Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
It's one of them. An independent judiciary is another.
If only they lived by their own rules, the Commission isn't democratic and the ECJ most certainly isn't independent. Do as we say, not as we do.
In what way is the ECJ not independent? It might have a bias built into its effective terms of reference in terms of 'ever closer union' but I would have thought that both Commission and national governments find it infuriatingly independent.
The judgements on the EMU have all gone in favour of the commission despite legal experts from all over the EU being wary over the legality of certain ECB measures. The commission has exerted a lot of pressure on the ECJ to deliver verdicts in their favour.
What figure would you wish to parrot? Crispin Blunt's perhaps?
Not one compiled by CND including every little thing they could think of. Nor would I look at the lifetime cost when we don't apply a similar approach to other aspects of expenditure.
Even taking the most pessimistic scenarios the Trident successor will cost us about 1/25th of what we spend on the NHS, or about 0.25% of GDP.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
The result of a never ending supply of cheap Labour that ensures wages are continually driven down.
Surely that neverending supply of labour can go to Germany too? - and indeed there are a very large number of Poles and Greeks in Germany, as well as Portuguese in France, Romanians in Italy and Spain etc.
We need to look elsewhere for the explanation. In large part I think because in the UK workers have taken wage freezes and ZHCs over redundancy.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Agreed. Although it took a long time real wages in the UK rose above their previous peak just in time for the 2015 election. Weird how these things work out.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Please salute my restraint in not posting the obvious retort (in an ironic manner of course).
The result of a never ending supply of cheap Labour that ensures wages are continually driven down.
Surely that neverending supply of labour can go to Germany too? - and indeed there are a very large number of Poles and Greeks in Germany, as well as Portuguese in France, Romanians in Italy and Spain etc.
We need to look elsewhere for the explanation. In large part I think because in the UK workers have taken wage freezes and ZHCs over redundancy.
Germany started from a much lower base and have had Labour shortages for the better part of 3 years. Indeed some, including you I seem to remember, have speculated that Merkel let the migrants in to reverse population decline.
Evening all from a lovely, warm sunny Nazareth, after a day ambling around the ruins of Akko at my own pace in a gentle sea breeze.
I see that not much is changing in dear old Blighty, and that Jeremy Corbyn continues to be a laughing stock that nobody finds very funny.
In light of events in Europe it seems sadly ironic that my father was very concerned when I told him about this visit to Israel. So far everyone apart from two highly aggressive beggars has been friendly, the scenery is stunning, the food is good and while it isn't cheap it isn't as expensive as Tenerife. I can definitely recommend Nazareth and the accommodation in the al-Mutran Square.
On topic, @justin124 is as ever correct with his figures. But they only tell part of the story. This story is about Corbyn himself. It is not that his policies are poor, although they are. It is not his age, although that doesn't help. It is not even that he is chronically unpopular although that's not ideal in a politician. Michael Howard had all those disadvantages and wasn't floored by them in this way. Admittedly he lost an election but his organisational reforms, attack oratory on a weakened Blair and personal energy revitalised the Conservatives and saved them from oblivion.
It is that he really is absolutely useless as a leader - indecisive, stupid, rude, dogmatic and unwilling to get on with people, that makes this crisis so unusual. Churchill, Gaitskell, and Kinnock were all much better at the actual job of leading (has any leader since the disastrous tenure of Lansbury been worse?) and therefore there was always a chance things would turn around, as indeed they did for all three.
But Corbyn - what has he got to fall back on? He's not even got any political instincts that some quite dim politicians have used instead of intellect (neither Liverpool nor Salisbury were clever, but they were superb readers of the public mood). That's why Labour MPs and our sane Labour posters - Rochdale, Joff, Jonathan to name the obvious - are despairing. And that's why this gap is significant even though ostensibly it's not historically unusual.
I'm too busy at work to investigate, but does that not partly reflect a change in the employed population of the UK? I don't know how other countries have changed but our employed population is very different today to that of 2008. On a like for like basis I'd imagine the UK isn't that much worse off.
The Treasury said the TUC study did not fully reflect living standards, which were also affected by changes to taxes and benefits. It added that the number of people in work had been rising and was above the levels of early 2008, when the economy entered its longest and deepest postwar recession.
“This analysis ignores the point that following the great recession the UK employment rate has grown more than any G7 country, living standards have reached their highest level and wages continue to rise faster than prices – and will be helped by the new national living wage.”
I think a much greater number of people in work, bias towards new low paid jobs, which the Government has been encourging since 2010 as part of a move from welfare to work, would depress the median wage even if all else remained equal.
I'm too busy at work to investigate, but does that not partly reflect a change in the employed population of the UK? I don't know how other countries have changed but our employed population is very different today to that of 2008. On a like for like basis I'd imagine the UK isn't that much worse off.
The Treasury said the TUC study did not fully reflect living standards, which were also affected by changes to taxes and benefits. It added that the number of people in work had been rising and was above the levels of early 2008, when the economy entered its longest and deepest postwar recession.
