A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02?
Edit: My €0.02
It is a confection to enable a settlement to be reached. The single rulebook, CRD IV, SSM, SRM, etc (not by any means bonkers per se but which contribute to the erosion of EZ nations' sovereignty) was designed to protect EZ member citizens from nation-specific risks, by pooling those risks and having pooled safeguards.
Like all EU directives, it is unambiguous in wanting ever closer political and economic union. If they are carving out "ever closer union" generally for us then they will perforce carve out this attempt, confected I believe for negotiating purposes, to include us in the single rulebook.
Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
We get that either way.
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
Surely as far as SC is concerned it’s the direction of travel of the vote shares. IIRC Sanders has been trailing Hillary by more than 21%, so with a few days to go, plus the effect of a positively newsworthy result in Nevada, he should get a lot closer
However, my understanding (such that it is), is that it is possible to do a codicil to existing treaties without requiring a full renegotiation and referendum. Are there any constitutional lawyers on here who can help?
Several are quoted in the CityAM article I linked earlier.
I can't see that site, bizarrely: is the plan to do a codicil to the existing treaties or to leave it as a 'letter'?
A letter:
EU judges have in any event stated that they will ignore international law where it conflicts with the EU Treaties. In 2008, the ECJ said that “the obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles” of the EU Treaties. This is particularly significant, since the case involved the ECJ refusing to uphold UN Security Council resolutions. Under international law, these have precedence over everything else.
The best the government will get will be a political, not a legal, agreement from the EU. As the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said in December, the UK will obtain “a political declaration because it’s impossible to change the treaty before the referendum”. The ECJ has previously said that such a political declaration “has no legal significance”.
Seems odd that (almost from the start) the Democrats have had a two horse race only.
It's a bit as though Gordon hadn't had an unopposed run but had been challenged by a rank outsider (Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps!). Essentially mainstream Democrats thought Clinton was unbeatable for the nomination (and perhaps she is), and didn't want the grief of standing against her with an apparently decent chance and getting blown away. Sanders, at his age and with his distinctive beliefs, had absolutely nothing to lose - even if he's defeated, he's forced her a bit to the left, partially rehabilitated the word "socialist" in the USA (the polling evidence is that it's now seen positively by many people, especially younger ones) and had a lot of fun.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
We get that either way.
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.
Has Donald Trump nuked it into the seabed already?
He has plenty of business interests in Scotland and his aircraft are based there , thank you very much. The only nukes we have are from London.
Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
We get that either way.
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
For someone who "couldn't care less what you think about me", you sure do bring this up unprompted rather a lot.
Perhaps you are a bit more sensitive than I thought.
Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
We get that either way.
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
only coarse unionists would come out with that kind of gutter talk. You expect them to come out with that , common ignorant oafs.
Sorry to hark back to the previous thread but Richard N there's not a cat in hell's chance that Hunt will get his way with the new contract without major disruption.
I'm sure half of the junior doctors are packing their bags as we speak.
48% was the figure not taking up junior doctor posts after completing the mandatory F2 year. So about half was correct before imposition. It will be worse this August.
Do you know what % quit the medical profession for good?
The number replying as "left the profession" was 0.3%.
"The remaining trainees had taken a non-service role such as anatomy demonstrator (5.5%), taken a locum appointment for training in the UK (0.5%), or had left the profession (0.3%)"
The rest of the 2015 numbers are:
Straight to speciality training: 52.0% Seeking employment as a doctor in the UK: 8.6%. Non-training (service) role in the UK: 9.2% Career break (travelling, charity I guess): 13.1% Appointment outside UK: 6% Seeking Appointment outside UK: 4.3% Speciality training outside UK: 0.4%
So it looks like we lost just over 10% for however long they stay overseas, and have just over 70% in employment or training or jobhunting in the UK, which will turn into 80% when the career-breakers return, and another 5%+ who are doing roles which are not formally clinical.
The survey should be good, as "The survey received 7168 responses from 7533 foundation doctors who were due to complete their foundation training in August 2015, a 95% response rate."
From my BMA-o-sceptic viewpoint, I think that reinforces the point that this is not an existential crisis and the BMA are massively overplaying their hand propaganda-wise, even if there is a valid point smoewhere underneath.
The straight to speciality training numbers have fallen from 71.6% in 2011, but that was the year of the fees Cleggasm, and I would need to see 10 years of numbers, *and* the details of how the make up of the NHS is changing (eg specialist nurses have far more scope now, especially in GP surgeries).
Seems odd that (almost from the start) the Democrats have had a two horse race only.
