It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?
Still confused...
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
LEGALLY BINDING
Chortle.
Nabavi will be along to explain shortly
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:
"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
Dave, together with the other 27 heads of the EU, hammered out a deal that has been decried as worthless and achieving nothing. because...because...well, just because...
...
...then you should vote LEAVE!
A few times, if you can.
No, the deal is still worthless. It was always going to be worthless unless we had a treaty change with 27 signatures on the dotted line before we went to vote. I've said this time and again, the PM could have come back from Brussels with a veto, exit from the CAP and CFP and a new rebate but without treaty change or a new "Treaty of London" before our vote it would all mean absolutely nothing. If/when we deliver a remain vote there is going to be no appetite to implement anything Dave has negotiated, even his thinnest gruel is going to be put to one side and ignored for a year or so until we forget may be trust worthy, I think he is. I think he tried to rush the negotiation because he knows another summer of the migrant crisis is basically going to destroy any chance of a remain vote so he has done the best possible deal in the shortest period of time. That means there is no treaty change, no EUParl assent and no legal framework to bind our remain vote to the EU implementing it. The last point is the key point, I don't think the EU are to be trusted and though I personally wouldn't be swayed by Dave's negotiations even if he had got 27 signatures on a new/amended treaty without that they hold absolutely no meaning. As I said, Dave could have got the best deal out there, the internal markets veto, an opt-out from the CAP/CFP, enhanced movement instead of free movement etc... but it would all come to nought without having it enshrined in a new or amended treaty with the 28th signature (ours) going on the dotted line with the Remain vote.
This is the key - the deal didn't achieve much by way of reform of the EU. Had it promised an end to CAP/CFP, etc you name it then yes, I would have been cautious.
But the irony is that the paucity of its achievement in the eyes of many is what gives it its bite.
"All" it achieved was an opt-out of ever closer union (nothing the 27 can do to make us opt in), and continued non-discrimination between EZ and non-EZ (remember the court case). It did a bit on the emergency brake and competitiveness, who cares.
So in its modesty, it protects us from others' duplicity, such as it may be. Indeed even the vice-prez rails only against the free movement of people, rather than the above (I don't have a huge problem with free movement of people, you may have, of course).
It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?
Still confused...
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
LEGALLY BINDING
Chortle.
Nabavi will be along to explain shortly
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.
Some of us Mr Meeks did our own legal analysis. We may be wrong but I have spent more time analysing EU laws than is really sensible in a well-lived life. And FWIW I thought the deal was a bit "meh" and not worth making a song and dance about. Cameron did so he can hardly be surprised if others call him out on it.
A bit of English understatement would have been much more comme il faut.
Oh the deal is dismal. But it will be implemented if we vote Remain.
It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?
Still confused...
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
LEGALLY BINDING
Chortle.
Nabavi will be along to explain shortly
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:
"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.
lol - given that you have spent most of the last 2 months telling all the leavers they are disreputable who will pass your test ?
It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?
Still confused...
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
LEGALLY BINDING
Chortle.
Nabavi will be along to explain shortly
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:
"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.
What a stupid, pointless bet, which merely reveals your ignorance.
Cameron has to get words written into the next EU Treaty for his deal to be fulfilled. That could be a decade away, or more, or indeed could never happen. Ever.
The bet is impossible.
You're welcome to offer me your own version based on your idea that it is not legally binding. I'm a reasonable man.
It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?
Still confused...
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
LEGALLY BINDING
Chortle.
Nabavi will be along to explain shortly
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:
"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.
lol - given that you have spent most of the last 2 months telling all the leavers they are disreputable who will pass your test ?
I said they were crazy, not disreputable. If I were to exclude the crazy, I'd have no one take me up on my bet.
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
...
Then he should have taken longer and fought for a better deal.
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.
It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?
Still confused...
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
LEGALLY BINDING
Chortle.
Nabavi will be along to explain shortly
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:
"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.
lol - given that you have spent most of the last 2 months telling all the leavers they are disreputable who will pass your test ?
I said they were crazy, not disreputable. If I were to exclude the crazy, I'd have no one take me up on my bet.
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
Of course. Has it occurred to you that many people just don't share his view ?
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
This is the key - the deal didn't achieve much by way of reform of the EU. Had it promised an end to CAP/CFP, etc you name it then yes, I would have been cautious.
But the irony is that the paucity of its achievement in the eyes of many is what gives it its bite.
"All" it achieved was an opt-out of ever closer union (nothing the 27 can do to make us opt in), and continued non-discrimination between EZ and non-EZ (remember the court case). It did a bit on the emergency brake and competitiveness, who cares.
So in its modesty, it protects us from others' duplicity, such as it may be. Indeed even the vice-prez rails only against the free movement of people, rather than the above (I don't have a huge problem with free movement of people, you may have, of course).
That opt-out isn't going to be part of any EU treaty. It means nothing. Our opt-out of the EU justice measures have bite because they are part of the Lisbon Treaty, the same is true for our opt-out wrt to asylum and migration of non-EU citizens, we aren't in Schengen and therefore the deal didn't apply to us because there was no way to enforce it.
