I'm involved (only slightly) in a property investment which has gone sour. Borrower took out a commercial first charge bridging loan, then stopped paying. We went to court to enforce possession, and the guy turns round and claims he was living there, and hence it's a regulated mortgage. Judge says he has an arguable case, possession denied, and the matter must go to trial. I haven't seen the pleadings.
Doing my own research, I find... www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PERG/4/4.html "PERG 4.4.1 06/04/2007
Article 61(3)(a) of the Regulated Activities Order defines a regulated mortgage contract as a contract which, at the time it is entered into, satisfies the following conditions: ... (3) at least 40% of that land is used, or is intended to be used, as or in connection with a dwelling by the borrower (or, where trustees are the borrower, by an individual who is a beneficiary of the trust) or by a related person."
What steps would competent legal advisors normally take to ensure that the documentary evidence would show a watertight negative to all those clauses highlighted above? If there was watertight documentation then presumably the borrower would have no case, and their "defence" could have been struck out?
Does this sound like negligence by our broker's legal bods when drawing up the deal? Or can anyone just put up this defence when in a corner?
The point of David Cameron is that he doesn’t believe in anything very much. In this respect he is ideally suited to be Prime Minister of this country because, on the whole, the British people do not believe in anything very much either. They crave a measure of reassurance and certainty and would like their government to be as unobtrusive as it can be. Modest and incremental improvement, delivered by the kinds of people who seem as though they are the right sort of people to be in government, is what they want.
...There remain plenty of people, it seems, who prefer the purity of opposition to the compromises of office. This, it should also be noted, is a madness afflicting the Labour party right now. But the Conservative party exists to be in power. Otherwise there is no point to it.
And the value of being in power does not wholly depend on what you do with it. Part of the point of the Tories being in power is that their being in office means other people are not. That has a value in and of itself too. Because however bad or disappointing the Tories may be, it should always be remembered that things could be even worse.
I'm involved (only slightly) in a property investment which has gone sour. Borrower took out a commercial first charge bridging loan, then stopped paying. We went to court to enforce possession, and the guy turns round and claims he was living there, and hence it's a regulated mortgage. Judge says he has an arguable case, possession denied, and the matter must go to trial. I haven't seen the pleadings.
Doing my own research, I find... www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PERG/4/4.html "PERG 4.4.1 06/04/2007
Article 61(3)(a) of the Regulated Activities Order defines a regulated mortgage contract as a contract which, at the time it is entered into, satisfies the following conditions: ... (3) at least 40% of that land is used, or is intended to be used, as or in connection with a dwelling by the borrower (or, where trustees are the borrower, by an individual who is a beneficiary of the trust) or by a related person."
What steps would competent legal advisors normally take to ensure that the documentary evidence would show a watertight negative to all those clauses highlighted above? If there was watertight documentation then presumably the borrower would have no case, and their "defence" could have been struck out?
Does this sound like negligence by our broker's legal bods when drawing up the deal? Or can anyone just put up this defence when in a corner?
Is this through Saving Stream ?
No. And I'd rather not say who.
No worries, just wondered if I was potentially involved.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.
As I've said before, a very significant minority of elite EU opinion actively wants the UK to go. Especially in France. They are deliberately making Cameron's job as hard as possible, and his deal ludicrous and unsellable: in the hope that we will Brexit.
France and Belgium would be happy if the UK left, De Gaulle vetoed UK entry after all, Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland desperately want the UK to stay
That's nothing - the entire edible oil industry is predicated upon an entirely fictional medical complaint called high cholesterol. The replacement of saturated fat by unsaturated fat in the diet actually results in increased morbidity in every instance where it is tested.
I think your biochemistry/epidemiology needs work. Along with some correlation/causation exercises.
(snip) Given the will, it'd be easy to sort out the spivs and have a country that's not held to ransom by moneylenders.
Assume you have been on a Momentum "economics" course.
I've never heard of Momentum courses. Hadn't heard of Itsu either until I looked it up. I am eagerly waiting to learn what the third rock thrown at me has got written on it. If it's OK to express a preference, please can it be something to do with the clothes I'm imagined to wear after I've attended a Momentum course and am relaxing with friends at Itsu?
On-topic: the price of Leave at the Betfair exchange is shortening, albeit very slowly. Implied probability up 0.2% to 34.6%. Which is enough to put my investment in the black, but...let's just wait a bit.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.
As I've said before, a very significant minority of elite EU opinion actively wants the UK to go. Especially in France. They are deliberately making Cameron's job as hard as possible, and his deal ludicrous and unsellable: in the hope that we will Brexit.