It's a bit as though Gordon hadn't had an unopposed run but had been challenged by a rank outsider (Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps!). Essentially mainstream Democrats thought Clinton was unbeatable for the nomination (and perhaps she is), and didn't want the grief of standing against her with an apparently decent chance and getting blown away. Sanders, at his age and with his distinctive beliefs, had absolutely nothing to lose - even if he's defeated, he's forced her a bit to the left, partially rehabilitated the word "socialist" in the USA (the polling evidence is that it's now seen positively by many people, especially younger ones) and had a lot of fun.
Gordon Brown vs Jeremy Corbyn would have been fun.
Seems odd that (almost from the start) the Democrats have had a two horse race only.
It's a bit as though Gordon hadn't had an unopposed run but had been challenged by a rank outsider (Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps!). Essentially mainstream Democrats thought Clinton was unbeatable for the nomination (and perhaps she is), and didn't want the grief of standing against her with an apparently decent chance and getting blown away. Sanders, at his age and with his distinctive beliefs, had absolutely nothing to lose - even if he's defeated, he's forced her a bit to the left, partially rehabilitated the word "socialist" in the USA (the polling evidence is that it's now seen positively by many people, especially younger ones) and had a lot of fun.
Brown was opposed by McDonnell and Meacher. In classic far-left fashion, without the support for one candidate, they tried to run two.
Even so, it's extraordinary that no mainstream saleable Democrat ran against Hillary. Did they not learn the lesson from 2008, when she was a stronger candidate than she is now? For that matter, did they not learn the lesson from 1992, when Bill ran what was perceived to be a suicide mission against an impregnable Bush in the aftermath of the Gulf War?
Any presidential hopeful in his or her forties or fifties will always find value in running a good campaign. Even if it fails on the top-line, it puts them in line both as running mate and as a contender in four or eight years' time.
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02?
Edit: My €0.02
It is a confection to enable a settlement to be reached. The single rulebook, CRD IV, SSM, SRM, etc (not by any means bonkers per se but which contribute to the erosion of EZ nations' sovereignty) was designed to protect EZ member citizens from nation-specific risks, by pooling those risks and having pooled safeguards.
Like all EU directives, it is unambiguous in wanting ever closer political and economic union. If they are carving out "ever closer union" generally for us then they will perforce carve out this attempt, confected I believe for negotiating purposes, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
We get that either way.
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
only coarse unionists would come out with that kind of gutter talk. You expect them to come out with that , common ignorant oafs.
There are reports Cameron will announce the EU ref date at a Cabinet meeting on Friday.
I'm unclear about the benefits proposal. It appears to be for new applications only, whilst 34k already here can continue to claim. I don't mind that much. However many seem unhappy about relative reductions and the attraction this may hold for other EU members.
I hope we get this uncertainty resolved in short order.
If Cameron loses on single rulebook, it will also show how the lines that were supposedly about ever closer opt out are meaningless. Without any new treaties, way will be clear for UK finance sector to have to follow whatever rules Eurozone sets to deal with Eurocrisis.
It's lining up to be a very significant betting weekend: we should get the referendum date, the declarers for Leave, and the South Carolina primary results.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
We get that either way.
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
For someone who "couldn't care less what you think about me", you sure do bring this up unprompted rather a lot.
Perhaps you are a bit more sensitive than I thought.
Twice, I think. Nipping a pompous reactionary on a quiet morning passes the time.
Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
We get that either way.
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
There are reports Cameron will announce the EU ref date at a Cabinet meeting on Friday.
I'm unclear about the benefits proposal. It appears to be for new applications only, whilst 34k already here can continue to claim. I don't mind that much. However many seem unhappy about relative reductions and the attraction this may hold for other EU members.
I hope we get this uncertainty resolved in short order.
If Cameron loses on single rulebook, it will also show how the lines that were supposedly about ever closer opt out are meaningless. Without any new treaties, way will be clear for UK finance sector to have to follow whatever rules Eurozone sets to deal with Eurocrisis.
It's lining up to be a very significant betting weekend: we should get the referendum date, the declarers for Leave, and the South Carolina primary results.
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02?
Edit: My €0.02
It is a confection to enable a settlement to be reached. The single rulebook, CRD IV, SSM, SRM, etc (not by any means bonkers per se but which contribute to the erosion of EZ nations' sovereignty) was designed to protect EZ member citizens from nation-specific risks, by pooling those risks and having pooled safeguards.
Like all EU directives, it is unambiguous in wanting ever closer political and economic union. If they are carving out "ever closer union" generally for us then they will perforce carve out this attempt, confected I believe for negotiating purposes, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
We'll of course have to wait and see but I can't see it happening.
There are reports Cameron will announce the EU ref date at a Cabinet meeting on Friday.