Dave's non-discrimination for currencies in the single market reform is already there, the court case you cite (the ECB vs LCH) has already been won, as long as we maintain single market membership the ECJ has ruled EUR can be cleared by any jurisdiction within the single market. Though I'm not an expert by any means, I'm sure if any such issue were to arise in future this case would form the ground work for any company or our government were it being discriminated against within the single market.
Back to the opt-out, without it being enshrined in an EU treaty the other EU nations are under no obligation to recognise it. This is where the 27 signatures on the dotted line come in. Yes maybe the current leaders will respect it in future summits, but governments and attitudes change. Who is to say that there won't be some raging federalist in power in Germany next time with a leftist coalition of SPD, Linke and Greens taking over, why should they respect a deal signed by Merkel that hasn't been integrated into German law by way of amending the Lisbon Treaty. It's meaningless. Unless we have the ever-closer union opt-out put into an existing treaty or form the basis of a new one which requires all 28 nations to agree to it and recognise it, there isn't any point in even having it.
But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade.
We were doing badly in the 70s for our own domestic reasons; a lot has changed since the 70s. Not least the 80s were since then. This article makes the case very well:
It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?
Still confused...
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...
nny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
LEGALLY BINDING
Chortle.
Nabavi will be along to explain shortly
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:
"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.
What a stupid, pointless bet, which merely reveals your ignorance.
Cameron has to get words written into the next EU Treaty for his deal to be fulfilled. That could be a decade away, or more, or indeed could never happen. Ever.
The bet is impossible.
You're welcome to offer me your own version based on your idea that it is not legally binding. I'm a reasonable man.
No, you're not. On this subject you're an idiot. No bet can be framed around Cameron's EU deal, for the precise reason that the EU changes deals and laws and rules on a whim, or never, or always, or tomorrow. As it decides.
Imagine framing a bet on "whether or not the EU will depose a democratically elected EU government in the next ten years" in 2005. You'd have been laughed to scorn.
Yet that is what the EU did in Greece, and arguably Italy.
will you two PLEASE sort out your quote applications.
It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?
Still confused...
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...
nny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
LEGALLY BINDING
Chortle.
Nabavi will be along to explain shortly
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the win
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:
"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.
What a stupid, pointless bet, which merely reveals your ignorance.
Cameron has to get words written into the next EU Treaty for his deal to be fulfilled. That could be a decade away, or more, or indeed could never happen. Ever.
The bet is impossible.
You're welcome to offer me your own version based on your idea that it is not legally binding. I'm a reasonable man.
No, you're not. On this subject you're an idiot. No bet can be framed around Cameron's EU deal, for the precise reason that the EU changes deals and laws and rules on a whim, or never, or always, or tomorrow. As it decides.
Imagine framing a bet on "whether or not the EU will depose a democratically elected EU government in the next ten years" in 2005. You'd have been laughed to scorn.
Yet that is what the EU did in Greece, and arguably Italy.
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:
"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.
What a stupid, pointless bet, which merely reveals your ignorance.
Cameron has to get words written into the next EU Treaty for his deal to be fulfilled. That could be a decade away, or more, or indeed could never happen. Ever.
The bet is impossible.
You're welcome to offer me your own version based on your idea that it is not legally binding. I'm a reasonable man.
No, you're not. On this subject you're an idiot. No bet can be framed around Cameron's EU deal, for the precise reason that the EU changes deals and laws and rules on a whim, or never, or always, or tomorrow. As it decides.
Imagine framing a bet on "whether or not the EU will depose a democratically elected EU government in the next ten years" in 2005. You'd have been laughed to scorn.
Yet that is what the EU did in Greece, and arguably Italy.
Logic fail. If the EU changes this deal, I lose the bet. But it won't:
a) because it probably legally can't; and b) because it would be political madness to do so.
But my even money bet stands for anyone reputable who is less chicken licken than you. After all, if wildly improbable things have happened in the last ten years, it must be worth a punt?
Stephen Fry has sparked outrage after criticizing the idea of safe spaces and trigger words, and saying that child victims of sexual abuse should 'grow up' and not feel sorry for themselves.
This is the key - the deal didn't achieve much by way of reform of the EU. Had it promised an end to CAP/CFP, etc you name it then yes, I would have been cautious.
But the irony is that the paucity of its achievement in the eyes of many is what gives it its bite.
"All" it achieved was an opt-out of ever closer union (nothing the 27 can do to make us opt in), and continued non-discrimination between EZ and non-EZ (remember the court case). It did a bit on the emergency brake and competitiveness, who cares.
So in its modesty, it protects us from others' duplicity, such as it may be. Indeed even the vice-prez rails only against the free movement of people, rather than the above (I don't have a huge problem with free movement of people, you may have, of course).
That opt-out isn't going to be part of any EU treaty. It means nothing. Our opt-out of the EU justice measures have bite because they are part of the Lisbon Treaty, the same is true for our opt-out wrt to asylum and migration of non-EU citizens, we aren't in Schengen and therefore the deal didn't apply to us because there was no way to enforce it.