What you mean is that in his efforts to shoot Farages fox he’s seriopusly pi$$ed off people who might otherwise be sympathetic. In other words he’s signally failed to lerad.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.
As I've said before, a very significant minority of elite EU opinion actively wants the UK to go. Especially in France. They are deliberately making Cameron's job as hard as possible, and his deal ludicrous and unsellable: in the hope that we will Brexit.
They are, however, stupid. You'd think they'd notice that it would provide Le Pen with a workable precedent to campaign on.
If Britain leaves, it might well bring down the entire Union, piece by piece.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.
As I've said before, a very significant minority of elite EU opinion actively wants the UK to go. Especially in France. They are deliberately making Cameron's job as hard as possible, and his deal ludicrous and unsellable: in the hope that we will Brexit.
It's the same waterboarding they gave to Tsipras when he tried to negotiate a better deal for their bailout. He ended up getting a worse one in the end. From everything that was said at the time the deal was supposed to be so bad and so poisonous that Tsipras would walk away and put EMU membership to the public and campaign for an out.
This feels like they are trying to give Dave such an awful deal that actually goes backwards in key areas that he will have no choice but to recommend Leave and take Britain out of the EU. It suits the French (and southern Europe) agenda to have us out as it leave Germany with no natural ally for reforming the single market and setting a pro-trade agenda.
Greece - a country we don't even export £1bn worth of goods and services to, vetoes our right to self determination on immigration and welfare.
Hey don't knock it. With any luck, voters are seeing the EU for what it really is.
The Summit has gone beyond the choreography of Cameron looking well 'ard in getting a deal (titter ye not). It has now reached the point where it is an extended live-time advert on behalf of Leave. The EU raised to the power of 28 = powerless...
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.
As I've said before, a very significant minority of elite EU opinion actively wants the UK to go. Especially in France. They are deliberately making Cameron's job as hard as possible, and his deal ludicrous and unsellable: in the hope that we will Brexit.
It's the same waterboarding they gave to Tsipras when he tried to negotiate a better deal for their bailout. He ended up getting a worse one in the end. From everything that was said at the time the deal was supposed to be so bad and so poisonous that Tsipras would walk away and put EMU membership to the public and campaign for an out.
This feels like they are trying to give Dave such an awful deal that actually goes backwards in key areas that he will have no choice but to recommend Leave and take Britain out of the EU. It suits the French (and southern Europe) agenda to have us out as it leave Germany with no natural ally for reforming the single market and setting a pro-trade agenda.
Actually the Greeks aren't being that unreasonable, if this AFP report is right:
“We are asking for a unanimous decision that until (an EU-Turkey summit planned for) 6 March, no state will unilaterally close its borders... if not, the Greek government will not approve the conclusion text” at the so-called Brexit summit, the source told AFP. ... As the main gateway into Europe, Greece is particularly worried that scores of thousands of refugees and migrants will become trapped on its territory.
Austria earlier Friday announced it would only accept a maximum of 80 asylum applications per day, and also limited the daily number of people transiting through to seek asylum in a neighbouring state to 3,200.
“If Austria closes its borders there will be a domino effect towards us,” the Greek government source added.
“(German Chancellor Angela) Merkel has pledged that Germany’s position will not change (until 6 March). We are asking the remaining member states to do the same,” the official said.
I'm involved (only slightly) in a property investment which has gone sour. Borrower took out a commercial first charge bridging loan, then stopped paying. We went to court to enforce possession, and the guy turns round and claims he was living there, and hence it's a regulated mortgage. Judge says he has an arguable case, possession denied, and the matter must go to trial. I haven't seen the pleadings.
Doing my own research, I find... www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PERG/4/4.html "PERG 4.4.1 06/04/2007
Article 61(3)(a) of the Regulated Activities Order defines a regulated mortgage contract as a contract which, at the time it is entered into, satisfies the following conditions: ... (3) at least 40% of that land is used, or is intended to be used, as or in connection with a dwelling by the borrower (or, where trustees are the borrower, by an individual who is a beneficiary of the trust) or by a related person."
What steps would competent legal advisors normally take to ensure that the documentary evidence would show a watertight negative to all those clauses highlighted above? If there was watertight documentation then presumably the borrower would have no case, and their "defence" could have been struck out?
Does this sound like negligence by our broker's legal bods when drawing up the deal? Or can anyone just put up this defence when in a corner?
Although I could hazard a guess at the main part of your question, I cannot say with sufficient certainty to be helpful.
However as regards process, I would not put much weight on what's happened thus far. Such a question is likely to be evidence-intensive and therefore require trial even if it is relatively clear as a matter of process.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.