“This analysis ignores the point that following the great recession the UK employment rate has grown more than any G7 country, living standards have reached their highest level and wages continue to rise faster than prices – and will be helped by the new national living wage.”
Given that it a TUC report shouting about wages, my experience of previous TUC repots I have read says that the comparisons are probably cherry-picked or books cooked.
In this case I suspect currency levels, since the individual comparisons being made are UK vs certain individual Euro countries.
The comparisons are 2007-2015 in constant 2015 dollars afaics.
Then between 2007-2015 the Euro fell by about 13% against the dollar, from 1.30 to 1.13, while the UK pound fell by about 25% from approx 1.90 to 1.53 against the dollar.
The difference between 13% for Euro vs Dollar, and 25% fall for Pound vs Dollar over the comparison period seems to account for all of the difference between relative wages between eg Greece and UK over that period?
Or am I just demonstrating why I am not a currency trader :-) ?
The result of a never ending supply of cheap Labour that ensures wages are continually driven down.
Surely that neverending supply of labour can go to Germany too? - and indeed there are a very large number of Poles and Greeks in Germany, as well as Portuguese in France, Romanians in Italy and Spain etc.
We need to look elsewhere for the explanation. In large part I think because in the UK workers have taken wage freezes and ZHCs over redundancy.
Germany started from a much lower base and have had Labour shortages for the better part of 3 years. Indeed some, including you I seem to remember, have speculated that Merkel let the migrants in to reverse population decline.
No, not me.
Merkel made her infamous statement partly in response to an existing crisis (it was not the initiating factor) largely in response to aspects of mid and late 20th century German history in both creating refugees and also in absobing refugees from the Volksdeutsch of the east.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
Are we still permitted to thrash people with enormo-haddocks? (Boy, my autocorrect really hated that one!)
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Please leave in a copulating manner.
Genesis 1:28
We need Brexit to fulfill God's word in Genesis 1:28.
- all the first bullet point is saying that the new judges must be lawfully selected. That's a process issue. - the second is about publication and implementation of a judgment. No actual breach as far as I can tell but a request to do something in the future. - The third is also about future changes. - The fourth is about future reviews.
Hard to see from this that some fundamental value is being breached. It reads more like the sort of view that one might get from a superior court overturning a decision of a lower court on the finer points of local government law.
A government is entitled to make changes to the law which overturn previous judgments of the highest court of the land. It happens in the UK and elsewhere. It is not per se a mark of tyranny. Of course those who like those judgments may not like the changes but that does not mean that such changes are, without more, a breach of fundamental values.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
Incidentally, this is a key point about Brexit and why it's going to be extremely hard work. We'll move from a rules based system , probably, to one where everything has to be negotiated, line by line, case by case.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
Yes - but it is unlikely to continue like that. There is a significant May 'honeymoon' factor in the figures which will be flattering the Tories at the moment but that will inevitably fade with time. By September we could well be seeing headlines of 'Tory lead slashed to 5%' or something similar. I expect polling figures to return to roughly pre-Brexit levels long before Xmas.
She's a month into the job, but Corbyn is only nine months in. He's in the process of going backwards still himself and I think will continue to do so for a while as these perceptions of Labour's unelectability under his leadership sink in further. If May does fade in due course, and a lot will depend on whether she is perceived to having broken with Osborne's trajectory, Corbyn's personal ratings are nonetheless so bad already that there's no reason to expect those presently drawn to the Conservatives to favour Corbynite Labour over UKIP, the Lib Dems, SNP/Plaid or even the Greens.
Oppositions by this stage in the electoral cycle should be enjoying substantive polling leads, whether they win or lose. With ICM and YouGov, in terms of Labour's position relative to the Conservatives Miliband was by this stage between 15% and 20% ahead of where Corbyn is now, and still lost.
By the way Labour never did enjoy leads of 15 -20% under Miliband. In July 2011 the polls ranged from a Tory lead of 1% to Labour leads of 9%.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
Except that the EU has a history of being partial where the rules are applied, depending on power status, but also on date of membership - I think.
Does the EU have a similar power to direct the composition of the German constitutional court, for example?
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
EU Rules.
Rule#1 "Do what you are told."
The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules. And tonight, you're gonna break your one rule!
- The Joker to Batman, in "The Dark Knight" (2008)
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
Except that the EU has a history of being partial where the rules are applied, depending on power status, but also on date of membership - I think.
Does the EU have a similar power to direct the composition of the German constitutional court, for example?
AFAIK German governments don't have a habit of dismissing serving judges and replacing them with party hacks, like the Polish government is doing. Context is all.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
Except that the EU has a history of being partial where the rules are applied, depending on power status, but also on date of membership - I think.
Does the EU have a similar power to direct the composition of the German constitutional court, for example?