I'm unclear about the benefits proposal. It appears to be for new applications only, whilst 34k already here can continue to claim. I don't mind that much. However many seem unhappy about relative reductions and the attraction this may hold for other EU members.
I hope we get this uncertainty resolved in short order.
If Cameron loses on single rulebook, it will also show how the lines that were supposedly about ever closer opt out are meaningless. Without any new treaties, way will be clear for UK finance sector to have to follow whatever rules Eurozone sets to deal with Eurocrisis.
It's lining up to be a very significant betting weekend: we should get the referendum date, the declarers for Leave, and the South Carolina primary results.
You'll get the GOP primary results; you'll get the Democrat Nevada caucus results. Both significant though.
There is a decent chance we won't get a referendum date. The deal still has to be done in the EU. We'll only get the date if the rest agree. Cameron must be desperate for it though as the pressure that will build, both within the EU and within his party, if he doesn't will be immense.
On the basis that PB has had countless, convoluted spasms about various bucks stopping with the SNP government, I look forward to an in-depth discussion on government responsibility in this case.
'Social services cuts could be 'largest factor' in biggest annual rise in deaths for almost 50 years'
O/T Interesting survey question on You Gov this morning. Which of the following would you rather have named after you? A mountain A theory A grandchild
Mr. Die, quite. It's a massive surrender of sovereignty and our ability to govern ourselves.
I still think Remain will win. But I bloody hope not. Cameron's deal is far worse than the status quo would've been.
How is it worse than status quo - Ultimately it will be a case of being in favour of the EU even with its many flaws or to leave with a very uncertain knowledge of whether anything will be better than staying in
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot. I do not know anything about him other than he is fixated like you on his hatred of the SNP and Scotland in general , and seems to spend an awful lot of his time twittering on about it. People in tax exile seem to have feverous imaginations, you are obsessed with a second referendum and for some bizarre reason ask me about it. Seek help.
Mr. NorthWales, if you don't think the UK being obliged to follow rules passed by the eurozone, for the eurozone is worse than the status quo then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you
Mr. Pubgoer, maybe a mountain.
Mount Morris sounds like a fun diversion, doesn't it?
O/T Interesting survey question on You Gov this morning. Which of the following would you rather have named after you? A mountain A theory A grandchild
I chose theory.
They should have included an 'ism', though I guess that could cross over with 'theory'.
O/T Interesting survey question on You Gov this morning. Which of the following would you rather have named after you? A mountain A theory A grandchild
I chose theory.
Should we now refer to you as Mr "Hairy Ball" or Mr "Tachyonic Antitelephone" from now on?
Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
We get that either way.
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
For someone who "couldn't care less what you think about me", you sure do bring this up unprompted rather a lot.
Perhaps you are a bit more sensitive than I thought.
Twice, I think. Nipping a pompous reactionary on a quiet morning passes the time.
What is on today, the loons are extremely touchy this morning , maybe Dave has another deal agreed with EU to be promoted.
On the basis that PB has had countless, convoluted spasms about various bucks stopping with the SNP government, I look forward to an in-depth discussion on government responsibility in this case.
'Social services cuts could be 'largest factor' in biggest annual rise in deaths for almost 50 years'
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot. I do not know anything about him other than he is fixated like you on his hatred of the SNP and Scotland in general , and seems to spend an awful lot of his time twittering on about it. People in tax exile seem to have feverous imaginations, you are obsessed with a second referendum and for some bizarre reason ask me about it. Seek help.
Someone's been on the hooch a bit early.
Why not email him direct Malky, with your concerns -
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02? poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that. (Not sure why it hasn't gone up already).
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
On the basis that PB has had countless, convoluted spasms about various bucks stopping with the SNP government, I look forward to an in-depth discussion on government responsibility in this case.
'Social services cuts could be 'largest factor' in biggest annual rise in deaths for almost 50 years'
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot. I do not know anything about him other than he is fixated like you on his hatred of the SNP and Scotland in general , and seems to spend an awful lot of his time twittering on about it. People in tax exile seem to have feverous imaginations, you are obsessed with a second referendum and for some bizarre reason ask me about it. Seek help.
Someone's been on the hooch a bit early.
Why not email him direct Malky, with your concerns -
One pony trick turns up with his usual intelligent addition to the topic. Why would I be interested in some loony unionist and his pathetic twitterings you cretin, other than fact that some other loon used them as being "real".
PS: Is Tuesday not JSA day , thought you would be out buying sweeties by now.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
The bully down the ages.
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.
Last night's Comres already had the Tory vote favouring leave.
A summer of migration plus a poor deal will only see further drift in that direction.
I believe we are generally a sceptical nation who are very distrustful of politicians so unless Cameron has a watertight deal that is a resounding success, we will do the job for him at the ballot box and tell the EU where to go.