As I've said before, a very significant minority of elite EU opinion actively wants the UK to go. Especially in France. They are deliberately making Cameron's job as hard as possible, and his deal ludicrous and unsellable: in the hope that we will Brexit.
It's the same waterboarding they gave to Tsipras when he tried to negotiate a better deal for their bailout. He ended up getting a worse one in the end. From everything that was said at the time the deal was supposed to be so bad and so poisonous that Tsipras would walk away and put EMU membership to the public and campaign for an out.
This feels like they are trying to give Dave such an awful deal that actually goes backwards in key areas that he will have no choice but to recommend Leave and take Britain out of the EU. It suits the French (and southern Europe) agenda to have us out as it leave Germany with no natural ally for reforming the single market and setting a pro-trade agenda.
One of the journos on Sky News earlier was saying the amount of CB saved if Cameron wins his 'deal' is only about £30m. Is that correct? Seems a load of drama for what amounts to bugger all in the scheme of things.
As I have said before the Single Passport was one of our greater achievements in the EU for the last 20 years and it has allowed the superior skills, efficiency and liquidity of London to flatten most of the opposition for financial services in the EU
...and yet, over the last 15 years or so, UK services exports to the US have still grown faster than those to the EU
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.
As I've said before, a very significant minority of elite EU opinion actively wants the UK to go. Especially in France. They are deliberately making Cameron's job as hard as possible, and his deal ludicrous and unsellable: in the hope that we will Brexit.
It's the same waterboarding they gave to Tsipras when he tried to negotiate a better deal for their bailout. He ended up getting a worse one in the end. From everything that was said at the time the deal was supposed to be so bad and so poisonous that Tsipras would walk away and put EMU membership to the public and campaign for an out.
This feels like they are trying to give Dave such an awful deal that actually goes backwards in key areas that he will have no choice but to recommend Leave and take Britain out of the EU. It suits the French (and southern Europe) agenda to have us out as it leave Germany with no natural ally for reforming the single market and setting a pro-trade agenda.
The UK is no Greece...
Mr Mark... The hysterics are spouting endless crap garbage to each other. Making g it up as they go along. It's utterly pathetic. It's as if the world will come to an end one way or the other, what a load of pld codswallop is being spouted here.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.
As I've said before, a very significant minority of elite EU opinion actively wants the UK to go. Especially in France. They are deliberately making Cameron's job as hard as possible, and his deal ludicrous and unsellable: in the hope that we will Brexit.
They are, however, stupid. You'd think they'd notice that it would provide Le Pen with a workable precedent to campaign on.
If Britain leaves, it might well bring down the entire Union, piece by piece.
If Britain leaves, that may not be such a bad thing.
The point of David Cameron is that he doesn’t believe in anything very much. In this respect he is ideally suited to be Prime Minister of this country because, on the whole, the British people do not believe in anything very much either. They crave a measure of reassurance and certainty and would like their government to be as unobtrusive as it can be. Modest and incremental improvement, delivered by the kinds of people who seem as though they are the right sort of people to be in government, is what they want.
...There remain plenty of people, it seems, who prefer the purity of opposition to the compromises of office. This, it should also be noted, is a madness afflicting the Labour party right now. But the Conservative party exists to be in power. Otherwise there is no point to it.
And the value of being in power does not wholly depend on what you do with it. Part of the point of the Tories being in power is that their being in office means other people are not. That has a value in and of itself too. Because however bad or disappointing the Tories may be, it should always be remembered that things could be even worse.
One of the journos on Sky News earlier was saying the amount of CB saved if Cameron wins his 'deal' is only about £30m. Is that correct? Seems a load of drama for what amounts to bugger all in the scheme of things.
Because the problems of the EU on issues like this amount to bugger all, so fixing them amounts to bugger all. Still if there's a problem fixed then that's progress.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.
As I've said before, a very significant minority of elite EU opinion actively wants the UK to go. Especially in France. They are deliberately making Cameron's job as hard as possible, and his deal ludicrous and unsellable: in the hope that we will Brexit.
France and Belgium would be happy if the UK left, De Gaulle vetoed UK entry after all, Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland desperately want the UK to stay
Well how about the Germans and the Dutch (and Danes, Swedes, Finns, and Irish?) join us in a Free Trade northern version of the old EEC and let Club Med moulder away on some Statist ego trip.
I'm involved (only slightly) in a property investment which has gone sour. Borrower took out a commercial first charge bridging loan, then stopped paying. We went to court to enforce possession, and the guy turns round and claims he was living there, and hence it's a regulated mortgage. Judge says he has an arguable case, possession denied, and the matter must go to trial. I haven't seen the pleadings.