Quite. The EU still belongs to the core group and always will. Rules are rules until inconvenient for those members, at which point they cease to be rules.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
Except that the EU has a history of being partial where the rules are applied, depending on power status, but also on date of membership - I think.
Does the EU have a similar power to direct the composition of the German constitutional court, for example?
AFAIK German governments don't have a habit of dismissing serving judges and replacing them with party hacks, like the Polish government is doing. Context is all.
Judges nominated by the previous lot as they were leaving office.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
I can't think of many golf clubs where the protection money membership fee is £8.5 billion a year (NET!)!
- all the first bullet point is saying that the new judges must be lawfully selected. That's a process issue. - the second is about publication and implementation of a judgment. No actual breach as far as I can tell but a request to do something in the future. - The third is also about future changes. - The fourth is about future reviews.
Hard to see from this that some fundamental value is being breached. It reads more like the sort of view that one might get from a superior court overturning a decision of a lower court on the finer points of local government law.
A government is entitled to make changes to the law which overturn previous judgments of the highest court of the land. It happens in the UK and elsewhere. It is not per se a mark of tyranny. Of course those who like those judgments may not like the changes but that does not mean that such changes are, without more, a breach of fundamental values.
The EU's real objection is that it doesn't like the politics of Poland's ruling party.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
'Surely that neverending supply of labour can go to Germany too? - and indeed there are a very large number of Poles and Greeks in Germany, as well as Portuguese in France, Romanians in Italy and Spain etc.
We need to look elsewhere for the explanation. In large part I think because in the UK workers have taken wage freezes and ZHCs over redundancy.'
Firstly Germany & every other EU country does not have the generous 'few questions asked' benefits system (how does the DHSS actually check the number of children that child benefit is being claimed for in Poland ,Romania et al ?).
Secondly far more EU citizens speak English, although as we know in this country speaking the local language is not a requirement to work here or claim benefits..
The low wage economy of the UK is not something new, if you look at the Resolution Foundation report (not exactly a right wing think tank) , real wages were stagnant from 2003 - 2008 then we had the crash.During the 2003 - 2008 period this stagnation was camouflaged by endless cheap credit, self certified 125% mortgages and never ending new & more generous state benefits..
It's an amazing coincidence that wages start to decline at the same time as we started having mass immigration from Eastern Europe, although during the same period the economy was supposedly booming !
Trends in wages and incomes: 2003-2008 - Resolution Foundation
www.resolutionfoundation.org › Publications
21 Sep 2012 - The ASHE wage data reveals that the stagnation in median wages over the period 2003 to 2008 was driven principally by male employees and ...
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
EU Rules.
Rule#1 "Do what you are told."
"But the head and the hoof of the Law and the haunch and the hump is — Obey!"
@George_Osborne: Welcome news that GDP grew by 0.6% in quarter to end of June, with especially strong manufacturing output. Comes with record employment too.
just wait for the next quarter...
Great start by Hammond - he really has hit the ground running as Chancellor - excellent figures for him.
Ahem, absolutely nothing to do with Hammond. He didn't have his first Cabinet meeting until 19th July. I'll forecast that Q3 will be a ~ -0.4% contraction.
Evening all from a lovely, warm sunny Nazareth, after a day ambling around the ruins of Akko at my own pace in a gentle sea breeze.
I see that not much is changing in dear old Blighty, and that Jeremy Corbyn continues to be a laughing stock that nobody finds very funny.
In light of events in Europe it seems sadly ironic that my father was very concerned when I told him about this visit to Israel. So far everyone apart from two highly aggressive beggars has been friendly, the scenery is stunning, the food is good and while it isn't cheap it isn't as expensive as Tenerife. I can definitely recommend Nazareth and the accommodation in the al-Mutran Square.
On topic, @justin124 is as ever correct with his figures. But they only tell part of the story. This story is about Corbyn himself. It is not that his policies are poor, although they are. It is not his age, although that doesn't help. It is not even that he is chronically unpopular although that's not ideal in a politician. Michael Howard had all those disadvantages and wasn't floored by them in this way. Admittedly he lost an election but his organisational reforms, attack oratory on a weakened Blair and personal energy revitalised the Conservatives and saved them from oblivion.
It is that he really is absolutely useless as a leader - indecisive, stupid, rude, dogmatic and unwilling to get on with people, that makes this crisis so unusual. Churchill, Gaitskell, and Kinnock were all much better at the actual job of leading (has any leader since the disastrous tenure of Lansbury been worse?) and therefore there was always a chance things would turn around, as indeed they did for all three.
But Corbyn - what has he got to fall back on? He's not even got any political instincts that some quite dim politicians have used instead of intellect (neither Liverpool nor Salisbury were clever, but they were superb readers of the public mood). That's why Labour MPs and our sane Labour posters - Rochdale, Joff, Jonathan to name the obvious - are despairing. And that's why this gap is significant even though ostensibly it's not historically unusual.
Interesting comparison with Lansbury. Nice chap, but not a Leader.