Dave's non-discrimination for currencies in the single market reform is already there, the court case you cite (the ECB vs LCH) has already been won, as long as we maintain single market membership the ECJ has ruled EUR can be cleared by any jurisdiction within the single market. Though I'm not an expert by any means, I'm sure if any such issue were to arise in future this case would form the ground work for any company or our government were it being discriminated against within the single market.
Back to the opt-out, without it being enshrined in an EU treaty the other EU nations are under no obligation to recognise it. This is where the 27 signatures on the dotted line come in. Yes maybe the current leaders will respect it in future summits, but governments and attitudes change. Who is to say that there won't be some raging federalist in power in Germany next time with a leftist coalition of SPD, Linke and Greens taking over, why should they respect a deal signed by Merkel that hasn't been integrated into German law by way of amending the Lisbon Treaty. It's meaningless. Unless we have the ever-closer union opt-out put into an existing treaty or form the basis of a new one which requires all 28 nations to agree to it and recognise it, there isn't any point in even having it.
I'm not 100% sure that we would have won that ECB/LCH case in EEA, and doubt very much we'd have won it outside of EEA.
But as mentioned upthread, I perfectly understand that if you believe that the risks of a change to whatever has been agreed are too great to trust the continuity of the deal, you must vote out.
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
I've just had my copy of the government's pamphlet delivered. Big mistake?? I think it reads as if we are subscribers to The New Day. Nevertheless I still think we ought to stay.
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.
Bootle is an idiot. I know I'm obviously biased, but I read his prizewinning essay (rough precis: everything good will happen, obvs) and was unimpressed. Plus he came out with one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard from an economist (that distance doesn't matter for trade in C21) One disadvantage LEAVE have is that it's top-heavy with people with many qualifications but no sense: Lilico genuinely thinks terraforming Mars is cheaper than combating global warming (dafuq?), Boris is an unearthly child.
Colour me stupid, but I prefer the honest hatred of the Farages, Tebbits, et al. I disagree with them but at least their arguments are coherent, comprehensible and have some relationship to reality.
I'm not 100% sure that we would have won that ECB/LCH case in EEA, and doubt very much we'd have won it outside of EEA.
But as mentioned upthread, I perfectly understand that if you believe that the risks of a change to whatever has been agreed are too great to trust the continuity of the deal, you must vote out.
Possibly, but the case has already been won and "non-discrimination" now has legal precedent within the EU legal system. They are giving up something that already exists.
Well as I said, my personal view is that even if Dave's negotiation were legally binding and he had 27 signatures already gathered I would still be voting to leave, there just isn't enough in there. I've said it many, many times, I would have liked the internal markets veto, failing that a double/super majority requirement for FinReg/EMU measures of EMU and non-EMU countries. If Dave had got that I would have been content to vote remain. We don't have that, we are still at the mercy of the EMU majority in QMV measures and without a new treaty on the horizon we have no recourse to achieve it.
Stephen Fry has sparked outrage after criticizing the idea of safe spaces and trigger words, and saying that child victims of sexual abuse should 'grow up' and not feel sorry for themselves.
It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?
Still confused...
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
LEGALLY BINDING
Chortle.
Nabavi will be along to explain shortly
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.
Some of us Mr Meeks did our own legal analysis. We may be wrong but I have spent more time analysing EU laws than is really sensible in a well-lived life. And FWIW I thought the deal was a bit "meh" and not worth making a song and dance about. Cameron did so he can hardly be surprised if others call him out on it.
A bit of English understatement would have been much more comme il faut.
Oh the deal is dismal. But it will be implemented if we vote Remain.
I think we will vote Remain. I'm not so sure the deal will be implemented in full but I think it hardly matters whether it is or not because events will move matters along in the EU. At any rate, I'm not taking you up on your bet.
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.
44% of goods and services trade, based on traditional trade data. Probably less than 40% in value-added terms, and with other appropriate adjustments. Lower still if we consider our earnings from overseas investments as well.
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of stoning and 10% who thought homosexuality should be illegal. As non-muslims outnumber muslims 19/1 it would suggest that more non muslims are in favour of stoning adulterers and making homosexuality illegal!
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
I'm not 100% sure that we would have won that ECB/LCH case in EEA, and doubt very much we'd have won it outside of EEA.
But as mentioned upthread, I perfectly understand that if you believe that the risks of a change to whatever has been agreed are too great to trust the continuity of the deal, you must vote out.
Possibly, but the case has already been won and "non-discrimination" now has legal precedent within the EU legal system. They are giving up something that already exists.
Well as I said, my personal view is that even if Dave's negotiation were legally binding and he had 27 signatures already gathered I would still be voting to leave, there just isn't enough in there. I've said it many, many times, I would have liked the internal markets veto, failing that a double/super majority requirement for FinReg/EMU measures of EMU and non-EMU countries. If Dave had got that I would have been content to vote remain. We don't have that, we are still at the mercy of the EMU majority in QMV measures and without a new treaty on the horizon we have no recourse to achieve it.
I don't see how you would have preferred double/super majority requirement for FinReg and as we haven't got it you will leave, in which case we presumably have no veto or anything over them.
Especially at this moment: a cursory reading (!) of the Delegated Acts illustrates that as an EU member there is all to play for in terms of input into FinReg which affects us greatly, in or out.