Doing my own research, I find... www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PERG/4/4.html "PERG 4.4.1 06/04/2007
Article 61(3)(a) of the Regulated Activities Order defines a regulated mortgage contract as a contract which, at the time it is entered into, satisfies the following conditions: ... (3) at least 40% of that land is used, or is intended to be used, as or in connection with a dwelling by the borrower (or, where trustees are the borrower, by an individual who is a beneficiary of the trust) or by a related person."
What steps would competent legal advisors normally take to ensure that the documentary evidence would show a watertight negative to all those clauses highlighted above? If there was watertight documentation then presumably the borrower would have no case, and their "defence" could have been struck out?
Does this sound like negligence by our broker's legal bods when drawing up the deal? Or can anyone just put up this defence when in a corner?
Although I could hazard a guess at the main part of your question, I cannot say with sufficient certainty to be helpful.
However as regards process, I would not put much weight on what's happened thus far. Such a question is likely to be evidence-intensive and therefore require trial even if it is relatively clear as a matter of process.
OK. I'll rephrase it.
Could competent legal advisors ensure that such a defence would never have any prospect of success, when drawing up the deal?
They are only asking for the position to remain unchanged for two and a half weeks.
They are being unreasonable if it has nothing to do with the UK.
They need to take that up with Germany separately.
They've seen they've got some leverage, and they are using it. That's what countries (at least sensible ones) always do. That's exactly how Maggie got our rebate. It's what Blair and Brown signally failed to do with Lisbon.
The point of David Cameron is that he doesn’t believe in anything very much. In this respect he is ideally suited to be Prime Minister of this country because, on the whole, the British people do not believe in anything very much either. They crave a measure of reassurance and certainty and would like their government to be as unobtrusive as it can be. Modest and incremental improvement, delivered by the kinds of people who seem as though they are the right sort of people to be in government, is what they want.
...There remain plenty of people, it seems, who prefer the purity of opposition to the compromises of office. This, it should also be noted, is a madness afflicting the Labour party right now. But the Conservative party exists to be in power. Otherwise there is no point to it.
And the value of being in power does not wholly depend on what you do with it. Part of the point of the Tories being in power is that their being in office means other people are not. That has a value in and of itself too. Because however bad or disappointing the Tories may be, it should always be remembered that things could be even worse.
A lot of sense. The last thing we need is the government fixing our problems, a government that gets out of the way and lets us live our lives and fix our own problems is far more preferable.
I have been on the West Coast this week. Not surprisingly, the Americans - even the well-informed ones - have absolutely no idea about the referendum or Brexit. I would take any warnings about us leaving the EU that come from there with a huge pinch of salt.
Yes - effectively this is an attempt to get rid of the opt-out. There is no good reason for having Eurozone rules imposed on countries which are not in the Eurozone. It's an attempt to make the opt out from the single currency meaningless in many respects.
As Reuters pointed out yesterday, the proposed deal - as it stands at the moment - is actively WORSE than the status quo, in terms of the City and financial regulation. Cameron has made things WORSE.
Quite an achievement.
I can't really blame him for that, it's been in the pipeline for ages. The EC has just used this as the latest opportunity to attack the City.
I do. He should have been clear from the start that any attack on our financial sector would be deemed a hostile act and not the actions of a friendly nation or organization. He should have put each and every leader and Juncker on the spot by asking them whether they wanted to damage a key British industry. And if they said no, then said that in that case they could not possibly support these amendments which would have the effect of doing exactly that.
And if any of them said yes or equivocated in their answers then he should have said that he would have to make it clear to the British public what that country had said.
Honestly, men are said to have balls. Why can't they use them?
It's not just Cameron. They're all hopeless, the lot of them.
If I was Vlad Putin, I'd be keeping a very keen eye on the indecisiveness and general uselessness of European leaders. The Russian Shock Army could make it to the Channel by the time any of these jokers made a decision to fight back.
Fight back with what? The UK has the strongest (maybe the French edge us) armed forces in the EU. The German army hasn't a pot to piss in.
I like Nick Soames, he's great on Twitter, calling Farage a cad and bounder, dissing his fashion choices, he comes up with this
Length of time this is taking indicative of PM s determination to get right result in very tricky and difficult negotiation
Soames is talking complete nonsense. Assuming the EU leaders are not engaging in theatrics, what we are witnessing shows how difficult even the most minor and cosmetic of reforms are to make. We will see decades of stagnation and inaction before they are willing to make the changes required to ensure the EU works properly. In a rapidly changing world it is important to be able to make the right decisions quickly. This will never happen as long as we are shackled to the EU.
