Gosh, I went to bed with Spieth 5 clear in the Masters: how on earth did Danny Willett win?
Spieth went into a complete meltdown in the final three, while Willet kept his cool.
Not so! In fact Spieth played the final three holes quite well, thereby recovering to finish in joint 2nd place. His meltdown took place on holes 10,11 and especially 12.
Actually, on the 10th. He lost 4 shots which was bigger than his overall margin of defeat. Regardless, apart from putting, where he was brilliant, the rest of his game throughout the Masters was quite ordinary.
BBC - Tata Steel has confirmed a deal to sell its Long Products Europe business, including its Scunthorpe plant, to UK-based investment firm Greybull Capital. - The move will safeguard more than 4,000 jobs, but workers are being asked to accept a pay cut and less generous pension arrangements.
Gosh, I went to bed with Spieth 5 clear in the Masters: how on earth did Danny Willett win?
Jordan turned into Jay the 28 handicap hacker from the local municipal for 3 holes. It was quite extraordinary.
In my view Spieth was never playing well enough to win that title. He kept going through his titanic will and concentration.
In the end, the course caught up with him.
I think it's a little unfair on Willett that the 2016 Masters will be remembered for Spieth blowing up rather than him winning with a 67 in the final round. I think the same is true of 96 but Faldo had enough fame and fortune by then. If this ends up being Willett's only major it shouldn't be thought that it was gifted to him.
One difference between the Willett and Faldo victories, Faldo was playing with Norman and he caused the meltdown by putting constant pressure on Norman. That final round really played out like a "matchplay" event.
In truth the Spieth meltdown wasn't really. Almost every player got caned by the course at some juncture over the four days, it was just Spieth's turn.
Reading some of the posts on here today from Zac supporters is like a throw back to Smethwick in the 1960s . If you want a Moslem for your neighbour ...........
Just received the Government's propaganda information booklet on the EU referendum. I must say it looks very nice and glossy but then I'd expect something that looked quite good for £9.3 million. I'm a bit disappointed that the Government didn't cite their sources for the figures on jobs and exports.
I've already returned my copy - postage unpaid.
I have sent mine to my local Tory MP (Remain) with appropriate annotations and a less-than-flattering cover note.
In green ink, presumably.
The sources for the figures are on the government's website:
What the hell does "3.3 million jobs are linked to trade with the EU" mean though, it's disingenuous nonsense, it is left hanging there with the clear implication that a significant proportion of them will disappear if we leave the EU, for which there is no evidence. The French and the Germans won't suddenly stop wanting to buy our products.
Yes, it's full of propaganda like that, masquerading as 'information'. A deeply dishonest act by a deeply dishonest Prime Minister.
Reading some of the posts on here today from Zac supporters is like a throw back to Smethwick in the 1960s . If you want a Moslem for your neighbour ...........
.....there's a fifty/fifty chance he or she is a homophobic bigot?
What the hell does "3.3 million jobs are linked to trade with the EU" mean though, it's disingenuous nonsense, it is left hanging there with the clear implication that a significant proportion of them will disappear if we leave the EU, for which there is no evidence. The French and the Germans won't suddenly stop wanting to buy our products.
It means what it says, it is pointing to the importance of EU trade in the UK economy.
I do find Leavers' indignation on this hilarious, given that they keep repeating figures about the numbers of migrants entering the EU, with the clear implication that a significant proportion of them are coming here. What's the difference?
I'm not expressing a view on whether he's a racist and to my mind at least there was nothing wrong with his comments. I think the same comments could be deployed with a less pleasant agenda, but don't see anything divisive in his.
Where it gets difficult is the desire to suppress inconvenient facts because of the tendency of those with a racist agenda to seize on those facts and use them to fuel hatred. I can't see how it can be right to hide data that could be abused, but one can see why those who are responsible for managing tensions in hostile communities might consider that some "truths" aren't in the public interest.
I wasn't implying any slight to you, I was referring to the muppets on Twitter.
I have a problem with the whole idea of "some 'truths' aren't in the public interest. " although I can see why the idea might be attractive to people doing a difficult job, but let's be honest that is a fraction of a percent of the assorted SJWs and virtue signallers on social media for which that is even approaching a valid excuse. It is much more the case that a group of rather protected people have formed a nice cosy view of the world in which everyone is friends and all are working for the common good, and don't want to have to face facts which demonstrate this is rather far from being the case.
Personally I feel we are in dire need of a copper bottomed, first amendment strength guarantee on freedom of speech and expression which would simultaneously cut through all this superinjunction crap, and protect people that the mob tries to shout down because they don't like their facts. Nothing in this prevents someone else using their freedom of speech and expression to denounce views they don't like, but society is not going to move forward by brushing difficult issues under the carpet until they explode.
It's ok, no feeling of slightedness here.... I'm typing on a phone so perhaps a little more concise (even terse) than usual.
I'm still unsure on the freedom speech thing. I like the idea but the freedom to whip up hatred against the vulnerable is a dangerous thing. The issue seems to be where the boundaries of the necessary protection fall, as you often see when the same individual adopts contrasting views to the restriction of free speech in relation to Judaism and Islam.
If we aren't all friends working for the common good, how do we deal with free speech designed to harm?
I think one should accept we're not all friends, and we all have very different ideas of what constitutes the common good.
Personally, I would draw the line at advocating violence or other criminal activities against individuals or groups. In actual riot situations, the authorities would be justified in imposing more stringent controls on speech, but only as a temporary measure.
I think you need to dig a little deeper. Recriminalisation of homosexuality may well be off the agenda, whatever some Muslims may think. But a worryingly large number would not want a gay person teaching their children, according to that survey. So if you're a gay teacher, how would you feel about your prospects in a school where a significant proportion of the children were Muslim. Or how about if you're in some other occupation and had a Muslim boss? How confident could you feel about his/her attitude to you and diversity if he/she thought you ought to be criminalised? Ditto re the attitude to women.
The article I read commented that the issue about practising religion freely was qualified in that it also meant that people felt that they could live virtually apart from the rest of society. That is a very bad thing. That apartness is not good for a cohesive society. And it also means that the religion does not get challenged and is not forced to adapt in the way that other religions have had to.
And it's not just the attitude to the rest of us non-Muslims. We are now also getting intra-Muslim problems e.g. the murder of the Ahmadi Muslim shopkeeper and the Muslim Council of Britain's recent statement that Ahmadi Muslims are not "proper" Muslims. Indeed, one of the recent criticisms of Khan has been has that he is a bit too close to his local imam in Tooting who has said some pretty inflammatory things about Ahmadis and called for boycotts of their shops. If "freely practising your religion" means this, is it such a good thing?