As said, I prefer to have had some input into them than none.
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.
44% of goods and services trade, based on traditional trade data. Probably less than 40% in value-added terms, and with other appropriate adjustments. Lower still if we consider our earnings from overseas investments as well.
And falling.
In 1975 only 10% of our trade was with the then Common Market, admittedly only 6 members then.
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.
44% of goods and services trade, based on traditional trade data. Probably less than 40% in value-added terms, and with other appropriate adjustments. Lower still if we consider our earnings from overseas investments as well.
And falling.
But why would you swap a position of more influence for one of less influence?
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.
I understand this is a convincing argument for you, as it is the Government, but I don't believe us having 1/28th of a say in shaping the rules of a single market of a declining portion of our export trade is worth surrendering sovereignty on trade, regions, agriculture, fisheries, social, employment, justice and home affairs policies and incurring the costs and restrictions of membership, including the charter of fundamental rights and other creeping encroachments.
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
All the subjugated nations of South East Britain should get their own Mayor and begin the process of extinguishing England.
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of stoning and 10% who thought homosexuality should be illegal. As non-muslims outnumber muslims 19/1 it would suggest that more non muslims are in favour of stoning adulterers and making homosexuality illegal!
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
Can you show me any community or country where adulterers are stoned to death? Outside Islam?
Your arguments are futile. The problem is ISLAM. Let us be rid.
Just pointing out some anomalies in the data!
While the headlines are about terrorism and gays, there is much positive in the survey. The vast majority feel British, trust their MPs and councillors and oppose terrorism for example.
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
The detail is even more alarming, the older generations actually tended to be more secular and integrated, the younger were more vociferous about their beliefs:
The percentage of Muslims who want homosexuality to be illegal: 71% of Muslims 16-24. 65% of Muslims 25-34. 55% of Muslims 35-44. 54% of Muslims 45-54. 50% of Muslims 55+.
“If I could choose, I would prefer to live in Britain under sharia law rather than British law”
Age 16-24 – 37% prefer sharia law, 50% prefer British law Age 25-34 – 32% prefer sharia law, 52% prefer British law Age 35-44 – 26% prefer sharia law, 63% prefer British law Age 45-54 – 16% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law Age 55+ – 17% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.
If he keeps his cash in a current account, say because he disagrees with the military-industrial complex (ie owning stocks and shares), it is entirely feasible he earned no interest last year. Likewise if he bowed to the god of capitalism and invested it, he again could easily have no interest (if it was, say, a capital accumulation fund).
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.
He's got two ex wives, plus I can see him making regular and significant charitable donations and donations to good causes.
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of stoning and 10% who thought homosexuality should be illegal. As non-muslims outnumber muslims 19/1 it would suggest that more non muslims are in favour of stoning adulterers and making homosexuality illegal!
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
Can you show me any community or country where adulterers are stoned to death? Outside Islam?
Your arguments are futile. The problem is ISLAM. Let us be rid.
Just pointing out some anomalies in the data!
While the headlines are about terrorism and gays, there is much positive in the survey. The vast majority feel British, trust their MPs and councillors and oppose terrorism for example.
Yeah, I feel REALLY REALLY positive that at least 1.5 MILLION BRITISH MUSLIMS would NOT tell the police if they knew a close friend or relative was a terrorist
A surprising percentage of non muslims too.
I am not saying there is no problem, just that there is plenty to be positive about too.
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.
That is assuming the EU is the top table for many of the rules which relate to the UK's exports...
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of stoning and 10% who thought homosexuality should be illegal. As non-muslims outnumber muslims 19/1 it would suggest that more non muslims are in favour of stoning adulterers and making homosexuality illegal!
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
Can you show me any community or country where adulterers are stoned to death? Outside Islam?
Your arguments are futile. The problem is ISLAM. Let us be rid.
Just pointing out some anomalies in the data!
While the headlines are about terrorism and gays, there is much positive in the survey. The vast majority feel British, trust their MPs and councillors and oppose terrorism for example.
That's a pretty low bar, though. We should be glad, should we, that people oppose terrorism. Well whoopee. That should be a given, frankly. And people who are born in Britain and are British feel British. Well, hooray!
What a poverty of low expectations we have that we're pathetically grateful that a majority of Muslims oppose terrorism even though a majority of those will not speak up about it. So that not opposing it does not really amount to much, does it. Because turning a blind eye to it when you could have done something about it is not really cause for celebration. Your inaction allows it to flourish even if you personally oppose it.
Even if the criticisms of how the poll has been conducted have some validity, these are still worrying results. We cannot assume that the longer people have been here the more likely they are to assimilate. Nor can we assume that those who are born here and are therefore British will share the views of the majority of their fellow citizens. And this means that they are more likely to be susceptible to the currents of opinion flowing through the Muslim world at present. That's hardly encouraging.
What about rental income from the lodger that Corbyn has? Where is that on his tax return? He is either been charging less than £4k a year (which is miles below market rate) or he has forgotten to put it down.
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.
He's got two ex wives, plus I can see him making regular and significant charitable donations and donations to good causes.