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02? poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
Cameron's tragedy was losing the LibDems. They were the fig leaf behind which he could hide his minute manhood. Now all is exposed to public ridicule.
There are reports Cameron will announce the EU ref date at a Cabinet meeting on Friday.
I'm unclear about the benefits proposal. It appears to be for new applications only, whilst 34k already here can continue to claim. I don't mind that much. However many seem unhappy about relative reductions and the attraction this may hold for other EU members.
I hope we get this uncertainty resolved in short order.
If Cameron loses on single rulebook, it will also show how the lines that were supposedly about ever closer opt out are meaningless. Without any new treaties, way will be clear for UK finance sector to have to follow whatever rules Eurozone sets to deal with Eurocrisis.
It's lining up to be a very significant betting weekend: we should get the referendum date, the declarers for Leave, and the South Carolina primary results.
You'll get the GOP primary results; you'll get the Democrat Nevada caucus results. Both significant though.
There is a decent chance we won't get a referendum date. The deal still has to be done in the EU. We'll only get the date if the rest agree. Cameron must be desperate for it though as the pressure that will build, both within the EU and within his party, if he doesn't will be immense.
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02? poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that. (Not sure why it hasn't gone up already).
There's no great option, but I think his best bet is to collapse the deal. It will look tough-on-Brussels, which Britons always like. He can then show the polls to Merkel and Hollande and say, Give me more or the UK will quit. Aim for a referendum next Spring.
It's fraught with danger but so is pressing ahead now, when all the trends say he's losing.
I suspect that's the least worst option - either that or a mahoosive (genuine) 'rabbit out of the hat' - but by now he should be aware that it'll be put under a scanning electron microscope.....
Sanders gets given the money by ordinary people, he then spends it for them. Bush/Clinton get given money by lobbyists & special interests, they then spend it. Trump spends his own money. The rest run out of money.
Everyone giving the money hopes to benefit in the long run. Whoever is giving money to Jeb! is probably not going to benefit.
Mr. Die, quite. It's a massive surrender of sovereignty and our ability to govern ourselves.
I still think Remain will win. But I bloody hope not. Cameron's deal is far worse than the status quo would've been.
Ignoring the first and third sentences, I agree, although with the utter pigs ear that Cameron is making of the situation I’m beginning to fear that Leave might win. I shan’t emigrate if we do leave, but I strongly suspect that life might become more difficult for me and mine.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that. (Not sure why it hasn't gone up already).
There's no great option, but I think his best bet is to collapse the deal. It will look tough-on-Brussels, which Britons always like. He can then show the polls to Merkel and Hollande and say, Give me more or the UK will quit. Aim for a referendum next Spring.
It's fraught with danger but so is pressing ahead now, when all the trends say he's losing.
True, but I'm not sure there is a workable solution. The Oliver Twist option, brought out at the first sitting goes completely against EU culture and with the migration crisis also on the agenda (literally), would likely provoke a very hostile response from the other leaders. That's fine for domestic consumption but takes him further away from getting a deal he can sell.
There is another European Council in March but that's likely to be dominated by migration (Tusk has said the EU has two months to get to grips with the problem, which I read as diplomatic-speak for 'we don't need to sort it in February'), so the earliest scheduled meeting would then be June. Unless there's an extraordinary meeting in, say, April, then a summer referendum goes out of the window. That is your Option 1, but keeping the Tory cabinet and backbenches on side will be extremely tricky. Yes, he will look tough, which they'll like, but he's also ratcheting up expectations for when a deal is done. If a deal can be done after withdrawing what's on the table now.
If I had to guess, I think he'll go with '3' and trust to his star.
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02? poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that. (Not sure why it hasn't gone up already).
There's no great option, but I think his best bet is to collapse the deal. It will look tough-on-Brussels, which Britons always like. He can then show the polls to Merkel and Hollande and say, Give me more or the UK will quit. Aim for a referendum next Spring.
It's fraught with danger but so is pressing ahead now, when all the trends say he's losing.
I suspect that's the least worst option - either that or a mahoosive (genuine) 'rabbit out of the hat' - but by now he should be aware that it'll be put under a scanning electron microscope.....
There surely is un grand lapin about to be produced... Cameron and his team are canny operators and this deliberate fail only to be rescued by a spectacular finale would be the shrewd move
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
The bully down the ages.
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
The bully down the ages.
Malcolmg is a bit of a dick but, I must confess, I quite like him: he is quite funny and has made me chuckle out loud more than once with his comedy insults. I don't take it too seriously and view it as fairly harmless.
There are OTOH other nat posters who are totally joyless.