I imagine that a gay teacher at a majority-Muslim school would feel much the same way as I would if I were working for a very left-wing local authority or university. I would expect my employer to obey the law, but I wouldn't expect the employer to like me.
Even if that employer thinks (as some who responded to this survey said) that Islamic law should trump secular law? It's not a question of liking. It's a question of trust and confidence in you employer, a belief that they will treat you fairly, that they will not allow unconscious bias to determine how you are treated. Look at what happened to teachers in the Trojan Horse schools.
I don't know about immoral, but if we are talking about a UK citizen then, depending on their residency status, those earnings are subject to UK income tax. Failing to properly declare them on one's tax return would be illegal.
They wouldn't be subject to UK income tax for someone not resident in the UK:
The article I read commented that the issue about practising religion freely was qualified in that it also meant that people felt that they could live virtually apart from the rest of society. That is a very bad thing. That apartness is not good for a cohesive society. And it also means that the religion does not get challenged and is not forced to adapt in the way that other religions have had to.
And it's not just the attitude to the rest of us non-Muslims. We are now also getting intra-Muslim problems e.g. the murder of the Ahmadi Muslim shopkeeper and the Muslim Council of Britain's recent statement that Ahmadi Muslims are not "proper" Muslims. Indeed, one of the recent criticisms of Khan has been has that he is a bit too close to his local imam in Tooting who has said some pretty inflammatory things about Ahmadis and called for boycotts of their shops. If "freely practising your religion" means this, is it such a good thing?
I imagine that a gay teacher at a majority-Muslim school would feel much the same way as I would if I were working for a very left-wing local authority or university. I would expect my employer to obey the law, but I wouldn't expect the employer to like me.
Even if that employer thinks (as some who responded to this survey said) that Islamic law should trump secular law? It's not a question of liking. It's a question of trust and confidence in you employer, a belief that they will treat you fairly, that they will not allow unconscious bias to determine how you are treated. Look at what happened to teachers in the Trojan Horse schools.
I think the issue is whether the employer will obey the law of the land. If he doesn't then the employee should have redress. Most of us have strong biases and prejudices, but try to set them aside in professional life.
I was listening to a leading UK Imam on radio 4 yesterday. His line was that Muslims should integrate but that is not the same as assimilate. Integration for him meant they live apart according to Islamic law but in Bradford not Islamabad! We have a very long way to go.
This to my mind should be wholly unacceptable.
That's your mind. Doubtless the Imam would wish Western culture to be abolished as unIslamic. That's his.
Muslims who kill westerners are at least taking their religion - and our lack of it - seriously.
This is a gigantic F*** Y** to the rest of us and we have tolerated it for far too long, to our shame and to our detriment.
I think I want to kiss Cyclefree.
Hey. Get in line
The more I read this site the more I sympathise with radicalised Wahhabis.
All white people are racists and all racists should be put to death. Yesterday.
BBC - Tata Steel has confirmed a deal to sell its Long Products Europe business, including its Scunthorpe plant, to UK-based investment firm Greybull Capital. - The move will safeguard more than 4,000 jobs, but workers are being asked to accept a pay cut and less generous pension arrangements.
A question for those more knowledgeable on tax than myself: if someone had been working for a US company whilst in a third country, and had been paid in US dollars into an account held at an American bank, and they have not transferred the funds to the UK, are those funds immoral because they are held offshore?
Depends what you mean by "in a third country". If not tax resident in the UK, and deriving income from a non-UK employment, there is no UK tax due so there's neither evasion nor avoidance (in the sense established in UK case law) going on here. If UK resident it would need to be declared to HMRC but the tax due would probably be reduced on account of tax paid overseas.
Isnt there some nonsense now about "period of temporary non-residence" with respect to income and gains taxes ?
With all the mucking around with the non-dom rules, the "simplifying" statutory residence test and decades of anti-avoidance there's a lot to think about in anything other than a straightforward permanent emigration situation. Even then, if there's a significant latent capital gain, intra-year income or potential inheritance then it can be messy. My area of expertise is corporate & financial sector and even though I'm qualified (on paper) to advise on this kind of issue, the situation is now sufficiently complex that I'd be paying a specialist for up to date advice if it was my own money at stake.
It's ok, no feeling of slightedness here.... I'm typing on a phone so perhaps a little more concise (even terse) than usual.
I'm still unsure on the freedom speech thing. I like the idea but the freedom to whip up hatred against the vulnerable is a dangerous thing. The issue seems to be where the boundaries of the necessary protection fall, as you often see when the same individual adopts contrasting views to the restriction of free speech in relation to Judaism and Islam.
If we aren't all friends working for the common good, how do we deal with free speech designed to harm?
Speech designed to harm may be incitement to violence and should be dealt with, whether aimed at Muslims or anyone else. That's always been a well known exception to free speech. What is happening is that some are trying to extent that category to include harm to someone's pride or sense of self or just something which is generally offensive. And that must not be allowed to happen because we'll not be able to say anything at all.
If you have a culture where "honour" is all - where the appearance of things is often more important than the reality - then it is understandable that anything said which impugns that "honour", almost regardless of whether it is true (and often because it is true), is seen as bad and to be stopped. But we do not have such a culture and we should make it clear to those who come from such a culture that the rules are different here.
BBC - Tata Steel has confirmed a deal to sell its Long Products Europe business, including its Scunthorpe plant, to UK-based investment firm Greybull Capital. - The move will safeguard more than 4,000 jobs, but workers are being asked to accept a pay cut and less generous pension arrangements.
Very little was known about the company till they backed OpCapita’s investment in Comet, a British high street electronics chain, before its eventual collapse in 2012. Besides Comet, Greybull Capital has also backed the buyouts of OpCapita’s buyout of Game, a computer games retailer, sports bar/snooker hall chain Rileys (it owns nearly 120 sports bars/clubs in the UK) and Metalrex, an engineering group.
Crickey they aren't wrong when they say they specialize in investing in "under performing" companies...What next, Yahoo?
We expect both campaigns to lie, we don't expect to have to pay for it.
There are no lies in the government's leaflet.
Is it possible for you to lose any more credibility?
How about the lie that Norway have to comply with 75% of EU legislation. The true figure is around 20%. This is just one of many lies which fill the government's leaflet.