I partly agree, but I think this also ignores the magnitude of the crisis in Labour.
We are in a situation where the opposition is going through a bitter leadership contest, its MPs are in open rebellion, a significant number of the 'talents' (YMMV) in the parliamentary party are refusing to serve in the shadow cabinet and there is the prospect of a raft of deselections coming down the line.
The prospect of either side of the party shrugging its shoulders and falling into line after the leadership contest is concluded is not looking good.
We are not in normal midterm territory for an opposition party. This is, to all intents and purposes, an opposition that has ceased to function as it should.
Now, maybe something will happen in the next 3 years that drags the party back from the brink and sets them on an election-winning trajectory, who knows - but it takes a while to change perceptions and to put in place an election-winning apparatus. If this magic moment is going to happen, I'd cautiously suggest it'll have to start happening by the middle of next year at the latest.
All this ignores the government's performance, obviously. But if the crisis in Labour continues, I can see a lot of people holding their noses and voting for May purely on reasons of ability to actually run the country.
Our esteemed leader seems very happy with the abject position of the party he leads. In his own parting words to Cameron "Democracy is an exciting and splendid thing, and I'm enjoying every moment of it." I don't share his enjoyment, and nor do I sense that even his supporters here do.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
But the EU does not appear to be saying that Poland has breached any EU rules. They are merely asking Poland to comply with its own laws. They're not even saying - as far as I can tell - that the Polish government has breached its own laws.
In any event plenty of governments - Germany, France, Italy, for instance - have breached the EU's own rules (in some cases, repeatedly) and have faced no sanctions whatsoever. The suspicion is that the EU's interference in this case is not primarily because of a breach or intended breach of rules or fundamental values but because the EU Commission does not like the substance of what Poland may be seeking to do. The two are not the same.
The economic costs maybe. But to the victims - those who lose their lives or who lose loved ones unnaturally - it is hard to speak of overreaction.
No, we should do what is good for us, or what we want to do regardless of the aims of the terrorists. But I do think our media overdoes coverage, and it is noticeable how much gorier the coverage is now than it was in, say, the days of the IRA campaigns.
Is it helpful to our society to watch as people die and to see the body parts scattered, or humans lit like a torch? Or is it enough to know that people have been killed by terrorist without all the technicolor? I'd vote for the latter. Too much dwelling on the issue is bad for our soul, quite apart from being what the terrorists want.
As for the victims (including the families and loved ones of the persons physically and emotionally scarred), of course we should not downplay their suffering and consequences. But insofar as these costs can be compared to economic damage and increased security costs, it is clear that the bulk of the cost comes from the overreaction.
Take, for example, Fukishima nuclear reactor. Many more people died as a direct result of the evacuation (old people rushing to leave without their medications, old people being abandoned without care) than died from the explosions and radioactive contamination at the plant - or indeed would have died had no-one been evacuated.
The best guestimates are that 600 people died as a result of the evacuation, whereas between 3 and 245 lives were saved by it.
In fact, that estimate of lives saved should probably be zero. Fukishima released only one tenth of the radioactive materials as did Chernobyl, and 80% of that was deposited over the Pacific. A WHO study has found that, apart from the 32 heroic workers who died of radiation sickness sealing the Chernobyl plant, there has been no perceivable increase in cancer or other radiation-related sicknesses in the Chernobyl-contaminated population.
Just to finish with some counterintuitive facts: riding a bike for 10 miles, driving a car for 300 miles, flying in a commercial plane for 1000 miles, drinking 30 soda drinks, smoking 1.4 cigarettes, living 50 years within 5 miles of a nuclear reactor and eating 100 charcoal-grilled steaks all pose exactly the same risk to our health.
- all the first bullet point is saying that the new judges must be lawfully selected. That's a process issue. - the second is about publication and implementation of a judgment. No actual breach as far as I can tell but a request to do something in the future. - The third is also about future changes. - The fourth is about future reviews.
Hard to see from this that some fundamental value is being breached. It reads more like the sort of view that one might get from a superior court overturning a decision of a lower court on the finer points of local government law.
A government is entitled to make changes to the law which overturn previous judgments of the highest court of the land. It happens in the UK and elsewhere. It is not per se a mark of tyranny. Of course those who like those judgments may not like the changes but that does not mean that such changes are, without more, a breach of fundamental values.
The EU's real objection is that it doesn't like the politics of Poland's ruling party.
Correct. Any government not consisting of EU-mainstream Christian Democrats/Liberals/Social Democrats is considered suspect.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
Except that the EU has a history of being partial where the rules are applied, depending on power status, but also on date of membership - I think.
Does the EU have a similar power to direct the composition of the German constitutional court, for example?
AFAIK German governments don't have a habit of dismissing serving judges and replacing them with party hacks, like the Polish government is doing. Context is all.
Judges nominated by the previous lot as they were leaving office.
Possibly. The previous lot may not be entirely clean either, but the direct intervention of the government in the running the overruling of the court in contravention of Constitutional law is probably unprecedented the EU.
