the Conservative party splitting.
I can't see that line of argument causing any problems in the future.
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
Tory lady Haw Haw supporting her inept Labour chums, just say SNPBAD save having to read your drivel
Quite the reverse!
Didn't you know that the Tories and SNP are as one on austerity and not increasing taxes?
Us Tories, Tartan and otherwise are better together to coin a phrase.....
Tories are nonentities in Scotland, their opinion counts for nothing, they just utter their nasty crap and get ignored
If thats the case its nice to see the SNP implementing Tory policies
Pop quiz.
If becoming independent was going to cost £100-£120 million......why is only setting up a separate Welfare system going to cost £300 - £600 million?
Dear Dear how desperate can Tories get to think they are important. Poor attention seekers.
I am watching Teenage ninja mutant turtles with a 6 year old. He is more mature than Carlotta and the ugly bunch. I am being very restrained, Karabunga.
PS: they have numbchucks in this cartoon as well, wonder if the ugly buncn have a patent on it.
The 6 year old, presumably, is babysitting you.
"Now Junior, if old pencil neck goes anywhere near those whisky bottles, slap him back with this stick'
'Article also makes clear City of London leaders are panicking about latest draft showing them being signed up to the banking union's single rulebook and have sent an urgent delegation to Downing Street.'
Thank goodness for all those important safeguards the PM has achieved for the City.
Well that's the implication by saying we wouldn't survive outside of the EU. I think that is why the Remain campaign is floundering so much, the message is being received in this way.
I'm sorry, but as others have pointed out you're misrepresenting me, and you've just done it again. Here's the article again.
Please point out anything in it that says or implies that (your first claim) "Britain is a shit country" or (your current claim) "Britain cannot survive outside the EU". You're making it up.
I think that if we left the EU and if they then moved to political union as e.g. Topping has suggested (a big if, but certainly a stated objective), our position would then be akin to Canada compared with the US. Canada is in no way not surviving, nor is there any interest in joining the USA. However, it's not really deniable that they are greatly affected by decisions made by their big neighbour, on which they have only modest influence. Does this mean they think they're shit, or are in danger of disappearing? Of course not. Does it mean that they are partly dependent on forces outside their control? Yes.
Which is of course exactly what is now happening inside the EU. France and Gernany and othwr Eurozone nations make a decision together, and we're forced to go along with it as they can pass it under QMV whether we like it or not. We saw that with Juncker's election. We saw that with Cameron's first renegotiation that you yourself accept as token. And we have just seen it with one of our most important sectors being signed up for the banking union's single rulebook against our wishes.
You say youre concerned " that we will bob along in the slipstream of decisions made by others " as you hypothesize that happen outside EU, but ignore it when it is already happening inside EU.
If it will happen in either case why are we having a referendum?
Oh, look - it's 1975 and the psychopathology of the governing Party's activists needs soothing
I don't think that will happen in either case. I'm just saying the clearer evidence it happen is inside EU.
A quarter of female victims are aged just 14 or under, while 9% are not even as old as 10 when they are attacked.
The statistics, from a detailed breakdown of the age and gender of victims of alleged sexual offences, were recorded from March 2014-15 from 13 police forces in England and Wales.
Holy Moly indeed. If it is right, it is horrendous, but it doesn't sound very plausible to me.
I wonder if it is at least partly a question of definition - I think I'm right in saying that any sex, even if consensual in the everyday sense of the word, with an underage girl is classed as rape, which would skew the figures.
It wouldn't explain the under-10 figure, though. Can it really be right?
You should always complain if you are compelled against consent. For good of other potential victims, rapists must be put away.
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
Tory lady Haw Haw supporting her inept Labour chums, just say SNPBAD save having to read your drivel
Quite the reverse!
Didn't you know that the Tories and SNP are as one on austerity and not increasing taxes?
Us Tories, Tartan and otherwise are better together to coin a phrase.....
Tories are nonentities in Scotland, their opinion counts for nothing, they just utter their nasty crap and get ignored
If thats the case its nice to see the SNP implementing Tory policies
Pop quiz.
If becoming independent was going to cost £100-£120 million......why is only setting up a separate Welfare system going to cost £300 - £600 million?
Dear Dear how desperate can Tories get to think they are important. Poor attention seekers.
I am watching Teenage ninja mutant turtles with a 6 year old. He is more mature than Carlotta and the ugly bunch. I am being very restrained, Karabunga.
PS: they have numbchucks in this cartoon as well, wonder if the ugly buncn have a patent on it.
The irony of Holyrood politicians arguing for the devolution of greater powers from Westminster while at the same time undermining local government in Scotland has not been lost on council leaders.
Fair play to Tory councillors holding Cameron to account. They make clear that, in top of not meeting Cameron's four goals, the renegotiation fails the last Tory manifesto in several areas.
"It made the specific commitment that "changes to welfare to cut EU migration will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation". That "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years. That "if an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid." And "To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave."