Gosh, I went to bed with Spieth 5 clear in the Masters: how on earth did Danny Willett win?
Spieth went into a complete meltdown in the final three, while Willet kept his cool.
Not so! In fact Spieth played the final three holes quite well, thereby recovering to finish in joint 2nd place. His meltdown took place on holes 10,11 and especially 12.
Well Bogie, Bogie, Quadruple Bogey isn't the best. I wonder how many people put money on him at 1/8 - and how many would admit it? (Didn't he bogie 17?)
IIRC didn't the commentator also note that he had double-bogied several holes during the tournament.
Scarily, it will cause what was already a mighty good player to examine all aspects of weakness in his game. When he comes back from it, he could be utterly formidable for the next twenty years.
We expect both campaigns to lie, we don't expect to have to pay for it.
There are no lies in the government's leaflet.
Is it possible for you to lose any more credibility?
How about the lie that Norway have to comply with 75% of EU legislation. The true figure is around 20%. This is just one of many lies which fill the government's leaflet.
"An independent study commissioned by the Norwegian Government has calculated that Norway has had to incorporate approximately 75% of EU laws into Norwegian law in return for access to the EU’s Single Market"
Are you saying that is not true?
[Your 'true' figure is certainly wrong, by the way. How do I know this? Because you can't quantify legislation. It's an idiotic argument - what matters is the scope of the legislation, not the number of pages or whatever other daft metric anyone uses]
I imagine that a gay teacher at a majority-Muslim school would feel much the same way as I would if I were working for a very left-wing local authority or university. I would expect my employer to obey the law, but I wouldn't expect the employer to like me.
Even if that employer thinks (as some who responded to this survey said) that Islamic law should trump secular law? It's not a question of liking. It's a question of trust and confidence in you employer, a belief that they will treat you fairly, that they will not allow unconscious bias to determine how you are treated. Look at what happened to teachers in the Trojan Horse schools.
I think the issue is whether the employer will obey the law of the land. If he doesn't then the employee should have redress. Most of us have strong biases and prejudices, but try to set them aside in professional life.
We do. And one reason we do is because of the law of the land and also, I would argue, social attitudes and mixing in a wide group of people. I think the latter are more effective at changing people's views than what is set out in a statute. And that is one reason why the separateness of many in the Muslim community is - or can be - such a problem. Because that mixing and the exposure to different social attitudes is not going to happen in such a case.
Plus I think it unfair to place the burden on gay teachers or women or others viewed to bear the burden of enforcing legal compliance rather than on employers actively to take steps to comply with the law. Most employees will just choose other employers rather than take on the very considerable burden (as both you and I know) of suing an employer, especially in one as fraught as a "He was a Muslim and discriminated against me because I am gay" case. And so the separateness is amplified rather than bridged. The burden should surely be on those who are immigrants and those who are out of line with the rest of society to make the adaptation and not the other way around. It is after all exactly what was expected of those (largely older/religious) groups who were uneasy with or opposed to gay marriage.
SO I see that the rebranding on the Conservative in Scotland as the Ruth Davidson Party is being taken to the total extreme. Conservative Leaflets in Glasgow are saying to vote for Ruth Davidson. She's standing on the Edinburgh list.
Well, if the alternative is the phizzog of Adam 'make the Loyalist vote angry' Tomkins..
Fair play to Ruthie, if the SCons don't get their best ever result as she's been forecasting, shes the one that's going to be eating all the crow.
I'm linking to this for a very specific reason. If you look at the leaflet, you will see that the format is of paired pages, with on the left side explanatory text and on the right side a picture with a key point from the explanatory text highlighted. So the first page is headed "An important decision for the UK" and on the right is a picture of a calendar with the referendum date ringed and the words "This is your chance to decide your own future and the future of the United Kingdom. It is important that you vote." These words summarise the first two paragraphs of the explanatory text on the left.
The next pair of pages is where the heat is being generated. On the right is a picture of two men and a disconnected arm metal-bashing and the words "Over 3 million UK jobs are linked to exports to the EU". On the left hand side is a detailed table with different industries, numbers of jobs and share of exports going to the EU in each industry. This in fact totals more than 4 million jobs (suggesting that the table was updated at a late stage but the text on the right was not).
I really don't see what the fuss is about. In context, it's quite clear what is meant.
@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn aide confirms he doesn't have a copy of his tax return, so waiting for HMRC to send one. "We're working on it," he says.
Anyone here who submits a tax return not keep a copy of it?
Can you imagine in actually in charge of anything important? He is giving Oliver Letwin a run for his money in the numpty stakes...
When he is PM, he will have staff to file documents neatly.
Will they have to wipe his arse for him as well?
By all accounts for all Cameron's faults apparently he is very professional and efficient when it comes to dealing with the day to day business of government red box stuff.
Just logged in. It's usually easy to find someone who'll complain about their party's election tactics and then link that to distorted stories or opinion - the leaflet doesn't say that Khan would impose a wealth tax; it says that Labour supports one. Obviously, Khan wouldn't impose one - the London mayor doesn't have that power, as anyone with half a brain knows.
However, the example is instructive. His desire to see racism in the Tory campaign - whether it exists or not - is indicative of a desire to stifle free speech because of course nothing has shut down debate in the past like calling something racist. In fact, it's the website which instinctively jumps to the conclusion that Indians and Tamils 'hoard jewellery'. If Labour or Khan does support a wealth tax then it's perfectly fair game to point out what the practical effect of its imposition would be.
I'm linking to this for a very specific reason. If you look at the leaflet, you will see that the format is of paired pages, with on the left side explanatory text and on the right side a picture with a key point from the explanatory text highlighted. So the first page is headed "An important decision for the UK" and on the right is a picture of a calendar with the referendum date ringed and the words "This is your chance to decide your own future and the future of the United Kingdom. It is important that you vote." These words summarise the first two paragraphs of the explanatory text on the left.
The next pair of pages is where the heat is being generated. On the right is a picture of two men and a disconnected arm metal-bashing and the words "Over 3 million UK jobs are linked to exports to the EU". On the left hand side is a detailed table with different industries, numbers of jobs and share of exports going to the EU in each industry. This in fact totals more than 4 million jobs (suggesting that the table was updated at a late stage but the text on the right was not).
I really don't see what the fuss is about. In context, it's quite clear what is meant.
I am sure it is - however many people will think that it means that when we vote LEAVE 4 million people will lose their jobs. You can lie simply by being careful how you tell the truth.