O/T: my great-grandfather, Rear-Admiral George Palmer, wrote a book when a captain about his part in the Royal Navy's work in the Victorian era to stop slave-trading and abduction of natives in the South Pacific. He was harsh about the role played by local planters, and the New South Wales colonial government in shutting an eye to the trade. The latter reacted vehemently and got the British Government to order him to apologise and pay £1000 compensation, after which they let him pursue his career unhindered. The book is available online and is of course 100 years out of copyright.
I have a book of the paintings (mostly water-colours) which he did during his service, in an astonishingly good state of preservation and brilliantly done, including some beautiful scenes in the Pacific and later a naval engagement with Russian shore batteries in the Crimea. I'm toying with a family project to get the book republished, with the pictures added, as a "Diary of a Victorian Captain". A quirk is that my aunt, who is bright and perky at age 98, (just) remembers him and could do some media interviews about him. I'm chatting to an agent, who is interested.
Although I published some successful books in the 70s and 80s, I've no experience in this sort of thing. Does anyone have any advice?
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.
As I've said before, a very significant minority of elite EU opinion actively wants the UK to go. Especially in France. They are deliberately making Cameron's job as hard as possible, and his deal ludicrous and unsellable: in the hope that we will Brexit.
It's the same waterboarding they gave to Tsipras when he tried to negotiate a better deal for their bailout. He ended up getting a worse one in the end. From everything that was said at the time the deal was supposed to be so bad and so poisonous that Tsipras would walk away and put EMU membership to the public and campaign for an out.
This feels like they are trying to give Dave such an awful deal that actually goes backwards in key areas that he will have no choice but to recommend Leave and take Britain out of the EU. It suits the French (and southern Europe) agenda to have us out as it leave Germany with no natural ally for reforming the single market and setting a pro-trade agenda.
The UK is no Greece...
Mr Mark... The hysterics are spouting endless crap garbage to each other. Making g it up as they go along. It's utterly pathetic. It's as if the world will come to an end one way or the other, what a load of pld codswallop is being spouted here.
Thanks for that.
I think that Cameron should go before the other heads of government, and weep and weep, until he melts their hearts, and they give him what he wants.
One of the journos on Sky News earlier was saying the amount of CB saved if Cameron wins his 'deal' is only about £30m. Is that correct? Seems a load of drama for what amounts to bugger all in the scheme of things.
The whole welfare thing is a giant non sequitur. I have no idea how we managed to cock up these negotiations so badly.
"And the value of being in power does not wholly depend on what you do with it. Part of the point of the Tories being in power is that their being in office means other people are not. That has a value in and of itself too. Because however bad or disappointing the Tories may be, it should always be remembered that things could be even worse."
Although I do not agree with the specifics, of course, the underlying sentiment is so obvious and so right. And it is something that Corbyn Labour has no notion of.
O/T: my great-grandfather, Rear-Admiral George Palmer, wrote a book when a captain about his part in the Royal Navy's work in the Victorian era to stop slave-trading and abduction of natives in the South Pacific. He was harsh about the role played by local planters, and the New South Wales colonial government in shutting an eye to the trade. The latter reacted vehemently and got the British Government to order him to apologise and pay £1000 compensation, after which they let him pursue his career unhindered. The book is available online and is of course 100 years out of copyright.
I have a book of the paintings (mostly water-colours) which he did during his service, in an astonishingly good state of preservation and brilliantly done, including some beautiful scenes in the Pacific and later a naval engagement with Russian shore batteries in the Crimea. I'm toying with a family project to get the book republished, with the pictures added, as a "Diary of a Victorian Captain". A quirk is that my aunt, who is bright and perky at age 98, (just) remembers him and could do some media interviews about him. I'm chatting to an agent, who is interested.
Although I published some successful books in the 70s and 80s, I've no experience in this sort of thing. Does anyone have any advice?
Sit down with your auntie and a tape or video recorder, sooner rather than later?
They are only asking for the position to remain unchanged for two and a half weeks.
They are being unreasonable if it has nothing to do with the UK.
They need to take that up with Germany separately.
No, they're being entirely reasonable. The European Council is the place this should be taken up, and the migration crisis is one of only two items on the agenda. The leaders should be discussing it. If the situation were the other way round then British journalists, commentators and members of the public would be doing their nut that the leaders might head off before they even got to talking meaningfully about the local problem.
I'm impressed at the emotional reserves that many posters seem to find to draw upon with every rumour, unsourced claim and counterclaim. On most days the general public has far more sense than the politically active, and today for sure is one of them.
What was it you said about WW2 references ?