@tarapalmeri 42s42 seconds ago Brussels, Belgium .@MartinSchulz: EP can give "no guarantee" that they will pass UK's migration reforms after referendum #UKinEU #brexit
It's falling apart. Cameron is in deep shit.
But credit to Hollande. He might be able to use the renegotiation to do what Napoleon failed to do with the continental system: bring the City of London to heel.
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02?
Edit: My €0.02
It is a confection to enable a settlement to be reached. The single rulebook, CRD IV, SSM, SRM, etc (not by any means bonkers per se but which contribute to the erosion of EZ nations' sovereignty) was designed to protect EZ member citizens from nation-specific risks, by pooling those risks and having pooled safeguards.
Like all EU directives, it is unambiguous in wanting ever closer political and economic union. If they are carving out "ever closer union" generally for us then they will perforce carve out this attempt, confected I believe for negotiating purposes, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
We'll of course have to wait and see but I can't see it happening.
They already did it with the BRRD, it is an EMU solution that has been applied to the whole EU so as not to create safe-havens for cash within the EU. The UK has no need for the BRRD, we are well capitalised and the BoE can backstop any bank which hits the buffers without putting unsecured depositors at risk. Under the BRRD the government and BoE would be prevented from bailing out any UK bank which goes bankrupt before unsecured depositors are given a massive haircut. So it's not a case of wait and see because it has already happened. There is no way the EU will allow the City to escape from new regulations which are for EMU nations.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
The bully down the ages.
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
The bully down the ages.
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that. (Not sure why it hasn't gone up already).
There's no great option, but I think his best bet is to collapse the deal. It will look tough-on-Brussels, which Britons always like. He can then show the polls to Merkel and Hollande and say, Give me more or the UK will quit. Aim for a referendum next Spring.
It's fraught with danger but so is pressing ahead now, when all the trends say he's losing.
True, but I'm not sure there is a workable solution. The Oliver Twist option, brought out at the first sitting goes completely against EU culture and with the migration crisis also on the agenda (literally), would likely provoke a very hostile response from the other leaders. That's fine for domestic consumption but takes him further away from getting a deal he can sell.
There is another European Council in March but that's likely to be dominated by migration (Tusk has said the EU has two months to get to grips with the problem, which I read as diplomatic-speak for 'we don't need to sort it in February'), so the earliest scheduled meeting would then be June. Unless there's an extraordinary meeting in, say, April, then a summer referendum goes out of the window. That is your Option 1, but keeping the Tory cabinet and backbenches on side will be extremely tricky. Yes, he will look tough, which they'll like, but he's also ratcheting up expectations for when a deal is done. If a deal can be done after withdrawing what's on the table now.
If I had to guess, I think he'll go with '3' and trust to his star.
Dame Fortune has a nasty habit of turning her face away at a crucial moment.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
The bully down the ages.
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.
Retract your libel
GET A LIFE
I have one thank you.
It doesn't require either SHOUTING or libelling people....
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
The bully down the ages.
Malcolmg is a bit of a dick but, I must confess, I quite like him: he is quite funny and has made me chuckle out loud more than once with his comedy insults. I don't take it too seriously and view it as fairly harmless.
There are OTOH other nat posters who are totally joyless.
Thank you Casino , like you I have a life and only a few saddo's on here cannot tell the difference between real life and the internet. I am pretty sure we could enjoy a pint together and have a perfectly intelligent discussion. Same could not be said of a few of the embittered fanatics on here.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
The bully down the ages.
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.
Retract your libel
GET A LIFE
I have one thank you.
It doesn't require either SHOUTING or libelling people....
MODS can you get this loony to stop stalking me, getting scary now.
@tarapalmeri 42s42 seconds ago Brussels, Belgium .@MartinSchulz: EP can give "no guarantee" that they will pass UK's migration reforms after referendum #UKinEU #brexit
It's falling apart. Cameron is in deep shit.
How mental would it be to call the Referendum for June after Friday's Cabinet meeting - only for the EP to then say "Nah....."??? Surely Cameron can't call any referendum before the EP has given its blessing - or otherwise. And what happens when the EP's list of their own demands for approving gets put forward?
Deep, deep shit. But Cameron has chosen to take the lid off the septic tank and jump in feet first...
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02? poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
I think 3 is the only real option for him. He's used to electoral gambles and is probably more sanguine about the possibility of losing than people think.
And he hasn't lost yet. I think his approach will be: finalise the deal, call the vote, get a grip on the campaign and win. And if he loses - well, he's had a better run than any Tory for a generation.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
The bully down the ages.
Malcolmg is a bit of a dick but, I must confess, I quite like him: he is quite funny and has made me chuckle out loud more than once with his comedy insults. I don't take it too seriously and view it as fairly harmless.