An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.
Why, for heaven's sake? It would be news if a celebrity went to bed at 9 pm on their own, having washed the dishes, put the cat out and said their prayers.
Honestly, this desire to invade everyone's privacy over everything is beyond tiresome. It's really quite troubling.
People only care because they were daft enough to take out an injunction. Without it they would have got a page on the gossip section in a newspaper that not that many people read, and would have been forgotten about 10 minutes later. Now the Streisand Effect kicks in, and everyone wants to know who it is, and why they were so grand as to feel they needed protecting by an injunction.
There are only two ways of keeping a secret: one is never to tell anyone or even hint at whatever it is you want to keep private. Not hard. Save that people who have secrets are usually quite keen to let someone know that they have a secret, which is where the trouble starts. If they just shut up there would not be a problem. People are incapable these days - seemingly - of shutting up, not aided by Twitter and its like on the one hand and a ludicrous desire for transparency, on the other.
""He that would keep a secret must keep it secret that he hath a secret to keep" - Humphrey Appleby (and possibly Francis Bacon)
"You're invisible now, you've got no secrets to conceal". Bob Dylan.
"An independent study commissioned by the Norwegian Government has calculated that Norway has had to incorporate approximately 75% of EU laws into Norwegian law in return for access to the EU’s Single Market"
Are you saying that is not true?
Even Norway can't decide
How is it possible to argue it is both 9% and 75%?
Firstly, the 9% figure: This comes from the Norwegian No campaign and is based on a study by Morten Harper that, based on a Eur-Lex search, compared all EU Directives, Regulations and legislative acts (a depressing 52,183 from 2000-2013) with the number enacted in the EEA agreement – 4,724. Making the proportion of EU legislative enacted in Norway 9.05%.
The 75% figure comes from a study commissioned by the Norwegian Government into the impact of the EEA “Outside and Inside”. This study, rather than counting the number of EU laws, tried to estimate the effect of the laws in Norway. It concluded “approximately three quarters of substantive EU law and policy” in the EEA comes from the EU. [This study is of EU laws enacted, not the proportion of Norwegian laws that come from the EU]
@hugorifkind: Jeremy Corbyn's tax return shambles is the most Jeremy Corbyn thing that has ever happened.
The thing is he has been calling for this for weeks / months. You would have thought, hmm maybe I better make sure I have all my paperwork just in case something calls our bluff...maybe I should give Finsbury Park Mosque a miss this weekend and search through my files to see where those returns are.
Interesting pro Remain leaflet from the Government.
I think it boils down to:
(1) Full access and development of the single market in services is more important to us than controlling free movement more tightly or regaining sovereignty (2) In any case, we want to stay a member of big clubs like this because we think pooling it increases our influence (3) Our current status in the EU isn't perfect but it's not too bad either, and there's no guarantee we'd get anything better, so why take the risk?
All well-worn and rehearsed old pro-EU arguments, that haven't really changed for 40 years, but that's probably why Cameron, together with his general establishment conservatism, is so clearly for Remain.
It's a meaningless statistic either way. People should stop arguing about it. Who cares, for example, if obscure regulations concerning the VAT treatement of static caravans are included in the figure or not?
As it happens, I don't think the 75% figure is in the government leaflet anyway, although it is on the website.
'Brind - "The Crosby strategy failed in Canada when playing the Islamaphobia card back-fired on the then Premier Stephen Harper."
Lynton Crosby - "The 'niquab issue' was something I learnt about when I read the media like most people," - "I have watched with bemusement suggestions I was running the campaign or somehow on the campaign team. I wasn't".
One of the key Brind points shot down in flames,what a surprise.
Very carefully chosen words, he could of course have had a great deal of influence without "running" the campaign or being on the campaign team. Of course very word Crosby utters must be the gospel truth. Crosby would of course never be economical with the truth
Just received the Government's propaganda information booklet on the EU referendum. I must say it looks very nice and glossy but then I'd expect something that looked quite good for £9.3 million. I'm a bit disappointed that the Government didn't cite their sources for the figures on jobs and exports.
Virginia is one nominally purple state I'd expect Hillary to win, even if Trump can find his way to 270 with other states. Trending Democrat and the DC suburb republicans are not really Trumpsters.
I'd expect Cruz to be similiarly crushed here too.
Interesting pro Remain leaflet from the Government.
I think it boils down to:
(1) Full access and development of the single market in services is more important to us than controlling free movement more tightly or regaining sovereignty (2) In any case, we want to stay a member of big clubs like this because we think pooling it increases our influence (3) Our current status in the EU isn't perfect but it's not too bad either, and there's no guarantee we'd get anything better, so why take the risk?
All well-worn and rehearsed old pro-EU arguments, that haven't really changed for 40 years, but that's probably why Cameron, together with his general establishment conservatism, is so clearly for Remain.
Sounds like that is a long way of saying "too wee too poor too stupid"
We expect both campaigns to lie, we don't expect to have to pay for it.
There are no lies in the government's leaflet.
Is it possible for you to lose any more credibility?
How about the lie that Norway have to comply with 75% of EU legislation. The true figure is around 20%. This is just one of many lies which fill the government's leaflet.
"An independent study commissioned by the Norwegian Government has calculated that Norway has had to incorporate approximately 75% of EU laws into Norwegian law in return for access to the EU’s Single Market"
Are you saying that is not true?
[Your 'true' figure is certainly wrong, by the way. How do I know this? Because you can't quantify legislation. It's an idiotic argument - what matters is the scope of the legislation, not the number of pages or whatever other daft metric anyone uses]
Since the prime minister claimed back in October, during his concerted effort to smear EFTA/EEA countries, that Norway "accepts about three quarters of EU rules", this untruth has become a commonly used argument from remain campaigners across social media. It is a favourite myth of remain politicians from all parties. It adds to the many untruths told about Norway in this debate, from the money it pays, to the influence it exerts. As for the Norway “fax democracy” myth, that’s a tired old canard that ignores the international elephant in the room.
The Leave Alliance has contacted the EFTA Secretariat, which administers the EEA agreement, and they report that 10,862 acts have been incorporated into the EEA Agreement since its inception in 1992 (see screen-shot above).
Very often, though, acts repeal other acts, and some acts are time-limited as cease to have an effect. Taking this into account, there are 4,957 acts remaining in force today.
By contrast, the very latest count of the EU laws in force (today) stands at 23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis of 4,957 acts currently stands at 21 percent. In effect, the EEA (and thus Norway) only has to adopt one in five of all EU laws – not the three-quarters that is claimed.