Alex Salmond Verified account @AlexSalmond 2h2 hours ago
Cameron should come back in his new Prime Ministerial jet to Heston airfield, wave a piece of paper and declare "bathos in our time". #EUREF
Not another 'something in our time' reference. Yawn. Mr Meeks has got the right opinion about the usual drivel being dribbled round here. A very erudite way to put it I think unlike me.
Louise Mensch Imagine the worst government ever. You elected them in 1973. You weren't allowed to vote them out til 2016. That's the EU, that is. #Brexit
It's what Blair and Brown signally failed to do with Lisbon.
And it is what the PM is entirely failing to do, now. Because he doesn't care.
Oh, I think he cares. His entire legacy hangs in the balance. If he screws this up he could end up hated by the metropolitan elite he loves: as the man who accidentally took Britain out of the EU. People would wrinkle their noses at kitchen suppers.
His problem is that he is lazy, and success has made him arrogant. The laziness means he's missed opportunities to get a better deal. The arrogance means that he presumed he could just sell any old crapola, and we'd buy it. But we didn't. Now the panic and drama, the desperate appeals to Boris and Lynton, and so on.
An alternative view is that he has scenarioed this to pieces and used all the voter data analytics the Tories have at their disposal, and he is currently playing out a pre-planned drama designed to tick all the boxes needed to secure a Remain vote. There are two very different opinion poll stories being told right now. It could just be that the phone polls are giving the kind of results that the Tory high command is also getting.
For any Big Bang fans, it's new on Netflix from this weekend
I'm looking for a new Netflix fix. Maxed out the good wife and better call saul.
Are you really so desperate to watch endless infantile rubbish?
Hmmnn. Can't work out if you're being deliberately pompous here. Next.
I am being deliberate and pompous. I think I am also pointing out some home truths about the vast amount of vacuous rubbish that passes for repetitive television drama. Production values can work wonders I grant you. Some vacuous rubbish can be a very soporific way to spend an hour and is useful for that.
Junead Khan, 25, from Luton, had a guide to making a "viable" pipe bomb on his laptop, Kingston Crown Court heard. Prosecutors said he had planned to go abroad to fight for the Islamic State group but changed his mind and started preparing terrorist acts in the UK. Mr Khan denies making preparations for attacking military personnel in the UK between May 10 and July 14, 2015.
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. "
Not another 'something in our time' reference. Yawn. Mr Meeks has got the right opinion about the usual drivel being dribbled round here. A very erudite way to put it I think unlike me.
wasn&t chamberlains agreement rather popular in 1938?
Junead Khan, 25, from Luton, had a guide to making a "viable" pipe bomb on his laptop, Kingston Crown Court heard. Prosecutors said he had planned to go abroad to fight for the Islamic State group but changed his mind and started preparing terrorist acts in the UK. Mr Khan denies making preparations for attacking military personnel in the UK between May 10 and July 14, 2015.
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. "
For any Big Bang fans, it's new on Netflix from this weekend
I'm looking for a new Netflix fix. Maxed out the good wife and better call saul.
Are you really so desperate to watch endless infantile rubbish?
Hmmnn. Can't work out if you're being deliberately pompous here. Next.
Shame on you for watching television when you could be reading an improving book, or housing a migrant.
Have you seen 'Narcos'? I enjoyed it a good deal. I did like the Wire, Sopranos, Breaking Bad and GoT if that helps.
Thanks Mr John M. Endless infantile rubbish it may be, but it still beats much of what passes for TV these days.
Because the written word can't always convey tone accurately, I hasten to add that I was being ironic. I watch very little TV because I fritter away most of my time playing computer games and walking the hounds, neither of which are particularly edifying .
Seems that the NBC/WSJ polls have a methodology issue rather than an outlier one, this comes after they showed Cruz leading nationally. Over the same time period of the Feb 15-17 five S.Carolina polls have shown Trump leads of between 12-17%.
Junead Khan, 25, from Luton, had a guide to making a "viable" pipe bomb on his laptop, Kingston Crown Court heard. Prosecutors said he had planned to go abroad to fight for the Islamic State group but changed his mind and started preparing terrorist acts in the UK. Mr Khan denies making preparations for attacking military personnel in the UK between May 10 and July 14, 2015.
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. "
to which the best answer is the application of the law, as in this case.
Not another 'something in our time' reference. Yawn. Mr Meeks has got the right opinion about the usual drivel being dribbled round here. A very erudite way to put it I think unlike me.
wasn&t chamberlains agreement rather popular in 1938?
Hugely popular, though Herr Hitler was furious that he had been outmanoeuvred, and forced to accept peace.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.