Interesting comparison with Lansbury. Nice chap, but not a Leader.
It may be unfair to Lansbury. He was a man of absolutely iron principle, a genuine pacifist and socialist who was quite prepared to be prosecuted for doing what he believed to be the right thing.
Corbyn, on the other hand, seems perfectly happy with violence when it is practised by any of his favourite groups and whines incessantly about how unfair life is when the rules go against him.
Lansbury went quietly in 1935 when a group in the shadow cabinet organised by the man I firmly regard as Labour's finest statesman made it clear they felt the national interest demanded a change. Corbyn is hanging on for grim death even though everyone apart from a few thousand Labour members is desperate for him to leave.
Of course, Lansbury never actually wanted the leadership and only became leader by accident. For all Corbyn's claims, I think he really does want it. Maybe that's the key difference.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
It's the warm weather. It's unleashed my smouldering Latin blood. Nothing like a powerful woman to warm the cockles of your heart.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
You mean you're not feeling a "surge" in your "poll"?
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
But the EU does not appear to be saying that Poland has breached any EU rules. They are merely asking Poland to comply with its own laws. They're not even saying - as far as I can tell - that the Polish government has breached its own laws.
In any event plenty of governments - Germany, France, Italy, for instance - have breached the EU's own rules (in some cases, repeatedly) and have faced no sanctions whatsoever. The suspicion is that the EU's interference in this case is not primarily because of a breach or intended breach of rules or fundamental values but because the EU Commission does not like the substance of what Poland may be seeking to do. The two are not the same.
We can look to this mornings decision not to punish Portugal and Spain for non-compliance with EZ rules as just one example.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Indeed. I am sure that the last thing the Smith campaign wanted to be doing today was denying the fact that he is a sexist with a penchant for violent language/imagery. But that is what they are having to do.
Totally smashed. The man is so poor he does inspire apathy...
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
Except that the EU has a history of being partial where the rules are applied, depending on power status, but also on date of membership - I think.
Does the EU have a similar power to direct the composition of the German constitutional court, for example?
AFAIK German governments don't have a habit of dismissing serving judges and replacing them with party hacks, like the Polish government is doing. Context is all.
Judges nominated by the previous lot as they were leaving office.
Possibly. The previous lot may not be entirely clean either, but the direct intervention of the government in the running the overruling of the court in contravention of Constitutional law is probably unprecedented the EU.
Not really, the government defies the court over here all the time. They do in France as a matter of pride. The difference is that neither the French or the British would stand being bullied by the commission and we also don't have Eurosceptic governments who are massively opposed to any kind of EU integration with a hugely popular mandate. Remember, Poland have elected their version of UKIP and now they are trying to show ordinary people the "consequences" of it much like Junker bangs on about making Britain feel the consequences of Brexit. These people are disgusting and spit on our democracies from their undemocratic ivory towers in Brussels.
The economic costs maybe. But to the victims - those who lose their lives or who lose loved ones unnaturally - it is hard to speak of overreaction.
No, we should do what is good for us, or what we want to do regardless of the aims of the terrorists. But I do think our media overdoes coverage, and it is noticeable how much gorier the coverage is now than it was in, say, the days of the IRA campaigns.
Is it helpful to our society to watch as people die and to see the body parts scattered, or humans lit like a torch? Or is it enough to know that people have been killed by terrorist without all the technicolor? I'd vote for the latter. Too much dwelling on the issue is bad for our soul, quite apart from being what the terrorists want.
As for the victims (including the families and loved ones of the persons physically and emotionally scarred), of course we should not downplay their suffering and consequences. But insofar as these costs can be compared to economic damage and increased security costs, it is clear that the bulk of the cost comes from the overreaction.
Take, for example, Fukishima nuclear reactor. Many more people died as a direct result of the evacuation (old people rushing to leave without their medications, old people being abandoned without care) than died from the explosions and radioactive contamination at the plant - or indeed would have died had no-one been evacuated.
The best guestimates are that 600 people died as a result of the evacuation, whereas between 3 and 245 lives were saved by it.
In fact, that estimate of lives saved should probably be zero. Fukishima released only one tenth of the radioactive materials as did Chernobyl, and 80% of that was deposited over the Pacific. A WHO study has found that, apart from the 32 heroic workers who died of radiation sickness sealing the Chernobyl plant, there has been no perceivable increase in cancer or other radiation-related sicknesses in the Chernobyl-contaminated population.