Don't those products cost more with a prescription ? Although if it's costing money then the number of people who can sign on the back being given out Strepsils/vaseline on prescription compared to payers must be through the roof !
And that is one reason why the separateness of many in the Muslim community is - or can be - such a problem.
Surely the issue of separateness is as much a failure to act as a wish to be separate.
The employer should know that whatever he or she thinks is irrelevant - They are bound by the law.
We're not arguing about being bound by the law. We know that. But we have to deal with reality. The police in Rotherham should have known that an underage girl cannot legally consent to sex and should have investigated the reports they received. They did nothing of the sort for a variety of reasons, one of which was concern about being seen to upset the Muslim community or being seen as "racist". An Muslim employer is bound by the law not to discriminate against gay employees but the reality may well be different. "Should" is not always an adequate answer. My point is that we have to look at the reality of attitudes, especially when held by a community which is somewhat separate and see what that means for all of us. Not simply point to laws and say well they have to comply so there's no problem.
Don't those products cost more with a prescription ? Although if it's costing money then the number of people who can sign on the back being given out Strepsils/vaseline on prescription compared to payers must be through the roof !
You are presuming that people using those prescriptions are paying for the prescription....rather than getting them free because of it being prescribed, which has to be the reason (otherwise the GP would say just go and buy it, its cheaper).
Reading some of the posts on here today from Zac supporters is like a throw back to Smethwick in the 1960s . If you want a Moslem for your neighbour ...........
.....there's a fifty/fifty chance he or she is a homophobic bigot?
Interesting pro Remain leaflet from the Government.
I think it boils down to:
(1) Full access and development of the single market in services is more important to us than controlling free movement more tightly or regaining sovereignty (2) In any case, we want to stay a member of big clubs like this because we think pooling it increases our influence (3) Our current status in the EU isn't perfect but it's not too bad either, and there's no guarantee we'd get anything better, so why take the risk?
All well-worn and rehearsed old pro-EU arguments, that haven't really changed for 40 years, but that's probably why Cameron, together with his general establishment conservatism, is so clearly for Remain.
Sounds like that is a long way of saying "too wee too poor too stupid"
It has been the establishment view for a very long time.
It will take a radical PM from a non-establishment background pre-negotiating an exit deal and then recommending it to the British public to endorse in a referendum for us to Leave, IMHO.
The good news is that I think there's oodles of talent in the 2015 intake.
Interesting pro Remain leaflet from the Government.
I think it boils down to:
(1) Full access and development of the single market in services is more important to us than controlling free movement more tightly or regaining sovereignty (2) In any case, we want to stay a member of big clubs like this because we think pooling it increases our influence (3) Our current status in the EU isn't perfect but it's not too bad either, and there's no guarantee we'd get anything better, so why take the risk?
All well-worn and rehearsed old pro-EU arguments, that haven't really changed for 40 years, but that's probably why Cameron, together with his general establishment conservatism, is so clearly for Remain.
Sounds like that is a long way of saying "too wee too poor too stupid"
It has been the establishment view for a very long time.
It will take a radical PM from a non-establishment background pre-negotiating an exit deal and then recommending it to the British public to endorse in a referendum for us to Leave, IMHO.
The good news is that I think there's oodles of talent in the 2015 intake.
The bad news is the EU will refuse to talk about it even in principle until we invoke Article 50. The whole thing is a scam, you can't find out what the conditions available to leave are until you commit yourself, then it's too late.
If anyone wants a good laugh, look at the Tory and Blairite rants against ministers and politicians and journalists having to publish their tax returns. Tom Harris's effort, headlined "Jeremy Corbyn's plan to make journalists publish their tax returns is North Korea-style madness" is a real corker.
North Korea, he mentions! "Get back to North Korea", eh?
It would be charitable to suppose he's misspelling "Norway". All he has to do is cross the North Sea to Norway to find a country where everyone's income tax return is published by the state. The information is also available online.
(In case anyone's interested, no, this doesn't stop the filthy rich from avoiding paying tax. Income tax rates are high in Norway, but in Oslo the person who pays the largest amount of income tax - the village idiot of the bourgeoisie - usually cites an income which isn't especially large at all.)
Maybe the British electorate should all decamp to North Korea? Is it a rule that politicians who set themselves up as "public affairs consultants" specialising in "government relations, media training, public relations and corporate communications" (how can someone "specialise" so widely?) must always be incapable of writing well and incapable of thinking well too?
Don't those products cost more with a prescription ? Although if it's costing money then the number of people who can sign on the back being given out Strepsils/vaseline on prescription compared to payers must be through the roof !
You are presuming that people using those prescriptions are paying for the prescription....rather than getting them free because of it being prescribed.
Ye - there must be an astounding number of "back signers" taking advantage.
Don't those products cost more with a prescription ? Although if it's costing money then the number of people who can sign on the back being given out Strepsils/vaseline on prescription compared to payers must be through the roof !
Surely these are suitable products to give the worried well, rather than expensive prescription drugs.
@AM - yes, I agree. Their last prediction was the same as my prediction in the pb competition forecast.
I'm sticking with 58:42 to Remain. I expect a significant late swing to Remain in the final fortnight.
However, this might not show up clearly in all the polls, particularly the online ones.
That's my view too. I think quite a lot of people will 'bottle it' at the last minute.
But don't be too depressed. There'll be another referendum in eight or nine years time that will go the right way.
No guarantee of that, Robert, particularly if we don't get a Conservative majority government with a Leave PM.
This could be it.
If the clear will of the British people is to leave, then there will be a vote. And there'll be a vote because politicians - above all - seek to be elected. If "Leave" is an election winning platform, or if UKIP is yapping at the Conservative Party's heels, then another vote will shall have.
@AM - yes, I agree. Their last prediction was the same as my prediction in the pb competition forecast.
I'm sticking with 58:42 to Remain. I expect a significant late swing to Remain in the final fortnight.
However, this might not show up clearly in all the polls, particularly the online ones.
That's my view too. I think quite a lot of people will 'bottle it' at the last minute.
But don't be too depressed. There'll be another referendum in eight or nine years time that will go the right way.
No guarantee of that, Robert, particularly if we don't get a Conservative majority government with a Leave PM.
This could be it.
If the clear will of the British people is to leave, then there will be a vote. And there'll be a vote because politicians - above all - seek to be elected. If "Leave" is an election winning platform, or if UKIP is yapping at the Conservative Party's heels, then another vote will shall have.