As I've said before, a very significant minority of elite EU opinion actively wants the UK to go. Especially in France. They are deliberately making Cameron's job as hard as possible, and his deal ludicrous and unsellable: in the hope that we will Brexit.
France and Belgium would be happy if the UK left, De Gaulle vetoed UK entry after all, Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland desperately want the UK to stay
Well how about the Germans and the Dutch (and Danes, Swedes, Finns, and Irish?) join us in a Free Trade northern version of the old EEC and let Club Med moulder away on some Statist ego trip.
It would be rather wonderful to plant our flag for such a Free Trade bloc - and to see those countries join us within it.
Junead Khan, 25, from Luton, had a guide to making a "viable" pipe bomb on his laptop, Kingston Crown Court heard. Prosecutors said he had planned to go abroad to fight for the Islamic State group but changed his mind and started preparing terrorist acts in the UK. Mr Khan denies making preparations for attacking military personnel in the UK between May 10 and July 14, 2015.
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. "
to which the best answer is the application of the law, as in this case.
We should be rather more concerned that the NUS is going round promoting CAGE on university campuses.
When I was a student the union tended to be against fascists and Nazis not promoting them.
@AmbroseEP 59m59 minutes ago City of London, England Morgan Stanley's FX team says fate of sterling now hangs on Boris Johnson. If he joins 'Out' camp, expect pound to plummet.
Junead Khan, 25, from Luton, had a guide to making a "viable" pipe bomb on his laptop, Kingston Crown Court heard. Prosecutors said he had planned to go abroad to fight for the Islamic State group but changed his mind and started preparing terrorist acts in the UK. Mr Khan denies making preparations for attacking military personnel in the UK between May 10 and July 14, 2015.
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. "
Like Smoking causes lung cancer, Mass immigration from Islamic countries causes extremism and violence against US
It's what Blair and Brown signally failed to do with Lisbon.
And it is what the PM is entirely failing to do, now. Because he doesn't care.
Oh, I think he cares. His entire legacy hangs in the balance. If he screws this up he could end up hated by the metropolitan elite he loves: as the man who accidentally took Britain out of the EU. People would wrinkle their noses at kitchen suppers.
His problem is that he is lazy, and success has made him arrogant. The laziness means he's missed opportunities to get a better deal. The arrogance means that he presumed he could just sell any old crapola, and we'd buy it. But we didn't. Now the panic and drama, the desperate appeals to Boris and Lynton, and so on.
An alternative view is that he has scenarioed this to pieces and used all the voter data analytics the Tories have at their disposal, and he is currently playing out a pre-planned drama designed to tick all the boxes needed to secure a Remain vote. There are two very different opinion poll stories being told right now. It could just be that the phone polls are giving the kind of results that the Tory high command is also getting.
That's certainly possible, but unlikely. The political body language tells me that the Establishment is seriously unnerved by these polls.
Read the more significant columnists - the people who will be hearing the same gossip about private polls - and they are very worried. Polly Toynbee's latest is a classic. Absolute hysteria. Though nicely written.
Also interesting is the euroscepticism of the comments, BTL.
Oh, thank you! I haven't been reading Pol much recently but that is just perfect. The hyperbole, the stream of consciousness, the skiiing metephor (she doesn't but lots of her mates do). All there. Thanks!
I'm impressed at the emotional reserves that many posters seem to find to draw upon with every rumour, unsourced claim and counterclaim. On most days the general public has far more sense than the politically active, and today for sure is one of them.
What was it you said about WW2 references ?
Alex Salmond Verified account @AlexSalmond 2h2 hours ago
Cameron should come back in his new Prime Ministerial jet to Heston airfield, wave a piece of paper and declare "bathos in our time". #EUREF
Not sure the party of Arthur Donaldson wants to go down that route.
what a plonker, disappointed his idol is a big useless jessie coming home with a piece of toilet paper.
Comments
The point of David Cameron is that he doesn’t believe in anything very much. In this respect he is ideally suited to be Prime Minister of this country because, on the whole, the British people do not believe in anything very much either. They crave a measure of reassurance and certainty and would like their government to be as unobtrusive as it can be. Modest and incremental improvement, delivered by the kinds of people who seem as though they are the right sort of people to be in government, is what they want.
...There remain plenty of people, it seems, who prefer the purity of opposition to the compromises of office. This, it should also be noted, is a madness afflicting the Labour party right now. But the Conservative party exists to be in power. Otherwise there is no point to it.
And the value of being in power does not wholly depend on what you do with it. Part of the point of the Tories being in power is that their being in office means other people are not. That has a value in and of itself too. Because however bad or disappointing the Tories may be, it should always be remembered that things could be even worse.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/david-camerons-greatest-strength-is-that-he-doesnt-believe-in-anything/
And Making A Murderer of course.