We are also mindful of the commitment to reduce migration to the UK to the "tens of thousands", and how reliant on a fundamental change to the principle of free movement of people within the EU this commitment is.
We do not feel these manifesto commitments alone were enough to represent a good deal for Britain in Europe, but given the clarity of the commitment they were at least the minimum outcome we could hope for in any renegotiation.
As they have not been met, the only responsible and honest thing for the Conservative Party – and for those in it – to do, is campaign for Britain's exit from the European Union."
Article also makes clear City of London leaders are panicking about latest draft showing them being signed up to the banking union's single rulebook and have sent an urgent delegation to Downing Street.
I see. So it is now the contention of Leavers that the only way that Conservatives can vote is Leave. Anything else will lead to the Conservative party splitting.
I can't see that line of argument causing any problems in the future.
No. That is view of 130 councillors what wrote to Cameron. They don't speak for all of us so I don't know why you phrase it as if they do.
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
That is not how I read it at all. As far as I can make out Nick is arguing that it is not in our best interests to be on our own, not that we could not be on our own. That's very different to saying we are a shit country and too small to survive. Mischaracterising people's arguments when we can all read them is not a winning strategy either.
He is absolutely saying that we couldn't survive on our own. The implication is that we are too shitty and small to go it alone. I think otherwise, of course, and I know you do as well, but Nick's position is very clear as is the position of most Europhiles, especially those on the left. On the right the argument is that having a seat at the big boys table is worth the compromise in terms of sovereignty, an argument I also disagree with. The left seems to have this strain of Britain bashing that you can't see.
Possibly because you've made it up.
Says the man who was just bashing Britain.
When was I doing that?
Your comment I replied to earlier "Britain is too small to prosper alone "
So is almost every other country. A list of those that can was supplied earlier (by S O Else). In your world if it ain't puffing it's bashing, apparently. Not much I can do about that.
What countries CAN exist and prosper on own then?
"The US, China, Germany and Japan - and possibly Russia, India and Brazil." Three Quidder, 9.10am.
I'd make Japan a possible, and note that Germany can do even better in the EU.
If Bernie Sanders gets Elizabeth Warren to stand with him as VPOTUS in waiting, it screws up the Clintons plans on so many levels. The main one, if that Sanders was to die in office then the US would have it's first woman president, without the Clintons baggage...
That's an interesting point. Traditionally the VP picks have been made after the nomination process concluded, but given tight races on both sides someone picking a Veep early May to their advantage - especially when as in your example they add something significant to the ticket.
Mr. Meeks, it's entirely legitimate to point out the 'deal' has both failed to achieve Cameron's own targets, and is worse than the status quo ante.
Mr. G, one feels your pain.
That's an entirely legitimate point of view. However, the woodentops' letter goes on to say:
"As they have not been met, the only responsible and honest thing for the Conservative Party – and for those in it – to do, is campaign for Britain's exit from the European Union."
So it appears they believe that any Conservative who campaigns for Remain is irresponsible and dishonest.
Fair play to Tory councillors holding Cameron to account. They make clear that, in top of not meeting Cameron's four goals, the renegotiation fails the last Tory manifesto in several areas.
"It made the specific commitment that "changes to welfare to cut EU migration will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation". That "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years. That "if an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid." And "To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave."
We are also mindful of the commitment to reduce migration to the UK to the "tens of thousands", and how reliant on a fundamental change to the principle of free movement of people within the EU this commitment is.
We do not feel these manifesto commitments alone were enough to represent a good deal for Britain in Europe, but given the clarity of the commitment they were at least the minimum outcome we could hope for in any renegotiation.
As they have not been met, the only responsible and honest thing for the Conservative Party – and for those in it – to do, is campaign for Britain's exit from the European Union."
Article also makes clear City of London leaders are panicking about latest draft showing them being signed up to the banking union's single rulebook and have sent an urgent delegation to Downing Street.
I see. So it is now the contention of Leavers that the only way that Conservatives can vote is Leave. Anything else will lead to the Conservative party splitting.
I can't see that line of argument causing any problems in the future.
No. That is view of 130 councillors what wrote to Cameron. They don't speak for all of us so I don't know why you phrase it as if they do.
They apparently speak for you since you said "Fair play to Tory councillors holding Cameron to account".
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
That is not how I read it at all. As far as I can make out Nick is arguing that it is not in our best interests to be on our own, not that we could not be on our own. That's very different to saying we are a shit country and too small to survive. Mischaracterising people's arguments when we can all read them is not a winning strategy either.
He is absolutely saying that we couldn't survive on our own. The implication is that we are too shitty and small to go it alone. I think otherwise, of course, and I know you do as well, but Nick's position is very clear as is the position of most Europhiles, especially those on the left. On the right the argument is that having a seat at the big boys table is worth the compromise in terms of sovereignty, an argument I also disagree with. The left seems to have this strain of Britain bashing that you can't see.
Possibly because you've made it up.
Says the man who was just bashing Britain.