Just to finish with some counterintuitive facts: riding a bike for 10 miles, driving a car for 300 miles, flying in a commercial plane for 1000 miles, drinking 30 soda drinks, smoking 1.4 cigarettes, living 50 years within 5 miles of a nuclear reactor and eating 100 charcoal-grilled steaks all pose exactly the same risk to our health.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about not showing the gorier bits of an atrocity. It can feel like a sort of pornography of violence. My only caveat is that sometimes you need to realize what actually happens in order to fully appreciate what you are facing but perhaps best leave it to those who need to know and see, rather than us.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Indeed. I am sure that the last thing the Smith campaign wanted to be doing today was denying the fact that he is a sexist with a penchant for violent language/imagery. But that is what they are having to do.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Indeed. I am sure that the last thing the Smith campaign wanted to be doing today was denying the fact that he is a sexist with a penchant for violent language/imagery. But that is what they are having to do.
Totally smashed. The man is so poor he does inspire apathy...
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
But the EU does not appear to be saying that Poland has breached any EU rules. They are merely asking Poland to comply with its own laws. They're not even saying - as far as I can tell - that the Polish government has breached its own laws.
In any event plenty of governments - Germany, France, Italy, for instance - have breached the EU's own rules (in some cases, repeatedly) and have faced no sanctions whatsoever. The suspicion is that the EU's interference in this case is not primarily because of a breach or intended breach of rules or fundamental values but because the EU Commission does not like the substance of what Poland may be seeking to do. The two are not the same.
That prompted me to take a look at the European Commission's Press release here.
The accusation the EU Commission wants the Polish government to answer is one of "Systemic threat to the rule of law". They imply, I think, that the government is deliberately undermining the country's legal institutions.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
None at all on my part, I can assure you. Johnny Mercer, on the other hand.....
Anyway, as Mr Eagles explained, this is merely work-related research on my part. I have a lot of chats from sexually inventive traders to read...................
Regardless of what the treaties say the question should be, what business is this of the EU?
The EU is a body of nations that respect certain "fundamental values", if the EU believes that a nation is ignoring said values then under Article 7 (I believe from memory) they can be suspended from the EU's voting as a sanction.
Isn't democracy one of the EU's "fundamental values" then?
The EU is a rules based member organisation. If a member doesn't follow the rules the institution can apply sanctions and ultimately expel the member. As such, the EU is no different from a golf club, say, which are nevertheless democratic institutions.
Except that the EU has a history of being partial where the rules are applied, depending on power status, but also on date of membership - I think.
Does the EU have a similar power to direct the composition of the German constitutional court, for example?
AFAIK German governments don't have a habit of dismissing serving judges and replacing them with party hacks, like the Polish government is doing. Context is all.
Judges nominated by the previous lot as they were leaving office.
Possibly. The previous lot may not be entirely clean either, but the direct intervention of the government in the running the overruling of the court in contravention of Constitutional law is probably unprecedented the EU.
Not really, the government defies the court over here all the time. They do in France as a matter of pride. The difference is that neither the French or the British would stand being bullied by the commission and we also don't have Eurosceptic governments who are massively opposed to any kind of EU integration with a hugely popular mandate. Remember, Poland have elected their version of UKIP and now they are trying to show ordinary people the "consequences" of it much like Junker bangs on about making Britain feel the consequences of Brexit. These people are disgusting and spit on our democracies from their undemocratic ivory towers in Brussels.
Don't some of the plans - such as preventing foreigners from owning media outlets in Poland - fall foul of their treaty obligations?
- all the first bullet point is saying that the new judges must be lawfully selected. That's a process issue.
More importantly, isn't it saying that the previous judges have been unlawfully removed?
It's as if Trump got elected and then tried to remove the Supreme Court judges he didn't like and replace them with his picks.
I fail to see how the appointment of a judiciary in a sovereign nation is anything to do with the EU.
If the EU has aggrandised such powers or pretends to have such powers it is a disgrace and makes me say thank God we voted to leave ever more heartfeltly.
- all the first bullet point is saying that the new judges must be lawfully selected. That's a process issue. - the second is about publication and implementation of a judgment. No actual breach as far as I can tell but a request to do something in the future. - The third is also about future changes. - The fourth is about future reviews.
Hard to see from this that some fundamental value is being breached. It reads more like the sort of view that one might get from a superior court overturning a decision of a lower court on the finer points of local government law.
A government is entitled to make changes to the law which overturn previous judgments of the highest court of the land. It happens in the UK and elsewhere. It is not per se a mark of tyranny. Of course those who like those judgments may not like the changes but that does not mean that such changes are, without more, a breach of fundamental values.
The EU's real objection is that it doesn't like the politics of Poland's ruling party.
Correct. Any government not consisting of EU-mainstream Christian Democrats/Liberals/Social Democrats is considered suspect.
Juncker/Schulz had an understanding. If EPP had most seats in the EP, he'd become EU Commission President and Schulz EP President.
If PES were ahead on seats, it'd be the other way round.
In both cases it'd make virtually no difference to the future course of the EU and it's almost inconceivable that neither the EPP or PES would win most seats in the EP. Voters have clocked this too which is why hardly anyone bothers to vote in EP elections.
So do I laugh when europhiles claim that Juncker has legitimacy because he was indirectly elected by the EP.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Indeed. I am sure that the last thing the Smith campaign wanted to be doing today was denying the fact that he is a sexist with a penchant for violent language/imagery. But that is what they are having to do.