Yes, that works in theory but it doesn't mean another vote is around the corner, or anything like it.
Don't those products cost more with a prescription ? Although if it's costing money then the number of people who can sign on the back being given out Strepsils/vaseline on prescription compared to payers must be through the roof !
Yes: that was my thought too. This may be one of these examples - like Azythromiacin - where the government makes a big profit on the prescription.
Interesting pro Remain leaflet from the Government.
I think it boils down to:
(1) Full access and development of the single market in services is more important to us than controlling free movement more tightly or regaining sovereignty (2) In any case, we want to stay a member of big clubs like this because we think pooling it increases our influence (3) Our current status in the EU isn't perfect but it's not too bad either, and there's no guarantee we'd get anything better, so why take the risk?
All well-worn and rehearsed old pro-EU arguments, that haven't really changed for 40 years, but that's probably why Cameron, together with his general establishment conservatism, is so clearly for Remain.
Sounds like that is a long way of saying "too wee too poor too stupid"
It has been the establishment view for a very long time.
It will take a radical PM from a non-establishment background pre-negotiating an exit deal and then recommending it to the British public to endorse in a referendum for us to Leave, IMHO.
The good news is that I think there's oodles of talent in the 2015 intake.
It is, as it has always been, about British senior politicians and senior civil servants wanting the possibility of more power for themselves. The well-being of the British public has never been of any real importance.
I don't think this basic pattern will change - it is up to the public to take the fortunate opportunity they have been given to cut the political establishment down to size.
Couldn't disagree more with the author. Sorry, Donald.
Khan is a bigot, who refuses to meet with many a religious group in his area because they are not his type, including I may say, some Muslims. He is generally hated by Labour politicians. Take a look at his photos on Twitter over the weekend in Merton and Wandsworth. No known locals...they wouldn't been seen dead with this evil, divisive character.
Crosby's not involved in the campaign. The message corresponds with the views of the people of London who are scared stiff of Khan and the incompetent Corbyn running London. If Zac has 8% chance of winning according to the betting...well, I don't agree. Turn Out will decide, and it will be about 33%, unless something dramatic happens. I agree, Khan is favourite but a 92% chance of victory usually is akin to a landslide: 57: 43%. I could be wrong but, on the doorsteps don't say that and I am not focusing on Tories, genral public. The Labour-ites I am talking to are not all going to vote for Khan. There is more than 8% chance. Not as high as 50%, but not 8%.
SO I see that the rebranding on the Conservative in Scotland as the Ruth Davidson Party is being taken to the total extreme. Conservative Leaflets in Glasgow are saying to vote for Ruth Davidson. She's standing on the Edinburgh list.
Is she even THAT popular??
She is vastly more popular than the conservative party.
@AM - yes, I agree. Their last prediction was the same as my prediction in the pb competition forecast.
I'm sticking with 58:42 to Remain. I expect a significant late swing to Remain in the final fortnight.
However, this might not show up clearly in all the polls, particularly the online ones.
That's my view too. I think quite a lot of people will 'bottle it' at the last minute.
But don't be too depressed. There'll be another referendum in eight or nine years time that will go the right way.
No guarantee of that, Robert, particularly if we don't get a Conservative majority government with a Leave PM.
This could be it.
If the clear will of the British people is to leave, then there will be a vote. And there'll be a vote because politicians - above all - seek to be elected. If "Leave" is an election winning platform, or if UKIP is yapping at the Conservative Party's heels, then another vote will shall have.
Yes, that works in theory but it doesn't mean another vote is around the corner, or anything like it.
If the pressure from the EU for more integration intensifies, then I suspect it does.
Stephen Fisher and Alan Renwick "The forecasting method still makes no attempt to anticipate the possibility that supporters of one side turn out at a greater rate than supporters of the opposing side. Polling evidence so far suggests that Leave supporters are more likely to vote than those who favour Remain."
Interesting pro Remain leaflet from the Government.
I think it boils down to:
(1) Full access and development of the single market in services is more important to us than controlling free movement more tightly or regaining sovereignty (2) In any case, we want to stay a member of big clubs like this because we think pooling it increases our influence (3) Our current status in the EU isn't perfect but it's not too bad either, and there's no guarantee we'd get anything better, so why take the risk?
All well-worn and rehearsed old pro-EU arguments, that haven't really changed for 40 years, but that's probably why Cameron, together with his general establishment conservatism, is so clearly for Remain.
Sounds like that is a long way of saying "too wee too poor too stupid"
It has been the establishment view for a very long time.
It will take a radical PM from a non-establishment background pre-negotiating an exit deal and then recommending it to the British public to endorse in a referendum for us to Leave, IMHO.
The good news is that I think there's oodles of talent in the 2015 intake.
The bad news is the EU will refuse to talk about it even in principle until we invoke Article 50. The whole thing is a scam, you can't find out what the conditions available to leave are until you commit yourself, then it's too late.
Not really. You know that you can simply leave, ie not negotiate any new arrangements under Article 50. That is certainly available and is an outcome Leavers should be happy with. On the other hand there is a opportunity to negotiate some other deal but it's not obligatory on either side.
Don't those products cost more with a prescription ? Although if it's costing money then the number of people who can sign on the back being given out Strepsils/vaseline on prescription compared to payers must be through the roof !
Yes: that was my thought too. This may be one of these examples - like Azythromiacin - where the government makes a big profit on the prescription.
More likely it is people exempt from prescription charges getting their OTC medications for free.
@AM - yes, I agree. Their last prediction was the same as my prediction in the pb competition forecast.
I'm sticking with 58:42 to Remain. I expect a significant late swing to Remain in the final fortnight.
However, this might not show up clearly in all the polls, particularly the online ones.
That's my view too. I think quite a lot of people will 'bottle it' at the last minute.
But don't be too depressed. There'll be another referendum in eight or nine years time that will go the right way.
No guarantee of that, Robert, particularly if we don't get a Conservative majority government with a Leave PM.
This could be it.
If the clear will of the British people is to leave, then there will be a vote. And there'll be a vote because politicians - above all - seek to be elected. If "Leave" is an election winning platform, or if UKIP is yapping at the Conservative Party's heels, then another vote will shall have.
Yes, that works in theory but it doesn't mean another vote is around the corner, or anything like it.
If the pressure from the EU for more integration intensifies, then I suspect it does.
Chill, brother.
I want to skip the next couple of months and jump straight to my holiday in Thailand after the referendum.