When was I doing that?
Your comment I replied to earlier "Britain is too small to prosper alone "
So is almost every other country. A list of those that can was supplied earlier (by S O Else). In your world if it ain't puffing it's bashing, apparently. Not much I can do about that.
What countries CAN exist and prosper on own then?
"The US, China, Germany and Japan - and possibly Russia, India and Brazil." Three Quidder, 9.10am.
I'd make Japan a possible, and note that Germany can do even better in the EU.
So I guess current living standards in Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore count as "not prospering"??
Fair play to Tory councillors holding Cameron to account. They make clear that, in top of not meeting Cameron's four goals, the renegotiation fails the last Tory manifesto in several areas.
"It made the specific commitment that "changes to welfare to cut EU migration will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation". That "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years. That "if an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid." And "To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave."
We are also mindful of the commitment to reduce migration to the UK to the "tens of thousands", and how reliant on a fundamental change to the principle of free movement of people within the EU this commitment is.
We do not feel these manifesto commitments alone were enough to represent a good deal for Britain in Europe, but given the clarity of the commitment they were at least the minimum outcome we could hope for in any renegotiation.
As they have not been met, the only responsible and honest thing for the Conservative Party – and for those in it – to do, is campaign for Britain's exit from the European Union."
Article also makes clear City of London leaders are panicking about latest draft showing them being signed up to the banking union's single rulebook and have sent an urgent delegation to Downing Street.
I see. So it is now the contention of Leavers that the only way that Conservatives can vote is Leave. Anything else will lead to the Conservative party splitting.
I can't see that line of argument causing any problems in the future.
As someone who hasn't made his mind up yet, why do you feel the need to keep taking the individual view of a leaver and infer that all leavers agree?
Also, which leavers on here aren't 'nutters howling at the moon?' Yesterday you bunched together a load of Cameroons that want to leave (marquee mark, tgohf, Plato I think) being critical as 'commited leavers' which seems to be used as a derogatory term (obvs with the get out that it might not be)
Article also makes clear City of London leaders are panicking about latest draft showing them being signed up to the banking union's single rulebook and have sent an urgent delegation to Downing Street.
Not really. There's a throwaway comment at the end, unsourced.
I have been looking hard, and I haven't so far found a single paper, anywhere at all, from an independent City source suggesting that the deal is bad for the City. I don't mean journalists or politicians, but something by someone who is knowledgeable and independent, for example a financial analyst or a director of a major financial institution. There must be one somewhere, but I haven't found any.
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
Britain is too small to prosper alone - we might survive by managing decline - some would say we've been doing that for over a century now - but if you think that makes us "shit" you need to take a look at yourself. A long look.
Thanks to Nick for the article, very good - lacking only a Labour view of TTIP and its relation to the EU, alas.
Britain is certainly not too small to prosper alone. Of course we will not be the Empire of a century ago but in case you missed it no one wants to be. The idea we need to be tied to the EU to survive is simply ludicrous and is the last refuge of the Europhile scoundrel.
You're absolutely right of course. A lot of people seem confused about what kind of prosperity they want: does it mean wealth and a high standard of living for the population, or does it mean power and a seat at the table for politicians? Most rational citizens should only be concerned about the former.
I think where I have a problem with your position, Richard, is that after gaining independence from the EU the standard of our political debate won't go up, we won't miraculously have leaders with any more vision or boldness, and we'll still have the same historical hang-ups about our history as an Empire, perhaps even more so. What evidence is there we will be better led outside the EU?
Ed Miliband’s reaction to poor polls presented by pollster Stan Greenberg was “Why do you have to be so negative?”
He said that the Prime Minister had a very different approach to negative polls.
“Compare that with David Cameron’s reaction when presented with some really quite difficult polling in 2011 on the NHS. Cameron scribbled on the memo: ‘Give me the right language in speeches, and physically attack me - underlined - with the right words before an interview. I will do what I am told’.”
Prof Cowley said that some would see that remark as a sign of a shallow cynical politician. “For me it’s a sign of a pro,” he said.
“It’s a sign of someone prepared to listen to expert advice. And maybe it’s one of the reasons that he will be Prime Minister, by the time he leaves for something close to 10 years, and Ed Miliband won’t be.”
Well that's the implication by saying we wouldn't survive outside of the EU. I think that is why the Remain campaign is floundering so much, the message is being received in this way.
I'm sorry, but as others have pointed out you're misrepresenting me, and you've just done it again. Here's the article again.
Please point out anything in it that says or implies that (your first claim) "Britain is a shit country" or (your current claim) "Britain cannot survive outside the EU". You're making it up.
I think that if we left the EU and if they then moved to political union as e.g. Topping has suggested (a big if, but certainly a stated objective), our position would then be akin to Canada compared with the US. Canada is in no way not surviving, nor is there any interest in joining the USA. However, it's not really deniable that they are greatly affected by decisions made by their big neighbour, on which they have only modest influence. Does this mean they think they're shit, or are in danger of disappearing? Of course not. Does it mean that they are partly dependent on forces outside their control? Yes.