It's like the classic political dead cat - politician denies beating wife. Crucial difference is that it was his own poor choice of words brought him to it. I hate to say it, but that doesn't inspire confidence that he'd improve on Corbyn.
It's an amazing coincidence that wages start to decline at the same time as we started having mass immigration from Eastern Europe, although during the same period the economy was supposedly booming !
Although real median wages fell further in the US and in Japan in the same period, so there's clearly more to it than simply 'immigrants'.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
I think she reminds them of someone.
Maybe, but I didn't go all Alan Clark - or further - over her either.
Remember: Alan Clark said he didn't want actual penetration, just a really big snog.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Indeed. I am sure that the last thing the Smith campaign wanted to be doing today was denying the fact that he is a sexist with a penchant for violent language/imagery. But that is what they are having to do.
Totally smashed. The man is so poor he does inspire apathy...
In your dreams. Is that the best the Corbots can come up with in response to the policy platform that Smith laid out today?
PS. I am not sure if the term "Corbot" was coined to refer to a Corbyn supporting Trot or just someone parroting the latest Momentum party (within a party) line, but it seems an apt term to describe either or indeed both and I am trying to cover all the possible bases here.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
It's an amazing coincidence that wages start to decline at the same time as we started having mass immigration from Eastern Europe, although during the same period the economy was supposedly booming !
Although real median wages fell further in the US and in Japan in the same period, so there's clearly more to it than simply 'immigrants'.
Browns tax credits that means anyone with kids working 16 hours a week on minimum wage earns much the same as someone without kids working 37h a week on median wage has a lot to do with the collapse in wages.
Don't some of the plans - such as preventing foreigners from owning media outlets in Poland - fall foul of their treaty obligations?
Those changes haven't been made, slap them with single market violations if they are.
What has happened is the Polish government were elected with a majority and decided that the last government had acted without honour by appointing three judges to their constitutional court as they left office. The new government hace blocked their ascent and nominated their own judges who are rather more Eurosceptic. The EU has decided this is the hill it wants to die on.
Evening all from a lovely, warm sunny Nazareth, after a day ambling around the ruins of Akko at my own pace in a gentle sea breeze.
I see that not much is changing in dear old Blighty, and that Jeremy Corbyn continues to be a laughing stock that nobody finds very funny.
In light of events in Europe it seems sadly ironic that my father was very concerned when I told him about this visit to Israel. So far everyone apart from two highly aggressive beggars has been friendly, the scenery is stunning, the food is good and while it isn't cheap it isn't as expensive as Tenerife. I can definitely recommend Nazareth and the accommodation in the al-Mutran Square.
On topic, @justin124 is as ever correct with his figures. But they only tell part of the story. This story is about Corbyn himself. It is not that his policies are poor, although they are. It is not his age, although that doesn't help. It is not even that he is chronically unpopular although that's not ideal in a politician. Michael Howard had all those disadvantages and wasn't floored by them in this way. Admittedly he lost an election but his organisational reforms, attack oratory on a weakened Blair and personal energy revitalised the Conservatives and saved them from oblivion.
It is that he really is absolutely useless as a leader - indecisive, stupid, rude, dogmatic and unwilling to get on with people, that makes this crisis so unusual. Churchill, Gaitskell, and Kinnock were all much better at the actual job of leading (has any leader since the disastrous tenure of Lansbury been worse?) and therefore there was always a chance things would turn around, as indeed they did for all three.
But Corbyn - what has he got to fall back on? He's not even got any political instincts that some quite dim politicians have used instead of intellect (neither Liverpool nor Salisbury were clever, but they were superb readers of the public mood). That's why Labour MPs and our sane Labour posters - Rochdale, Joff, Jonathan to name the obvious - are despairing. And that's why this gap is significant even though ostensibly it's not historically unusual.
I actually agree with almost all of that, but I simply do not believe that Corbyn will lead Labour at the next election. Moreover, if I am wrong about that Labour will not get my vote. His lack of respect for parliamentary politics makes him unacceptable to me. However, now that he has been openly challenged I don't believe there is any way that his opponents in the parliamentary party can or will give up. If he wins in September he will be challenged again next year, and eventually the mebership - perhaps encouraged by the unions - will reject him.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Indeed. I am sure that the last thing the Smith campaign wanted to be doing today was denying the fact that he is a sexist with a penchant for violent language/imagery. But that is what they are having to do.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Some things we're better off not knowing.
I used to think Hattie was rather good looking a decade or two back....
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Indeed. I am sure that the last thing the Smith campaign wanted to be doing today was denying the fact that he is a sexist with a penchant for violent language/imagery. But that is what they are having to do.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Indeed. I am sure that the last thing the Smith campaign wanted to be doing today was denying the fact that he is a sexist with a penchant for violent language/imagery. But that is what they are having to do.