On-topic: the price of Leave at the Betfair exchange is shortening, albeit very slowly. Implied probability up 0.2% to 34.6%. Which is enough to put my investment in the black, but...let's just wait a bit.
Laura Kuenssberg
Laura Kuenssberg – Verified account @bbclaurak
No 10 claims deal is no sure thing, but Conservatives for Reform in Europe've already prepped letter applauding his achievement! -story soon
In other words he’s signally failed to lerad.
If Britain leaves, it might well bring down the entire Union, piece by piece.
This feels like they are trying to give Dave such an awful deal that actually goes backwards in key areas that he will have no choice but to recommend Leave and take Britain out of the EU. It suits the French (and southern Europe) agenda to have us out as it leave Germany with no natural ally for reforming the single market and setting a pro-trade agenda.
CRIES.
Length of time this is taking indicative of PM s determination to get right result in very tricky and difficult negotiation
Jeb Bush flying out on Betfair.
“We are asking for a unanimous decision that until (an EU-Turkey summit planned for) 6 March, no state will unilaterally close its borders... if not, the Greek government will not approve the conclusion text” at the so-called Brexit summit, the source told AFP.
...
As the main gateway into Europe, Greece is particularly worried that scores of thousands of refugees and migrants will become trapped on its territory.
Austria earlier Friday announced it would only accept a maximum of 80 asylum applications per day, and also limited the daily number of people transiting through to seek asylum in a neighbouring state to 3,200.
“If Austria closes its borders there will be a domino effect towards us,” the Greek government source added.
“(German Chancellor Angela) Merkel has pledged that Germany’s position will not change (until 6 March). We are asking the remaining member states to do the same,” the official said.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/feb/19/eu-summit-all-night-negotiations-deal-cameron-live
They are only asking for the position to remain unchanged for two and a half weeks.
However as regards process, I would not put much weight on what's happened thus far. Such a question is likely to be evidence-intensive and therefore require trial even if it is relatively clear as a matter of process.
Is that correct?
Seems a load of drama for what amounts to bugger all in the scheme of things.
...and yet, over the last 15 years or so, UK services exports to the US have still grown faster than those to the EU
They are being unreasonable if it has nothing to do with the UK.
They need to take that up with Germany separately.
Good
Could competent legal advisors ensure that such a defence would never have any prospect of success, when drawing up the deal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-NXzsRGr3o&feature=youtu.be
Careful loons, the interview was conducted on RT, no need to hyperventilate.
I have a book of the paintings (mostly water-colours) which he did during his service, in an astonishingly good state of preservation and brilliantly done, including some beautiful scenes in the Pacific and later a naval engagement with Russian shore batteries in the Crimea. I'm toying with a family project to get the book republished, with the pictures added, as a "Diary of a Victorian Captain". A quirk is that my aunt, who is bright and perky at age 98, (just) remembers him and could do some media interviews about him. I'm chatting to an agent, who is interested.
Although I published some successful books in the 70s and 80s, I've no experience in this sort of thing. Does anyone have any advice?
Although I do not agree with the specifics, of course, the underlying sentiment is so obvious and so right. And it is something that Corbyn Labour has no notion of.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-public-syria/8YB75otYirPzUCnlwaVtcK/story.html
And it is what the PM is entirely failing to do, now. Because he doesn't care.
Terribly unfortunate again.
Have you seen 'Narcos'? I enjoyed it a good deal. I did like the Wire, Sopranos, Breaking Bad and GoT if that helps.
Louise Mensch
Imagine the worst government ever. You elected them in 1973. You weren't allowed to vote them out til 2016.
That's the EU, that is.
#Brexit
Trump 28%
Cruz 23%
Rubio 15%
Bush 13%
Kasich 9%
Carson 9%
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/greater-manchester-mayor-ivan-lewis-10912228#ICID=sharebar_twitter
If only he had asked the 96 Labour Councillors where and why they had gone wrong.
It's an epidemic of crime committed by those who neither like or respect our country. "Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-gop-race-trump-remains-on-top-hell-get-things-done/?utm_content=buffer65156&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Back Trump, cover Kasich.
Over the same time period of the Feb 15-17 five S.Carolina polls have shown Trump leads of between 12-17%.
to which the best answer is the application of the law, as in this case.
And the greater joy of saying "Non!" to France.
We should be rather more concerned that the NUS is going round promoting CAGE on university campuses.
When I was a student the union tended to be against fascists and Nazis not promoting them.
New Thread New Thread
Like Smoking causes lung cancer, Mass immigration from Islamic countries causes extremism and violence against US