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of stoning and 10% who thought homosexuality should be illegal. As non-muslims outnumber muslims 19/1 it would suggest that more non muslims are in favour of stoning adulterers and making homosexuality illegal!
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
Can you show me any community or country where adulterers are stoned to death? Outside Islam?
Your arguments are futile. The problem is ISLAM. Let us be rid.
Just pointing out some anomalies in the data!
While the headlines are about terrorism and gays, there is much positive in the survey. The vast majority feel British, trust their MPs and councillors and oppose terrorism for example.
Yeah, I feel REALLY REALLY positive that at least 1.5 MILLION BRITISH MUSLIMS would NOT tell the police if they knew a close friend or relative was a terrorist
A surprising percentage of non muslims too.
I am not saying there is no problem, just that there is plenty to be positive about too.
That positivity vanishes when you read the detail and that younger Muslims are more conservative and less integrated than their parents and grandparents.
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.
From what have read of Mr Corbyn, it seems highly likely to me that he would devote every spare penny to the Cause.
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
Osborne's latest meddling isn't for all of East Anglia, the city of Cambridge is omitted from this masterplan.
In addition there are to be other regional mayors for 'West of England' region, whatever that might be' and also for 'Greater Lincolnshire'.
Osborne clearly feels that the more layers of government the better.
The local people are not to be consulted whether they want this or not.
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.
He's got two ex wives, plus I can see him making regular and significant charitable donations and donations to good causes.
Ah, I'd forgotten about the ex-wives.
Three kids too, 70k in London ain't going to a lead a life of wealth and savings.
And what is "Dodgy Dave" territory...paying even more tax than required?
In reality, the "scandal" of the Panama Papers is actually it seems our leading politicians are remarkably clean. I presumed the likes of Cameron would have an extensive share / investment portfolio in a blind trust.
TBH so far all the Guardian splashes nothing is damning about anybody in this country, compared to leaders in many other countries.
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
@HarrietMaltby: The real story of course is how f-ing shambolic Corbyn's tax affairs are. Ringing endorsement of Lab's economic aptitude. Late, fined, lost
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
Osborne's latest meddling isn't for all of East Anglia, the city of Cambridge is omitted from this masterplan.
In addition there are to be other regional mayors for 'West of England' region, whatever that might be' and also for 'Greater Lincolnshire'.
Osborne clearly feels that the more layers of government the better.
The local people are not to be consulted whether they want this or not.
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
For one year...I don't think that has been a yearly thing, and I seemed to remember that is reflected in the wallpaper biz accounts.
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
Osborne's latest meddling isn't for all of East Anglia, the city of Cambridge is omitted from this masterplan.
In addition there are to be other regional mayors for 'West of England' region, whatever that might be' and also for 'Greater Lincolnshire'.
Osborne clearly feels that the more layers of government the better.
The local people are not to be consulted whether they want this or not.
Wait a moment, how does does being responsible for "transport and strategic planning" work if the region's major urban centres are excluded?
Or the "skills training", bearing in mind that people from all over rural Cambs get theirs at Cambridge Regional College etc?
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
Indeed no Corporation Tax since Dodgy Dave was a lad.
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
Osborne and Little lost money from 2009-2013 iirc, it has done very well in the last two years.
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.
44% of goods and services trade, based on traditional trade data. Probably less than 40% in value-added terms, and with other appropriate adjustments. Lower still if we consider our earnings from overseas investments as well.
And falling.
In 1975 only 10% of our trade was with the then Common Market, admittedly only 6 members then.
UK exports to the EU were about 30% of the total in 1973. They may well be there again by 2030.
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
Osborne's latest meddling isn't for all of East Anglia, the city of Cambridge is omitted from this masterplan.
In addition there are to be other regional mayors for 'West of England' region, whatever that might be' and also for 'Greater Lincolnshire'.
Osborne clearly feels that the more layers of government the better.
The local people are not to be consulted whether they want this or not.
Wait a moment, how does does being responsible for "transport and strategic planning" work if the region's major urban centres are excluded?
Or the "skills training", bearing in mind that people from all over rural Cambs get theirs at Cambridge Regional College etc?
This is all potty.
Indeed.
These new 'City Regions' are cutting across all sorts of county and regional boundaries and will be affecting all sorts of transport, health, education etc bodies.
Guaranteed to create planning chaos and arguments.
The detail is even more alarming, the older generations actually tended to be more secular and integrated, the younger were more vociferous about their beliefs:
The percentage of Muslims who want homosexuality to be illegal: 71% of Muslims 16-24. 65% of Muslims 25-34. 55% of Muslims 35-44. 54% of Muslims 45-54. 50% of Muslims 55+.
“If I could choose, I would prefer to live in Britain under sharia law rather than British law”
Age 16-24 – 37% prefer sharia law, 50% prefer British law Age 25-34 – 32% prefer sharia law, 52% prefer British law Age 35-44 – 26% prefer sharia law, 63% prefer British law Age 45-54 – 16% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law Age 55+ – 17% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law
There is nothing positive about this. We are incubating a disaster 20-30 years hence.
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
Osborne's latest meddling isn't for all of East Anglia, the city of Cambridge is omitted from this masterplan.