There are OTOH other nat posters who are totally joyless.
Thank you Casino , like you I have a life and only a few saddo's on here cannot tell the difference between real life and the internet. I am pretty sure we could enjoy a pint together and have a perfectly intelligent discussion. Same could not be said of a few of the embittered fanatics on here.
Quite right. I look forward to that pint together!
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
Parliament and ot applies to us.
Like all EU directives, it is unambiguous in wanting ever closer political and economic union. If they are carving out "ever closer union" generally for us then they will perforce carve out this attempt, confected I believe for negotiating purposes, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
We'll of course have to wait and see but I can't see it happening.
They already did it with the BRRD, it is an EMU solution that has been applied to the whole EU so as not to create safe-havens for cash within the EU. The UK has no need for the BRRD, we are well capitalised and the BoE can backstop any bank which hits the buffers without putting unsecured depositors at risk. Under the BRRD the government and BoE would be prevented from bailing out any UK bank which goes bankrupt before unsecured depositors are given a massive haircut. So it's not a case of wait and see because it has already happened. There is no way the EU will allow the City to escape from new regulations which are for EMU nations.
You can easily see how UK could be hurt by single rulebook in similar fashion. Imagine UK continues to churn along nicely, while our banks have healthy loanbooks, but the Eurozone is still racked with volatility and latest Greek tremors cause their banking system to be in question. The Eurozone puts up capital limits to increase confidence in banking sector, with forced bail-ins if necessary. UK doesn't need to as its healthy, but France doesn't like our banks getting unfair advantage and demands we have to raise limits too, hitting UK growth. As rest of Eurozone is doing it, they back up France and we have to do as we're told.
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02? poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
The bully down the ages.
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.
Retract your libel
GET A LIFE
I have one thank you.
It doesn't require either SHOUTING or libelling people....
MODS can you get this loony to stop stalking me, getting scary now.
Last refuge of a scoundrel... Go cry to the mods, if you post a load of SNP nonsense, expect to be challenged on it.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.
Seems odd that (almost from the start) the Democrats have had a two horse race only.
It's a bit as though Gordon hadn't had an unopposed run but had been challenged by a rank outsider (Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps!). Essentially mainstream Democrats thought Clinton was unbeatable for the nomination (and perhaps she is), and didn't want the grief of standing against her with an apparently decent chance and getting blown away. Sanders, at his age and with his distinctive beliefs, had absolutely nothing to lose - even if he's defeated, he's forced her a bit to the left, partially rehabilitated the word "socialist" in the USA (the polling evidence is that it's now seen positively by many people, especially younger ones) and had a lot of fun.
So many people in politics are very small c conservative. As you say like Gordo not being challenged points to widespread evidence of that in the Labour party. Sanders in challenging the HRC machine - when her position is as at least as dominant as Gordon's was is a welcome break from that... she could have easily run uncontested. Trump on the republican side. Well, from skipping a debate to burning a bonfire, and slaying sacred republican cows (He pretty much sounded like Michael Moore at some points in the REP debate)... those are NOT moves any political strategist would recommend. His campaign is full of huge risks and goes against all logic currently of a front runner playing it safe.
Kudos to both Trump and Sanders for livening up the races.
I do wonder if Yes types might see this as an opportunity to create a real possibility of a second vote on membership of the UK. Be interesting to see if that's the case.
Wales, surprisingly, might vote to Leave, but they're only 3% or so of the population. I think Scotland's about 8-9%. London's likely to be Remain, which must be (total city) about 12% or so.
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02? poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that.
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02? poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that.
People are selling up and fleeing Sturgeon's hell. Why is that good news for Scotland ?
You do realise a 'sale' means that someone has bought the sold-up house? I'm sure the influx of junior doctors will find the choice of housing most congenial.
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02? poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
I think 3 is the only real option for him. He's used to electoral gambles and is probably more sanguine about the possibility of losing than people think.
And he hasn't lost yet. I think his approach will be: finalise the deal, call the vote, get a grip on the campaign and win. And if he loses - well, he's had a better run than any Tory for a generation.
Didn't Cameron say that he would recommend 'LEAVE' if he couldn't get a deal?
I do wonder if Yes types might see this as an opportunity to create a real possibility of a second vote on membership of the UK. Be interesting to see if that's the case.
Wales, surprisingly, might vote to Leave, but they're only 3% or so of the population. I think Scotland's about 8-9%. London's likely to be Remain, which must be (total city) about 12% or so.
The ABs, graduates and students, London and the south-east are the core constituencies for Remain. Basically, those who do well economically out of the status quo. Scotland and Irish nationalists tend the same way for identity reasons.