Which is of course exactly what is now happening inside the EU. France and Gernany and othwr Eurozone nations make a decision together, and we're forced to go along with it as they can pass it under QMV whether we like it or not. We saw that with Juncker's election. We saw that with Cameron's first renegotiation that you yourself accept as token. And we have just seen it with one of our most important sectors being signed up for the banking union's single rulebook against our wishes.
You say youre concerned " that we will bob along in the slipstream of decisions made by others " as you hypothesize that happen outside EU, but ignore it when it is already happening inside EU.
If it will happen in either case why are we having a referendum?
Oh, look - it's 1975 and the psychopathology of the governing Party's activists needs soothing
This is what I don't understand about many Leavers (and I might be one myself). On specific sectors they say we need to leave the EU because we don't have any influence. But that begs the question as to whether they think we would somehow have more influence outside? It's slightly barmy.
If I vote Leave it will be because I am against ever closer union (even with the opt-out enshrined in the Negotiating Text).
But I would fully expect to have land on my doorstep rules and regulations, into which I would have had limited if any input, about all kinds of things, that I know I would have to follow if I wanted to trade with the EU.
Fair play to Tory councillors holding Cameron to account. They make clear that, in top of not meeting Cameron's four goals, the renegotiation fails the last Tory manifesto in several areas.
"It made the specific commitment that "changes to welfare to cut EU migration will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation". That "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years. That "if an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid." And "To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave."
We are also mindful of the commitment to reduce migration to the UK to the "tens of thousands", and how reliant on a fundamental change to the principle of free movement of people within the EU this commitment is.
We do not feel these manifesto commitments alone were enough to represent a good deal for Britain in Europe, but given the clarity of the commitment they were at least the minimum outcome we could hope for in any renegotiation.
As they have not been met, the only responsible and honest thing for the Conservative Party – and for those in it – to do, is campaign for Britain's exit from the European Union."
Article also makes clear City of London leaders are panicking about latest draft showing them being signed up to the banking union's single rulebook and have sent an urgent delegation to Downing Street.
I see. So it is now the contention of Leavers that the only way that Conservatives can vote is Leave. Anything else will lead to the Conservative party splitting.
I can't see that line of argument causing any problems in the future.
No. That is view of 130 councillors what wrote to Cameron. They don't speak for all of us so I don't know why you phrase it as if they do.
They apparently speak for you since you said "Fair play to Tory councillors holding Cameron to account".
I was speaking on point of pointing out his renegotiation breached manifesto promises. Thought that was clear from what I said. You do seem to make an effort to try to tar all Leave supporters with same brush. I don't know why. Seems dishonest.
One other problem is that Clinton is wrapping up the votes in the Democratic Convention (which actually decides who is going to stand for the President) and if Sanders does win the country vote in the primaries it could lead to an ever so slight problem for the Democrats and the Clintons in particular. http://www.thisnation.com/question/021.html
Those unpledged delegates may start switching if it becomes clear that Hillary won't steamroller her way to the nomination and especially if Sanders wins most votes and most delegates out of the primaries and caucuses. Not that I think he can.
Well that's the implication by saying we wouldn't survive outside of the EU. I think that is why the Remain campaign is floundering so much, the message is being received in this way.
I'm sorry, but as others have pointed out you're misrepresenting me, and you've just done it again. Here's the article again.
the USA. However, it's not really deniable that they are greatly affected by decisions made by their big neighbour, on which they have only modest influence. Does this mean they think they're shit, or are in danger of disappearing? Of course not. Does it mean that they are partly dependent on forces outside their control? Yes.
Which is of course exactly what is now happening inside the EU. France and Gernany and othwr Eurozone nations make a decision together, and we're forced to go along with it as they can pass it under QMV whether we like it or not. We saw that with Juncker's election. We saw that with Cameron's first renegotiation that you yourself accept as token. And we have just seen it with one of our most important sectors being signed up for the banking union's single rulebook against our wishes.
You say youre concerned " that we will bob along in the slipstream of decisions made by others " as you hypothesize that happen outside EU, but ignore it when it is already happening inside EU.
If it will happen in either case why are we having a referendum?
Oh, look - it's 1975 and the psychopathology of the governing Party's activists needs soothing
This is what I don't understand about many Leavers (and I might be one myself). On specific sectors they say we need to leave the EU because we don't have any influence. But that begs the question as to whether they think we would somehow have more influence outside? It's slightly barmy.
If I vote Leave it will be because I am against ever closer union (even with the opt-out enshrined in the Negotiating Text).
But I would fully expect to have land on my doorstep rules and regulations, into which I would have had limited if any input, about all kinds of things, that I know I would have to follow if I wanted to trade with the EU.
Those rules would only apply to EU exports though, and only if we signed off on them as part of trade deal. Would not affect internal economy of exports to rest of world, as they do now.