In addition there are to be other regional mayors for 'West of England' region, whatever that might be' and also for 'Greater Lincolnshire'.
Osborne clearly feels that the more layers of government the better.
The local people are not to be consulted whether they want this or not.
Wait a moment, how does does being responsible for "transport and strategic planning" work if the region's major urban centres are excluded?
Or the "skills training", bearing in mind that people from all over rural Cambs get theirs at Cambridge Regional College etc?
This is all potty.
Yes - the resemblance of the current government to Heath's period of misrule becomes ever more eerie.
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of s
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
Can you show me any community or country where adulterers are
Just pointing out some anomalies in the data!
While the headlines are about terrorism and gays, there is much positive in the survey. The vast majority feel British, trust their MPs and councillors and oppose terrorism for example.
Yeah, I feel REALLY REALLY positive that at least 1.5 MILLION BRITISH MUSLIMS would NOT tell the police if they knew a close friend or relative was a terrorist
A surprising percentage of non muslims too.
I am not saying there is no problem, just that there is plenty to be positive about too.
That positivity vanishes when you read the detail and that younger Muslims are more conservative and less integrated than their parents and grandparents.
This is the original data (615 pages). Page 117 shows the youngsters are more supportive of homosexuality than their elders. I am not sure which table that you mean when you say the opposite.
Also more muslims than controls feel strongly about being British (p590 onwards).
Only 34 % would go to the police on the terrorism question*, but a further 27% did not believe that they knew anyone who would support terrorism in the first place. 45% would talk to the individual first.
* the question was : If you suspected that a friend was getting involved with people who supported terrorism in Syria, what would you do?
It was not about supporting terrorism in the UK.
Like I said, a lot of data and some positive aspects too.
Tell us the positive. Let me guess. Cakes? Curry? Shops?
The immigration of Muslims into Europe has been utterly catastrophic, for them and for us Mostly for us.
I don't blame either side for this. We sincerely thought they would integrate, they had no idea we would be so determinedly liberal (and we also offered them a much better life, so who can blame them for coming).
But the experiment has FAILED. And unless we want to endanger our liberal societies, we need to throw the process into reverse.
Didn't most Muslim immigration to the UK occur when Homosexuality was either illegal or still frowned upon and a fixture of comedy? And while "unmarried mother" was a fairly strong term of abuse?
The funny thing about the problem with Islam (which I agree is a problem) is that while the religious attitudes it supports have been eliminated from the UK for well over 200 years, the SOCIAL attitudes have only been eliminated in the very recent past. I.e. Homosexuality has only been legal in Scotland for 25 years.
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
Osborne and Little lost money from 2009-2013 iirc, it has done very well in the last two years.
Tell us the positive. Let me guess. Cakes? Curry? Shops?
The immigration of Muslims into Europe has been utterly catastrophic, for them and for us Mostly for us.
I don't blame either side for this. We sincerely thought they would integrate, they had no idea we would be so determinedly liberal (and we also offered them a much better life, so who can blame them for coming).
But the experiment has FAILED. And unless we want to endanger our liberal societies, we need to throw the process into reverse.
Didn't most Muslim immigration to the UK occur when Homosexuality was either illegal or still frowned upon and a fixture of comedy? And while "unmarried mother" was a fairly strong term of abuse?
The funny thing about the problem with Islam (which I agree is a problem) is that while the religious attitudes it supports have been eliminated from the UK for well over 200 years, the SOCIAL attitudes have only been eliminated in the very recent past. I.e. Homosexuality has only been legal in Scotland for 25 years.
Almost all occurred when the Conservative Party was insisting on legal sanction for schools whose teachers promoted the "acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". Then Muslims arrived and gay marriage got legalised, proving once and for all that Islam threatens our freedoms
Thanks for the view. It seems to be legally clear as mud whether it's supposed to be a register of the last formally-notified addresses of shareholders (as you suggest), or a register of the company's best estimate of the current addresses of shareholders, as Alastair Meeks indicated on the previous thread.
I can't be the first person to come across this question, so I was expecting every web page detailing the law to make this clear. So far I haven't found a single one*. It's really odd.
* Companies House is totally silent on the question, but that's not a surprise. They seem to regard their role as being to threaten directors with criminal sanctions whilst providing no useful information and taking zero responsibility themselves for anything.
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
Osbourne and Little must have had distributable reserves otherwise it couldn't have paid a dividend. These would normally come from retained profits, wouldn't they?
So in the blue corner we have a man so incompetent he paid too much tax and the red corner a man so incompetent he forgot to file it on time and perhaps owes £180.
I don't know having such incompetence among leaders is a positive thing, but it is a lot better than most countries (and also of the past where we had the likes of Mandy taking dodgy loans or MP shoving dirty money down their y-fronts to ask questions in parliament).
Comments
'Staying in the EU is a leap in the dark with both legs shackled'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/10/if-leaving-the-eu-is-a-leap-in-the-dark-then-staying-in-is-a-lea/
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
But the irony is that the paucity of its achievement in the eyes of many is what gives it its bite.
"All" it achieved was an opt-out of ever closer union (nothing the 27 can do to make us opt in), and continued non-discrimination between EZ and non-EZ (remember the court case). It did a bit on the emergency brake and competitiveness, who cares.