I don't know if the rest of the UK will be enough to tip it. Depends who turns out.
France 2016. "many children too, are living in miserable conditions in shanty towns resembling some of the worst parts of the Nairobi slums I visited last year"
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02? poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that.
The way the dynamics of the campaign are going, there can be only one outcome: to add another instance to history whereby a former elite is left scratching its collective head and wondering ‘how did that happen?’. Maybe they could schedule the question for a future meeting.
A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.
My$0.02? poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum 2. Campaign for OUT 3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that.
Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.
Retract your libel
GET A LIFE
I have one thank you.
MODS can you get this loony to stop stalking me, getting scary now.
Last refuge of a scoundrel... Go cry to the mods, if you post a load of SNP nonsense, expect to be challenged on it.
The pitchfork mob are out , this dummy does not even understand that the blog is to discuss politics , how dense can one get.
Comments
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/corbyn-opposing-camerons-emergency-brake-eu-benefits-political-suicide-labour-1543961
Edit: My €0.02
It is a confection to enable a settlement to be reached. The single rulebook, CRD IV, SSM, SRM, etc (not by any means bonkers per se but which contribute to the erosion of EZ nations' sovereignty) was designed to protect EZ member citizens from nation-specific risks, by pooling those risks and having pooled safeguards.
Like all EU directives, it is unambiguous in wanting ever closer political and economic union. If they are carving out "ever closer union" generally for us then they will perforce carve out this attempt, confected I believe for negotiating purposes, to include us in the single rulebook.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
https://twitter.com/RichardLochhead/status/699513494484475904
£20 billion? Should just about cover the NHS short-fall over next few years.
We've had one poll - a tie. I suspect Clinton will come through in the end, but having backed her at 1.4s I am rattled.
Perhaps you are a bit more sensitive than I thought.
"The remaining trainees had taken a non-service role such as anatomy demonstrator (5.5%), taken a locum appointment for training in the UK (0.5%), or had left the profession (0.3%)"
The rest of the 2015 numbers are:
Straight to speciality training: 52.0%
Seeking employment as a doctor in the UK: 8.6%.
Non-training (service) role in the UK: 9.2%
Career break (travelling, charity I guess): 13.1%
Appointment outside UK: 6%
Seeking Appointment outside UK: 4.3%
Speciality training outside UK: 0.4%
So it looks like we lost just over 10% for however long they stay overseas, and have just over 70% in employment or training or jobhunting in the UK, which will turn into 80% when the career-breakers return, and another 5%+ who are doing roles which are not formally clinical.
The survey should be good, as "The survey received 7168 responses from 7533 foundation doctors who were due to complete their foundation training in August 2015, a 95% response rate."
From my BMA-o-sceptic viewpoint, I think that reinforces the point that this is not an existential crisis and the BMA are massively overplaying their hand propaganda-wise, even if there is a valid point smoewhere underneath.
The straight to speciality training numbers have fallen from 71.6% in 2011, but that was the year of the fees Cleggasm, and I would need to see 10 years of numbers, *and* the details of how the make up of the NHS is changing (eg specialist nurses have far more scope now, especially in GP surgeries).
http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/Nearly_half_of_trainees_chose_not_to_progress_straight_to_specialty_training_in_2015
Ooops...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-35584909
Even so, it's extraordinary that no mainstream saleable Democrat ran against Hillary. Did they not learn the lesson from 2008, when she was a stronger candidate than she is now? For that matter, did they not learn the lesson from 1992, when Bill ran what was perceived to be a suicide mission against an impregnable Bush in the aftermath of the Gulf War?
Any presidential hopeful in his or her forties or fifties will always find value in running a good campaign. Even if it fails on the top-line, it puts them in line both as running mate and as a contender in four or eight years' time.
Malky does irony. How sweet.
Well at least EU politics changed a bit! ON THIS DAY IN 1568: death sentence passed on entire Netherlands for heresy by Spanish Inquisition.
I still think Remain will win. But I bloody hope not. Cameron's deal is far worse than the status quo would've been.
Nipping a pompous reactionary on a quiet morning passes the time.
There is a decent chance we won't get a referendum date. The deal still has to be done in the EU. We'll only get the date if the rest agree. Cameron must be desperate for it though as the pressure that will build, both within the EU and within his party, if he doesn't will be immense.
'Social services cuts could be 'largest factor' in biggest annual rise in deaths for almost 50 years'
http://tinyurl.com/jfa3cdd
Which of the following would you rather have named after you?
A mountain
A theory
A grandchild
I chose theory.
Our PM is begging 27 other countries to allow us to decide how much money we give to visitors.
I defy anybody to tell me that is a good thing.
People in tax exile seem to have feverous imaginations, you are obsessed with a second referendum and for some bizarre reason ask me about it. Seek help.