Six Nations: idle musing, but there was just 8 points, total, between the various teams last time (France won by 2, England by 6, and Ireland/Wales drew). Can't remember another opening weekend so tight.
Was tempted to back Ireland to beat France (playing in Paris) but the odds are only evens.
Scotland are going to get smashed this weekend barring a Lazarous like transformation in our ability to play rugby.
The games were banal and boring. And oh so slow. Pathetic really.
What do we expect for the second division of the World Rugby Championship?
It really is time to integrate the Six Nations into the European Nations Cup and give places like Georgia the opportunity to compete for a place at the top table.
Those rules would only apply to EU exports though, and only if we signed off on them as part of trade deal. Would not affect internal economy of exports to rest of world, as they do now.
This is nonsense. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that we would adopt different rules for product type approval if we left the EU. And that's the case even if we didn't sign up to the EEA or something similar.
Ed Miliband’s reaction to poor polls presented by pollster Stan Greenberg was “Why do you have to be so negative?”
He said that the Prime Minister had a very different approach to negative polls.
“Compare that with David Cameron’s reaction when presented with some really quite difficult polling in 2011 on the NHS. Cameron scribbled on the memo: ‘Give me the right language in speeches, and physically attack me - underlined - with the right words before an interview. I will do what I am told’.”
Prof Cowley said that some would see that remark as a sign of a shallow cynical politician. “For me it’s a sign of a pro,” he said.
“It’s a sign of someone prepared to listen to expert advice. And maybe it’s one of the reasons that he will be Prime Minister, by the time he leaves for something close to 10 years, and Ed Miliband won’t be.”
One does wonder whether Ed learned a single thing at the feet of Gordon Brown. As far as I can see Brown lived in a perpetual state of 'we're going to lose, what can we do to not lose?'. I mean this in a good way.
As the Labour leadership contest reached its conclusion last August, Milne expected the Guardian to endorse Corbyn. But in a phone call 24 hours before declaring for Yvette Cooper, editor Kath Viner informed him that this was not the case. Milne, who agitated behind the scenes to help Viner succeed Alan Rusbridger and expected her to take the paper to the left, was said to have felt "very let down" by the move. After that slight, perhaps he feels that a chance to return to the safety of Guardian towers is the least he's owed.
I see. So it is now the contention of Leavers that the only way that Conservatives can vote is Leave. Anything else will lead to the Conservative party splitting.
I can't see that line of argument causing any problems in the future.
As someone who hasn't made his mind up yet, why do you feel the need to keep taking the individual view of a leaver and infer that all leavers agree?
Also, which leavers on here aren't 'nutters howling at the moon?' Yesterday you bunched together a load of Cameroons that want to leave (marquee mark, tgohf, Plato I think) being critical as 'commited leavers' which seems to be used as a derogatory term (obvs with the get out that it might not be)
Well, this was a view of 130 Leavers in a round-robin letter, written no doubt after careful drafting and with its signatories presumably in firm agreement. It's not the individual view of a Leaver.
I have no idea why others are quite so interested in my own take on the referendum. I'm just one voter who readily concedes that his views are wildly outside the mainstream of public opinion. A couple of years ago I put up my views on the EU at length and more or less got the response "you don't mean that really" , which means that I'm not particularly interested in going to that effort again right now, particularly as it's going to change the square root of f all.
There's an obvious plant on the Leave side on the site right now but I don't particularly feel the need to get into a slanging match about that. I have no intention of categorising posters. Pigeonholes are for pigeons.
The *victim* was 22, it says that following assessments the murderer is clearly an adult, but doesn't give a specific age for him.
Yes I know, I was multi-tasking and didn't read properly.
If I were a member of her family I would be asking asking how the hell she ended up in the situation in the first place though. I would expect an asylum centre filled with young men not to have young ladies working there in any capacity, given what we know about he behaviour of some of these immigrants.
Six Nations: idle musing, but there was just 8 points, total, between the various teams last time (France won by 2, England by 6, and Ireland/Wales drew). Can't remember another opening weekend so tight.
Was tempted to back Ireland to beat France (playing in Paris) but the odds are only evens.
Scotland are going to get smashed this weekend barring a Lazarous like transformation in our ability to play rugby.
The games were banal and boring. And oh so slow. Pathetic really.
What do we expect for the second division of the World Rugby Championship?
It really is time to integrate the Six Nations into the European Nations Cup and give places like Georgia the opportunity to compete for a place at the top table.
Argentina playing regularly against the big 3 southern hemisphere sides has pulled them up by their bootstraps.
Fair play to Tory councillors holding Cameron to account. They make clear that, in top of not meeting Cameron's four goals, the renegotiation fails the last Tory manifesto in several areas.
"It made the specific commitment that "changes to welfare to cut EU migration will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation". That "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years. That "if an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid." And "To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave."
We are also mindful of the commitment to reduce migration to the UK to the "tens of thousands", and how reliant on a fundamental change to the principle of free movement of people within the EU this commitment is.