So in its modesty, it protects us from others' duplicity, such as it may be. Indeed even the vice-prez rails only against the free movement of people, rather than the above (I don't have a huge problem with free movement of people, you may have, of course).
lol - given that you have spent most of the last 2 months telling all the leavers they are disreputable who will pass your test ?
Cameron has to get words written into the next EU Treaty for his deal to be fulfilled. That could be a decade away, or more, or indeed could never happen. Ever.
The bet is impossible.
You're welcome to offer me your own version based on your idea that it is not legally binding. I'm a reasonable man.
I said they were crazy, not disreputable. If I were to exclude the crazy, I'd have no one take me up on my bet.
Then he should have taken longer and fought for a better deal.
And one that was actually legally binding.
not even the remainers ?
well maybe it's sent us all mad.
I'd leave the spoof posts to the real experts of the genre
Of course. Has it occurred to you that many people just don't share his view ?
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
Dave's non-discrimination for currencies in the single market reform is already there, the court case you cite (the ECB vs LCH) has already been won, as long as we maintain single market membership the ECJ has ruled EUR can be cleared by any jurisdiction within the single market. Though I'm not an expert by any means, I'm sure if any such issue were to arise in future this case would form the ground work for any company or our government were it being discriminated against within the single market.
Back to the opt-out, without it being enshrined in an EU treaty the other EU nations are under no obligation to recognise it. This is where the 27 signatures on the dotted line come in. Yes maybe the current leaders will respect it in future summits, but governments and attitudes change. Who is to say that there won't be some raging federalist in power in Germany next time with a leftist coalition of SPD, Linke and Greens taking over, why should they respect a deal signed by Merkel that hasn't been integrated into German law by way of amending the Lisbon Treaty. It's meaningless. Unless we have the ever-closer union opt-out put into an existing treaty or form the basis of a new one which requires all 28 nations to agree to it and recognise it, there isn't any point in even having it.
http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave/
Imagine framing a bet on "whether or not the EU will depose a democratically elected EU government in the next ten years" in 2005. You'd have been laughed to scorn.
Yet that is what the EU did in Greece, and arguably Italy.
will you two PLEASE sort out your quote applications.
Jeez
edit: oh no I've now become a victim also.
You make an excellent case to vote Leave
No, you're not. On this subject you're an idiot. No bet can be framed around Cameron's EU deal, for the precise reason that the EU changes deals and laws and rules on a whim, or never, or always, or tomorrow. As it decides.
Imagine framing a bet on "whether or not the EU will depose a democratically elected EU government in the next ten years" in 2005. You'd have been laughed to scorn.
Yet that is what the EU did in Greece, and arguably Italy.
Logic fail. If the EU changes this deal, I lose the bet. But it won't:
a) because it probably legally can't; and
b) because it would be political madness to do so.
But my even money bet stands for anyone reputable who is less chicken licken than you. After all, if wildly improbable things have happened in the last ten years, it must be worth a punt?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3534366/Stephen-Fry-sparks-outrage-saying-child-abuse-victims-sympathy-self-pity-gets-none-sympathy.html
I was with him about the regression left, etc etc etc, until the bit about abuse should grow up...
But as mentioned upthread, I perfectly understand that if you believe that the risks of a change to whatever has been agreed are too great to trust the continuity of the deal, you must vote out.
But something that the Silly Mister Meeks does to his posts makes it impossible to nest quotes properly.
Easiest just to delete everything else, and put the part you are replying to in italics or quotes.
ie He didn't claim a £20k allowance - this increasing his tax bill by 45% of £20k = £9k.
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
Big mistake?? I think it reads as if we are subscribers to The New Day.
Nevertheless I still think we ought to stay.
https://t.co/1VIMScHbE5
Colour me stupid, but I prefer the honest hatred of the Farages, Tebbits, et al. I disagree with them but at least their arguments are coherent, comprehensible and have some relationship to reality.
Well as I said, my personal view is that even if Dave's negotiation were legally binding and he had 27 signatures already gathered I would still be voting to leave, there just isn't enough in there. I've said it many, many times, I would have liked the internal markets veto, failing that a double/super majority requirement for FinReg/EMU measures of EMU and non-EMU countries. If Dave had got that I would have been content to vote remain. We don't have that, we are still at the mercy of the EMU majority in QMV measures and without a new treaty on the horizon we have no recourse to achieve it.
Good for him.
And falling.
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
Especially at this moment: a cursory reading (!) of the Delegated Acts illustrates that as an EU member there is all to play for in terms of input into FinReg which affects us greatly, in or out.
As said, I prefer to have had some input into them than none.
I appreciate others have a different view.
While the headlines are about terrorism and gays, there is much positive in the survey. The vast majority feel British, trust their MPs and councillors and oppose terrorism for example.
The percentage of Muslims who want homosexuality to be illegal:
71% of Muslims 16-24.
65% of Muslims 25-34.
55% of Muslims 35-44.
54% of Muslims 45-54.
50% of Muslims 55+.