Mr. Pubgoer, maybe a mountain.
Mount Morris sounds like a fun diversion, doesn't it?
*U.K. JAN. CORE INFLATION RATE SLOWS TO 1.2%; EST. 1.3%
http://www.livescience.com/33628-funny-physics-theorems-names.html
The 74 year old Vermont socialist is currently out spending Clinton
Why not email him direct Malky, with your concerns -
https://www.linkedin.com/in/khague
The bully down the ages.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the British Labour party: Putin, Assad and Hezbollah abroad. Pedophilia at home.
https://t.co/1JRRN9Q0YN
Only question is how to resolve the problems.
Why would I be interested in some loony unionist and his pathetic twitterings you cretin, other than fact that some other loon used them as being "real".
PS: Is Tuesday not JSA day , thought you would be out buying sweeties by now.
A summer of migration plus a poor deal will only see further drift in that direction.
I believe we are generally a sceptical nation who are very distrustful of politicians so unless Cameron has a watertight deal that is a resounding success, we will do the job for him at the ballot box and tell the EU where to go.
Bush/Clinton get given money by lobbyists & special interests, they then spend it.
Trump spends his own money.
The rest run out of money.
Everyone giving the money hopes to benefit in the long run.
Whoever is giving money to Jeb! is probably not going to benefit.
(and terrible for Scotland obvs)
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/699529522845261824
There is another European Council in March but that's likely to be dominated by migration (Tusk has said the EU has two months to get to grips with the problem, which I read as diplomatic-speak for 'we don't need to sort it in February'), so the earliest scheduled meeting would then be June. Unless there's an extraordinary meeting in, say, April, then a summer referendum goes out of the window. That is your Option 1, but keeping the Tory cabinet and backbenches on side will be extremely tricky. Yes, he will look tough, which they'll like, but he's also ratcheting up expectations for when a deal is done. If a deal can be done after withdrawing what's on the table now.
If I had to guess, I think he'll go with '3' and trust to his star.
Why might that be?
There are OTOH other nat posters who are totally joyless.
SCOTLAND'S new property tax could spark a housing market crash by squeezing sales of luxury homes, leading estate agents have warned.
Property experts said the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax could dramatically reduce sales of homes worth more than £500,000.
They warned the whole housing market could stagnate as a result - halving the expected revenue from the new tax.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13199068.Swinney_s_new_property_tax_could_cause_housing_market_crash__estate_agents_warn/
It doesn't require either SHOUTING or libelling people....
Hannibal just had rubbish luck, practically from Saguntum until his death, but he never suffered sudden mortal woe until he chose his own demise.
I do hope we Leave.
Deep, deep shit. But Cameron has chosen to take the lid off the septic tank and jump in feet first...
Luckily the likes of the BBC don't seem very interested in Sadiq's friends and acquaintances.
And he hasn't lost yet. I think his approach will be: finalise the deal, call the vote, get a grip on the campaign and win. And if he loses - well, he's had a better run than any Tory for a generation.
'Scottish house sales high seven-year high'
http://tinyurl.com/jqe8558
'Registers of Scotland reports surge in house sales'
http://tinyurl.com/gsrorrx
Edit - and here it is:
http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/456831/david-cameron-is-entering-last-chance-saloon-territory-with-eu-leaders.thtml
Sanders in challenging the HRC machine - when her position is as at least as dominant as Gordon's was is a welcome break from that... she could have easily run uncontested.
Trump on the republican side. Well, from skipping a debate to burning a bonfire, and slaying sacred republican cows (He pretty much sounded like Michael Moore at some points in the REP debate)... those are NOT moves any political strategist would recommend. His campaign is full of huge risks and goes against all logic currently of a front runner playing it safe.
Kudos to both Trump and Sanders for livening up the races.
Wales, surprisingly, might vote to Leave, but they're only 3% or so of the population. I think Scotland's about 8-9%. London's likely to be Remain, which must be (total city) about 12% or so.
Of course, differential population growth may also be a factor....why don't more people want to live in the SNP Nirvana than Tory Hell?
What would it take, if anything, for you to vote Leave, David?
I don't know if the rest of the UK will be enough to tip it. Depends who turns out.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/britain-must-once-again-become-a-great-humanitarian-nation-49445.html
France 2016. "many children too, are living in miserable conditions in shanty towns resembling some of the worst parts of the Nairobi slums I visited last year"
The way the dynamics of the campaign are going, there can be only one outcome: to add another instance to history whereby a former elite is left scratching its collective head and wondering ‘how did that happen?’. Maybe they could schedule the question for a future meeting.
Given the prices I wonder how many were distressed sales?