We do not feel these manifesto commitments alone were enough to represent a good deal for Britain in Europe, but given the clarity of the commitment they were at least the minimum outcome we could hope for in any renegotiation.
As they have not been met, the only responsible and honest thing for the Conservative Party – and for those in it – to do, is campaign for Britain's exit from the European Union."
Article also makes clear City of London leaders are panicking about latest draft showing them being signed up to the banking union's single rulebook and have sent an urgent delegation to Downing Street.
I see. So it is now the contention of Leavers that the only way that Conservatives can vote is Leave. Anything else will lead to the Conservative party splitting.
I can't see that line of argument causing any problems in the future.
No. That is view of 130 councillors what wrote to Cameron. They don't speak for all of us so I don't know why you phrase it as if they do.
They apparently speak for you since you said "Fair play to Tory councillors holding Cameron to account".
I was speaking on point of pointing out his renegotiation breached manifesto promises. Thought that was clear from what I said. You do seem to make an effort to try to tar all Leave supporters with same brush. I don't know why. Seems dishonest.
Do remind me, how long ago was it that you were intending to vote for Remain?
perhaps he feels that a chance to return to the safety of Guardian towers is the least he's owed.
@BethRigby: "There's no way he can come back and write column after serving 4 Corbyn" > Guardian bosses want Seamus Milne to go https://t.co/uEbvW8rI3v
Well that's the implication by saying we wouldn't survive outside of the EU. I think that is why the Remain campaign is floundering so much, the message is being received in this way.
I'm sorry, but as others have pointed out you're misrepresenting me, and you've just done it again. Here's the article again.
Please point out anything in it that says or implies that (your first claim) "Britain is a shit country" or (your current claim) "Britain cannot survive outside the EU". You're making it up.
You say youre concerned " that we will bob along in the slipstream of decisions made by others " as you hypothesize that happen outside EU, but ignore it when it is already happening inside EU.
If it will happen in either case why are we having a referendum?
Oh, look - it's 1975 and the psychopathology of the governing Party's activists needs soothing
This is what I don't understand about many Leavers (and I might be one myself). On specific sectors they say we need to leave the EU because we don't have any influence. But that begs the question as to whether they think we would somehow have more influence outside? It's slightly barmy.
If I vote Leave it will be because I am against ever closer union (even with the opt-out enshrined in the Negotiating Text).
But I would fully expect to have land on my doorstep rules and regulations, into which I would have had limited if any input, about all kinds of things, that I know I would have to follow if I wanted to trade with the EU.
Good morning all. I do find it hard to follow the logic used.
Imagine that the Eurozone do fully integrate, lock stock and barrel. Let's call this entity 'Ruritania'. In what way is it different to, say, Russia or China or the USA in terms of trade or access to markets? Presumably it will still belong to the WTO, will still abide by International treaties and so on. What's so special about Ruritania's rules and regulations?
From our perspective it would probably better if they did unify completely. At present we're one moderately important voice amongst 28 (rising to 34 in the future). We can, and are consistently outvoted. Our interests and continental Europe's interests are (as RCS1000 has congently argued) different enough to make our relationships fractious.
That's de facto no influence in any way that matters, and is merely an exercise in frustration. I take the point that after Brexit we would have no influence on Ruritania, but I fail to see the substantive difference to the status quo.
Isn't Soubry a paid up member of the Europhile club?
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
Don't think I've suggested Britain is a shit country - quote? I just think that national bachelorhood is risky.
Yes, Soubry is as pro-EU as I am. She said in local debate that "I follow Ken Clarke in all things". We agree on plenty - she's socially liberal too, and indeed attacked me for being insufficiently early in welcoming gay marriage (I initially thought civil partnerships were a reasonable way forward, and saw the point about equal marriage later). Our differences are partly tribal - she is as instinctively Tory as I'm instinctively Labour - and partly temperamental: our personal styles are about as different as it's possible to be: she sees herself as in constant battle against enemies on all sides, while I basically don't see anyone as an enemy. She's more successful in her party than I was I mine, so that's not necessarily a comparison to my advantage!
Thought she was an SDPer rather than 'instinctively Tory'?
Apologies (1) if this has been highlighted on a previous thread, and (2) if this extract is too long: Peter Lilley in today's Telegraph
Given that Britain lost its powers in a series of salami slices, I accepted that we could only hope to get powers back bit by bit. I wanted the PM to start that process but knew it would be difficult. It would mean abrogating the doctrine that once a power has been transferred to the EU it can never return to a member state. That doctrine (not “ever closer union”) has driven the process of European integration and is held tenaciously by the European Commission. "Each new directive, regulation and Court ruling will leach power irrevocably from Britain to Europe" To reverse that ratchet required two things. First, create a precedent by getting some modest powers back. Sadly, the PM was unable to get back a single power previously conceded to the EU. Second, whenever the process of integrating the eurozone involves directives or treaty changes requiring our consent, use that leverage to insist on devolving more powers to the UK. Unfortunately, the draft agreement pledges that the UK “shall not impede the implementation of legal acts directly linked to the functioning of the euro area”. That would mean throwing away our trump cards.