Don't those products cost more with a prescription ? Although if it's costing money then the number of people who can sign on the back being given out Strepsils/vaseline on prescription compared to payers must be through the roof !
Yes: that was my thought too. This may be one of these examples - like Azythromiacin - where the government makes a big profit on the prescription.
More likely it is people exempt from prescription charges getting their OTC medications for free.
Not really. You know that you can simply leave, ie not negotiate any new arrangements under Article 50. That is certainly available and is an outcome Leavers should be happy with.
@AM - yes, I agree. Their last prediction was the same as my prediction in the pb competition forecast.
I'm sticking with 58:42 to Remain. I expect a significant late swing to Remain in the final fortnight.
However, this might not show up clearly in all the polls, particularly the online ones.
That's my view too. I think quite a lot of people will 'bottle it' at the last minute.
But don't be too depressed. There'll be another referendum in eight or nine years time that will go the right way.
No guarantee of that, Robert, particularly if we don't get a Conservative majority government with a Leave PM.
This could be it.
If the clear will of the British people is to leave, then there will be a vote. And there'll be a vote because politicians - above all - seek to be elected. If "Leave" is an election winning platform, or if UKIP is yapping at the Conservative Party's heels, then another vote will shall have.
Yes, that works in theory but it doesn't mean another vote is around the corner, or anything like it.
If the pressure from the EU for more integration intensifies, then I suspect it does.
Chill, brother.
I want to skip the next couple of months and jump straight to my holiday in Thailand after the referendum.
In the somewhat appropriately named, Phuket.
Brexit means you won't be allowed back in the UK after your holiday.
Interesting pro Remain leaflet from the Government.
I think it boils down to:
(1) Full access and development of the single market in services is more important to us than controlling free movement more tightly or regaining sovereignty (2) In any case, we want to stay a member of big clubs like this because we think pooling it increases our influence (3) Our current status in the EU isn't perfect but it's not too bad either, and there's no guarantee we'd get anything better, so why take the risk?
All well-worn and rehearsed old pro-EU arguments, that haven't really changed for 40 years, but that's probably why Cameron, together with his general establishment conservatism, is so clearly for Remain.
Sounds like that is a long way of saying "too wee too poor too stupid"
It has been the establishment view for a very long time.
It will take a radical PM from a non-establishment background pre-negotiating an exit deal and then recommending it to the British public to endorse in a referendum for us to Leave, IMHO.
The good news is that I think there's oodles of talent in the 2015 intake.
The bad news is the EU will refuse to talk about it even in principle until we invoke Article 50. The whole thing is a scam, you can't find out what the conditions available to leave are until you commit yourself, then it's too late.
Not really. You know that you can simply leave, ie not negotiate any new arrangements under Article 50. That is certainly available and is an outcome Leavers should be happy with. On the other hand there is a opportunity to negotiate some other deal but it's not obligatory on either side.
We can always just repeal the relevent UK legislation at any point.
However, I would suggest that should be a last resort, as it would leave quite a few things in legal limbo - including tax treatment of inward investment.
If we invoke Article 50, we could probably get a preliminary deal in place (assuming we didn't go the EFTA/EEA route) in two to three years. This would no doubt include leaving some things in place that we'd want to negotiate further: perhaps we'd have a full agreement after seven or eight years.
I don't believe there will be any further negotiation of us staying in the EU in the event of invoking Article 50. At this point a Leave-er will be running the Conservative Party, and it would be utter electoral poison to attempt to get a re-vote.
@rustinpeace00: Any other politician who said they'd lost their tax return would be called a liar. With Corbyn, it's completely believable. Totally inept.
Don't those products cost more with a prescription ? Although if it's costing money then the number of people who can sign on the back being given out Strepsils/vaseline on prescription compared to payers must be through the roof !
Yes: that was my thought too. This may be one of these examples - like Azythromiacin - where the government makes a big profit on the prescription.
More likely it is people exempt from prescription charges getting their OTC medications for free.
Don't those products cost more with a prescription ? Although if it's costing money then the number of people who can sign on the back being given out Strepsils/vaseline on prescription compared to payers must be through the roof !
Yes: that was my thought too. This may be one of these examples - like Azythromiacin - where the government makes a big profit on the prescription.
More likely it is people exempt from prescription charges getting their OTC medications for free.
What a complete waste of money !
I think that is the point of the press release. In Leics such items are banned by the formulary.
Comments
Regardless, apart from putting, where he was brilliant, the rest of his game throughout the Masters was quite ordinary.
I do find Leavers' indignation on this hilarious, given that they keep repeating figures about the numbers of migrants entering the EU, with the clear implication that a significant proportion of them are coming here. What's the difference?
Personally, I would draw the line at advocating violence or other criminal activities against individuals or groups. In actual riot situations, the authorities would be justified in imposing more stringent controls on speech, but only as a temporary measure.
https://www.gov.uk/tax-return-uk
specifically "If you return to the UK within 5 years"
and
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rdr3-statutory-residence-test-srt
We expect both campaigns to lie, we don't expect to have to pay for it.
http://www.livemint.com/Companies/Rz2LNuIGF8oIVnshwB2ZWL/What-you-need-to-know-about-Greybull-Capital.html
If you have a culture where "honour" is all - where the appearance of things is often more important than the reality - then it is understandable that anything said which impugns that "honour", almost regardless of whether it is true (and often because it is true), is seen as bad and to be stopped. But we do not have such a culture and we should make it clear to those who come from such a culture that the rules are different here.
Spotted --> binned
Anyone here who submits a tax return not keep a copy of it?
How about the lie that Norway have to comply with 75% of EU legislation. The true figure is around 20%. This is just one of many lies which fill the government's leaflet.
Are you saying that is not true?
[Your 'true' figure is certainly wrong, by the way. How do I know this? Because you can't quantify legislation. It's an idiotic argument - what matters is the scope of the legislation, not the number of pages or whatever other daft metric anyone uses]
Plus I think it unfair to place the burden on gay teachers or women or others viewed to bear the burden of enforcing legal compliance rather than on employers actively to take steps to comply with the law. Most employees will just choose other employers rather than take on the very considerable burden (as both you and I know) of suing an employer, especially in one as fraught as a "He was a Muslim and discriminated against me because I am gay" case. And so the separateness is amplified rather than bridged. The burden should surely be on those who are immigrants and those who are out of line with the rest of society to make the adaptation and not the other way around. It is after all exactly what was expected of those (largely older/religious) groups who were uneasy with or opposed to gay marriage.