“If I could choose, I would prefer to live in Britain under sharia law rather than British law”
Age 16-24 – 37% prefer sharia law, 50% prefer British law
Age 25-34 – 32% prefer sharia law, 52% prefer British law
Age 35-44 – 26% prefer sharia law, 63% prefer British law
Age 45-54 – 16% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law
Age 55+ – 17% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law
Who want's to tell him?
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/222082102077
I am not saying there is no problem, just that there is plenty to be positive about too.
The Sun’s revelation today poses serious questions about whether Mr Corbyn has himself evaded tax, landing him in serious trouble.
What a poverty of low expectations we have that we're pathetically grateful that a majority of Muslims oppose terrorism even though a majority of those will not speak up about it. So that not opposing it does not really amount to much, does it. Because turning a blind eye to it when you could have done something about it is not really cause for celebration. Your inaction allows it to flourish even if you personally oppose it.
Even if the criticisms of how the poll has been conducted have some validity, these are still worrying results. We cannot assume that the longer people have been here the more likely they are to assimilate. Nor can we assume that those who are born here and are therefore British will share the views of the majority of their fellow citizens. And this means that they are more likely to be susceptible to the currents of opinion flowing through the Muslim world at present. That's hardly encouraging.
The rest of the report wasn't too complimentary either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkLrypjMqnw
In addition there are to be other regional mayors for 'West of England' region, whatever that might be' and also for 'Greater Lincolnshire'.
Osborne clearly feels that the more layers of government the better.
The local people are not to be consulted whether they want this or not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/golf/2016/04/11/masters-winner-danny-willett-joined-by-sir-alex-ferguson-james-n/
https://twitter.com/dair_allan/status/719642471156838401
Hardly Dodgy Dave territory
In reality, the "scandal" of the Panama Papers is actually it seems our leading politicians are remarkably clean. I presumed the likes of Cameron would have an extensive share / investment portfolio in a blind trust.
TBH so far all the Guardian splashes nothing is damning about anybody in this country, compared to leaders in many other countries.
Or the "skills training", bearing in mind that people from all over rural Cambs get theirs at Cambridge Regional College etc?
This is all potty.
http://forbritain.org/cogchapter2.pdf
These new 'City Regions' are cutting across all sorts of county and regional boundaries and will be affecting all sorts of transport, health, education etc bodies.
Guaranteed to create planning chaos and arguments.
The detail is even more alarming, the older generations actually tended to be more secular and integrated, the younger were more vociferous about their beliefs:
The percentage of Muslims who want homosexuality to be illegal:
71% of Muslims 16-24.
65% of Muslims 25-34.
55% of Muslims 35-44.
54% of Muslims 45-54.
50% of Muslims 55+.
“If I could choose, I would prefer to live in Britain under sharia law rather than British law”
Age 16-24 – 37% prefer sharia law, 50% prefer British law
Age 25-34 – 32% prefer sharia law, 52% prefer British law
Age 35-44 – 26% prefer sharia law, 63% prefer British law
Age 45-54 – 16% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law
Age 55+ – 17% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law
There is nothing positive about this. We are incubating a disaster 20-30 years hence.
This is the original data (615 pages). Page 117 shows the youngsters are more supportive of homosexuality than their elders. I am not sure which table that you mean when you say the opposite.
Also more muslims than controls feel strongly about being British (p590 onwards).
Only 34 % would go to the police on the terrorism question*, but a further 27% did not believe that they knew anyone who would support terrorism in the first place. 45% would talk to the individual first.
* the question was : If you suspected that a friend was getting involved with people who supported terrorism in Syria, what would you do?
It was not about supporting terrorism in the UK.
Like I said, a lot of data and some positive aspects too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36015797
The funny thing about the problem with Islam (which I agree is a problem) is that while the religious attitudes it supports have been eliminated from the UK for well over 200 years, the SOCIAL attitudes have only been eliminated in the very recent past. I.e. Homosexuality has only been legal in Scotland for 25 years.
Directly accusing someone of a criminal offence (evasion) is probably defamatory, btw.
Mods, try not to let this get out of hand...
Nine million of losses between 2009 and 2014.
£722,000 profit 2014/15
2015/16 presumably not yet complete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_&_Little
Where does this data come from? The table on p117 indicates the precise opposite.
37% of 18-24's muslims disagree that homosexuality should be legal vs 76% of the over 65's etc.
http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/polls/icm-unlimited-survey-for-the-channel-4-programme-what-muslims-really-think
Then Muslims arrived and gay marriage got legalised, proving once and for all that Islam threatens our freedoms
I can't be the first person to come across this question, so I was expecting every web page detailing the law to make this clear. So far I haven't found a single one*. It's really odd.
* Companies House is totally silent on the question, but that's not a surprise. They seem to regard their role as being to threaten directors with criminal sanctions whilst providing no useful information and taking zero responsibility themselves for anything.
' The Chancellor said he also made £3 in interest last year on savings held in a UK bank. '
Does Osborne really have a current account which doesn't pay any interest ???
I don't know having such incompetence among leaders is a positive thing, but it is a lot better than most countries (and also of the past where we had the likes of Mandy taking dodgy loans or MP shoving dirty money down their y-fronts to ask questions in parliament).