Comments
"I’m in favour of immigration, we’ve benefited from immigration, but I think the pressures – particularly on our public services – have been very great.
“I think we should be focusing on the pressure on our public services – on health and education and housing.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12153296/Syria-ceasefire-agreed-civil-war-peace-talks-live.html
Fingers crossed.
ISIS and al Nusra (same as al-Qaeda?) not included.
It's about no 3482 in the reasons he is utterly unsuitable to run a whelk stall nevermind be PM.
The Windows 95 launch was dad dancing at its finest https://t.co/vuGBP1NpOE
Bill Gates Desert Island Discs was an interesting listen last week
I don't see how we benefit much or put limits on the Eurozone if outside the EU.
Anthony Clare is a great loss. In the psychiatrists chair was epic.
Didn't you know that the Tories and SNP are as one on austerity and not increasing taxes?
Us Tories, Tartan and otherwise are better together to coin a phrase.....
Nicola is in a pickle because the Smith commission talks have made abundantly clear for everyone just how a big a bung Scotland gets from the rest of the UK, and she is desperate to cling to that teat.
Tragic...
Pop quiz.
If becoming independent was going to cost £100-£120 million......why is only setting up a separate Welfare system going to cost £300 - £600 million?
http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/europe-decision-day-coming/
Please point out anything in it that says or implies that (your first claim) "Britain is a shit country" or (your current claim) "Britain cannot survive outside the EU". You're making it up.
I think that if we left the EU and if they then moved to political union as e.g. Topping has suggested (a big if, but certainly a stated objective), our position would then be akin to Canada compared with the US. Canada is in no way not surviving, nor is there any interest in joining the USA. However, it's not really deniable that they are greatly affected by decisions made by their big neighbour, on which they have only modest influence. Does this mean they think they're shit, or are in danger of disappearing? Of course not. Does it mean that they are partly dependent on forces outside their control? Yes.
I do not like Mr Palmer particularly or necessarily agree with him. But he is not saying the UK is shit. Its a pathetic accusation.
Putting it a bit simplistically I think the argument is we will decline relatively if 'on our own' and not be able to apply any leverage to our opinions. Its a fair argument. It may or may not be more right than wrong (it may be irrelevant), but it deserves a serious response not a sneering one.
You know I love you, but this is too much.
"It made the specific commitment that "changes to welfare to cut EU migration will be an absolute requirement in the renegotiation". That "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years. That "if an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid." And "To reduce the numbers of EU migrants coming to Britain, we will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave."
We are also mindful of the commitment to reduce migration to the UK to the "tens of thousands", and how reliant on a fundamental change to the principle of free movement of people within the EU this commitment is.
We do not feel these manifesto commitments alone were enough to represent a good deal for Britain in Europe, but given the clarity of the commitment they were at least the minimum outcome we could hope for in any renegotiation.
As they have not been met, the only responsible and honest thing for the Conservative Party – and for those in it – to do, is campaign for Britain's exit from the European Union."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12152973/david-cameron-tory-party-warning-eu-referendum.html
Article also makes clear City of London leaders are panicking about latest draft showing them being signed up to the banking union's single rulebook and have sent an urgent delegation to Downing Street.
Not putting up taxes and cutting council spending - the country of Adam Smith walks among us yet!
How reassuring to have a fiscally responsible and conservative Scottish Government....
I wonder if it is at least partly a question of definition - I think I'm right in saying that any sex, even if consensual in the everyday sense of the word, with an underage girl is classed as rape, which would skew the figures.
That wouldn't explain the under-10 figure, though. Can it really be right?
England have both Wales and Ireland at home in the 6 nations.
Wales have 3 home matches.
Italy and Scotland have both lost a match already
Wales are probably the best team but they're playing the 2nd best team? away from home so the fixtures maybe fall for England (Wales at home is a biggy (And Ireland))
Italy 50-1
Scotland 20-1
France 7-1
Ireland 3-1
Wales 9-4
England 9-4
Perhaps something like that ?
Prices not available btw, and I've not looked at the actual odds to try and keep the exercise neutral.
A very active imagination or hangs out with some very odd people.
Bit short maybe...
Have we improved that much since the world cup ?!
PS: they have numbchucks in this cartoon as well, wonder if the ugly buncn have a patent on it.
And women not reporting as they were drunk or didn't want their private lives trashed.
I'd be reluctant to complain unless serious/obvious violence was involved. Holy Moly indeed. If it is right, it is horrendous, but it doesn't sound very plausible to me.
I wonder if it is at least partly a question of definition - I think I'm right in saying that any sex, even if consensual in the everyday sense of the word, with an underage girl is classed as rape, which would skew the figures.
It wouldn't explain the under-10 figure, though. Can it really be right?