Fair play to Ruthie, if the SCons don't get their best ever result as she's been forecasting, shes the one that's going to be eating all the crow.
http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/b2004302-fc8d-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d.pdf
I'm linking to this for a very specific reason. If you look at the leaflet, you will see that the format is of paired pages, with on the left side explanatory text and on the right side a picture with a key point from the explanatory text highlighted. So the first page is headed "An important decision for the UK" and on the right is a picture of a calendar with the referendum date ringed and the words "This is your chance to decide your own future and the future of the United Kingdom. It is important that you vote." These words summarise the first two paragraphs of the explanatory text on the left.
The next pair of pages is where the heat is being generated. On the right is a picture of two men and a disconnected arm metal-bashing and the words "Over 3 million UK jobs are linked to exports to the EU". On the left hand side is a detailed table with different industries, numbers of jobs and share of exports going to the EU in each industry. This in fact totals more than 4 million jobs (suggesting that the table was updated at a late stage but the text on the right was not).
I really don't see what the fuss is about. In context, it's quite clear what is meant.
By all accounts for all Cameron's faults apparently he is very professional and efficient when it comes to dealing with the day to day business of government red box stuff.
However, the example is instructive. His desire to see racism in the Tory campaign - whether it exists or not - is indicative of a desire to stifle free speech because of course nothing has shut down debate in the past like calling something racist. In fact, it's the website which instinctively jumps to the conclusion that Indians and Tamils 'hoard jewellery'. If Labour or Khan does support a wealth tax then it's perfectly fair game to point out what the practical effect of its imposition would be.
Surely the issue of separateness is as much a failure to act as a wish to be separate.
The employer should know that whatever he or she thinks is irrelevant - They are bound by the law.
They may as well say: "this is our best guess but, to be honest, we haven't the foggiest"
EDIT I recalled correctly:
https://twitter.com/ElectionsEtc/status/709784234093838337
Trump 37 .. Cruz 29 .. Kasich 28
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2797274/READ-Muhlenberg-College-PA-GOP-Primary-Poll.pdf
Bob Dylan.
Clinton 44 .. Trump 35
http://cnu.edu/cpp/pdf/april 7 2016 report-final.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlSB6ZfZuk0
I think it boils down to:
(1) Full access and development of the single market in services is more important to us than controlling free movement more tightly or regaining sovereignty
(2) In any case, we want to stay a member of big clubs like this because we think pooling it increases our influence
(3) Our current status in the EU isn't perfect but it's not too bad either, and there's no guarantee we'd get anything better, so why take the risk?
All well-worn and rehearsed old pro-EU arguments, that haven't really changed for 40 years, but that's probably why Cameron, together with his general establishment conservatism, is so clearly for Remain.
As it happens, I don't think the 75% figure is in the government leaflet anyway, although it is on the website.
With surveys painting a confusing picture, BuzzFeed News asked the country’s top public opinion researchers to help explain what’s going on.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/how-britains-pollsters-think-eu-referendum-might-g#.qlyjq53OgO
I'm sticking with 58:42 to Remain. I expect a significant late swing to Remain in the final fortnight.
However, this might not show up clearly in all the polls, particularly the online ones.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/11/john-bercow-bans-mps-from-naming-celebrity-couple-in-threesome-i/
So its going to be All Quiet on the Western Front this afternoon in relation to this story.
Polling firm Populus was also invited to answer the three questions. They declined because they are working with one of the campaign groups.
I'd expect Cruz to be similiarly crushed here too.
But don't be too depressed. There'll be another referendum in eight or nine years time that will go the right way.
The Leave Alliance has contacted the EFTA Secretariat, which administers the EEA agreement, and they report that 10,862 acts have been incorporated into the EEA Agreement since its inception in 1992 (see screen-shot above).
Very often, though, acts repeal other acts, and some acts are time-limited as cease to have an effect. Taking this into account, there are 4,957 acts remaining in force today.
By contrast, the very latest count of the EU laws in force (today) stands at 23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis of 4,957 acts currently stands at 21 percent. In effect, the EEA (and thus Norway) only has to adopt one in five of all EU laws – not the three-quarters that is claimed.
http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=136
https://twitter.com/StephenDFisher/status/719496282419687424
This could be it.
It will take a radical PM from a non-establishment background pre-negotiating an exit deal and then recommending it to the British public to endorse in a referendum for us to Leave, IMHO.
The good news is that I think there's oodles of talent in the 2015 intake.
North Korea, he mentions! "Get back to North Korea", eh?
It would be charitable to suppose he's misspelling "Norway". All he has to do is cross the North Sea to Norway to find a country where everyone's income tax return is published by the state. The information is also available online.
(In case anyone's interested, no, this doesn't stop the filthy rich from avoiding paying tax. Income tax rates are high in Norway, but in Oslo the person who pays the largest amount of income tax - the village idiot of the bourgeoisie - usually cites an income which isn't especially large at all.)
Harris also says "Stupid online petitions are what's wrong with our democracy".
Maybe the British electorate should all decamp to North Korea? Is it a rule that politicians who set themselves up as "public affairs consultants" specialising in "government relations, media training, public relations and corporate communications" (how can someone "specialise" so widely?) must always be incapable of writing well and incapable of thinking well too?
I don't think this basic pattern will change - it is up to the public to take the fortunate opportunity they have been given to cut the political establishment down to size.
Chill, brother.
"The forecasting method still makes no attempt to anticipate the possibility that supporters of one side turn out at a greater rate than supporters of the opposing side. Polling evidence so far suggests that Leave supporters are more likely to vote than those who favour Remain."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36015797
Echoes of the Phoenix Four?
In the somewhat appropriately named, Phuket.
However, I would suggest that should be a last resort, as it would leave quite a few things in legal limbo - including tax treatment of inward investment.
If we invoke Article 50, we could probably get a preliminary deal in place (assuming we didn't go the EFTA/EEA route) in two to three years. This would no doubt include leaving some things in place that we'd want to negotiate further: perhaps we'd have a full agreement after seven or eight years.
I don't believe there will be any further negotiation of us staying in the EU in the event of invoking Article 50. At this point a Leave-er will be running the Conservative Party, and it would be utter electoral poison to attempt to get a re-vote.
And the Leave side get indignant when some of them are labelled fruitcakes.
I'm sorry, there is no tax return left?
If Corbyn didn't exist, CCHQ would have to invent him.