You say youre concerned " that we will bob along in the slipstream of decisions made by others " as you hypothesize that happen outside EU, but ignore it when it is already happening inside EU.
Mr. Pulpstar, in the rugby, you mean?
We are playing Italy. That said, they're at home and looked good against France (and would've won, if it hadn't been for incompetent refereeing).
You should always complain if you are compelled against consent. For good of other potential victims, rapists must be put away.
Oh, look - it's 1975 and the psychopathology of the governing Party's activists needs soothing
I can't see that line of argument causing any problems in the future.
"Now Junior, if old pencil neck goes anywhere near those whisky bottles, slap him back with this stick'
Thank goodness for all those important safeguards the PM has achieved for the City.
Mr. G, one feels your pain.
No thanks. I'm in favour of all rape witnesses and defendants having automatic anonymity.
It ruins lives. You should always complain if you are compelled against consent. For good of other potential victims, rapists must be put away.
The SNP are opposed to putting up taxes (hint, there's just been a vote)
The SNP have cut council spending (hint, they've just imposed a 'deal')
In your own time......
I'd make Japan a possible, and note that Germany can do even better in the EU.
"As they have not been met, the only responsible and honest thing for the Conservative Party – and for those in it – to do, is campaign for Britain's exit from the European Union."
So it appears they believe that any Conservative who campaigns for Remain is irresponsible and dishonest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/12/40-scottish-labour-mps-we_n_9216594.html?1455274241&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
Also, which leavers on here aren't 'nutters howling at the moon?' Yesterday you bunched together a load of Cameroons that want to leave (marquee mark, tgohf, Plato I think) being critical as 'commited leavers' which seems to be used as a derogatory term (obvs with the get out that it might not be)
I have been looking hard, and I haven't so far found a single paper, anywhere at all, from an independent City source suggesting that the deal is bad for the City. I don't mean journalists or politicians, but something by someone who is knowledgeable and independent, for example a financial analyst or a director of a major financial institution. There must be one somewhere, but I haven't found any.
I think where I have a problem with your position, Richard, is that after gaining independence from the EU the standard of our political debate won't go up, we won't miraculously have leaders with any more vision or boldness, and we'll still have the same historical hang-ups about our history as an Empire, perhaps even more so. What evidence is there we will be better led outside the EU?
The "child" is actually 22...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/12153428/Child-migrant-who-killed-asylum-centre-worker-is-an-adult-Swedish-migration-rules.html
He said that the Prime Minister had a very different approach to negative polls.
“Compare that with David Cameron’s reaction when presented with some really quite difficult polling in 2011 on the NHS. Cameron scribbled on the memo: ‘Give me the right language in speeches, and physically attack me - underlined - with the right words before an interview. I will do what I am told’.”
Prof Cowley said that some would see that remark as a sign of a shallow cynical politician. “For me it’s a sign of a pro,” he said.
“It’s a sign of someone prepared to listen to expert advice. And maybe it’s one of the reasons that he will be Prime Minister, by the time he leaves for something close to 10 years, and Ed Miliband won’t be.”
If I vote Leave it will be because I am against ever closer union (even with the opt-out enshrined in the Negotiating Text).
But I would fully expect to have land on my doorstep rules and regulations, into which I would have had limited if any input, about all kinds of things, that I know I would have to follow if I wanted to trade with the EU.
It really is time to integrate the Six Nations into the European Nations Cup and give places like Georgia the opportunity to compete for a place at the top table.
No Clegg
@FrancisUrquhart Indeed it does
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/02/seumas-milne-expected-guardian-endorse-jeremy-corbyn-and-felt-very-let-down
I have no idea why others are quite so interested in my own take on the referendum. I'm just one voter who readily concedes that his views are wildly outside the mainstream of public opinion. A couple of years ago I put up my views on the EU at length and more or less got the response "you don't mean that really" , which means that I'm not particularly interested in going to that effort again right now, particularly as it's going to change the square root of f all.
There's an obvious plant on the Leave side on the site right now but I don't particularly feel the need to get into a slanging match about that. I have no intention of categorising posters. Pigeonholes are for pigeons.
https://t.co/uEbvW8rI3v
Imagine that the Eurozone do fully integrate, lock stock and barrel. Let's call this entity 'Ruritania'. In what way is it different to, say, Russia or China or the USA in terms of trade or access to markets? Presumably it will still belong to the WTO, will still abide by International treaties and so on. What's so special about Ruritania's rules and regulations?
From our perspective it would probably better if they did unify completely. At present we're one moderately important voice amongst 28 (rising to 34 in the future). We can, and are consistently outvoted. Our interests and continental Europe's interests are (as RCS1000 has congently argued) different enough to make our relationships fractious.
That's de facto no influence in any way that matters, and is merely an exercise in frustration. I take the point that after Brexit we would have no influence on Ruritania, but I fail to see the substantive difference to the status quo.
Wales have three tests against NZ away in the summer. I bet Gatland would trade a six nations championship for just one of those tests.