It's like the classic political dead cat - politician denies beating wife. Crucial difference is that it was his own poor choice of words brought him to it. I hate to say it, but that doesn't inspire confidence that he'd improve on Corbyn.
With that, I am off to get some dinner.
Surely it is the fact that such a revolting phrase is part of his vocabulary that is the greater issue?
No wonder Labour get so excited over sexism and racism if their own members are such impolite boors.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Indeed. I am sure that the last thing the Smith campaign wanted to be doing today was denying the fact that he is a sexist with a penchant for violent language/imagery. But that is what they are having to do.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Indeed. I am sure that the last thing the Smith campaign wanted to be doing today was denying the fact that he is a sexist with a penchant for violent language/imagery. But that is what they are having to do.
Totally smashed. The man is so poor he does inspire apathy...
In your dreams. Is that the best the Corbots can come up with in response to the policy platform that Smith laid out today?
PS. I am not sure if the term "Corbot" was coined to refer to a Corbyn supporting Trot or just someone parroting the latest Momentum party (within a party) line, but it seems an apt term to describe either or indeed both and I am trying to cover all the possible bases here.
Have you actually seen what Smith has said today? Have you seen what he said 5 years ago with regards to domestic violence?
He is being defined by his own words. And that is a problem for him.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
My fault.
I explained that 'smash' is a woman a well known sexual idiom.
Don't some of the plans - such as preventing foreigners from owning media outlets in Poland - fall foul of their treaty obligations?
Those changes haven't been made, slap them with single market violations if they are.
What has happened is the Polish government were elected with a majority and decided that the last government had acted without honour by appointing three judges to their constitutional court as they left office. The new government hace blocked their ascent and nominated their own judges who are rather more Eurosceptic. The EU has decided this is the hill it wants to die on.
And it's actions like this that may well lead to the ultimate disintegration of the whole EU project.
Yes - but it is unlikely to continue like that. There is a significant May 'honeymoon' factor in the figures which will be flattering the Tories at the moment but that will inevitably fade with time. By September we could well be seeing headlines of 'Tory lead slashed to 5%' or something similar. I expect polling figures to return to roughly pre-Brexit levels long before Xmas.
She's a month into the job, but Corbyn is only nine months in. He's in the process of going backwards still himself and I think will continue to do so for a while as these perceptions of Labour's unelectability under his leadership sink in further. If May does fade in due course, and a lot will depend on whether she is perceived to having broken with Osborne's trajectory, Corbyn's personal ratings are nonetheless so bad already that there's no reason to expect those presently drawn to the Conservatives to favour Corbynite Labour over UKIP, the Lib Dems, SNP/Plaid or even the Greens.
Oppositions by this stage in the electoral cycle should be enjoying substantive polling leads, whether they win or lose. With ICM and YouGov, in terms of Labour's position relative to the Conservatives Miliband was by this stage between 15% and 20% ahead of where Corbyn is now, and still lost.
By the way Labour never did enjoy leads of 15 -20% under Miliband. In July 2011 the polls ranged from a Tory lead of 1% to Labour leads of 9%.
No, but Miliband did have a sustained period where Labour was polling in the mid-40s (I think 46 was their best from memory), and where they were consistently 10+ points ahead of the Conservatives. IIRC, it was between the omnishambles budget and the start of the rise of UKIP, during spring and summer 2012.
Indeed so but that was 12 months further into the Parliament.
- all the first bullet point is saying that the new judges must be lawfully selected. That's a process issue.
More importantly, isn't it saying that the previous judges have been unlawfully removed?
It's as if Trump got elected and then tried to remove the Supreme Court judges he didn't like and replace them with his picks.
If it is saying that then that is a process failure which could, I imagine, be cured e.g. by removing the judges lawfully and appointing the replacements lawfully. Even here there is a process by which judges can be removed - even if it is very very rarely used.
If following EU rules is important then this principle must be applied to all EU states equally and not just to those states with governments which the EU Commission doesn't approve of. Unfortunately, as we have seen, some EU states find it very easy indeed to ignore EU rules without so much as a peep from the Commission.
EU law is not equal for all - and this is - or ought to be - a fundamental value.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Indeed. I am sure that the last thing the Smith campaign wanted to be doing today was denying the fact that he is a sexist with a penchant for violent language/imagery. But that is what they are having to do.
It's like the classic political dead cat - politician denies beating wife. Crucial difference is that it was his own poor choice of words brought him to it. I hate to say it, but that doesn't inspire confidence that he'd improve on Corbyn.
With that, I am off to get some dinner.
Surely it is the fact that such a revolting phrase is part of his vocabulary that is the greater issue?
Not just that, but the whole context of that and other quotes was that the woman (Clegg/LDs) was the weaker partner for whom divorce is undesirable and whom the man will inevitably dump, i.e. women are weak, powerless and dependent on men. Good old progressive Labour.
I note a deplorable rise in the use of four letter anglo-saxon words on this and previous threads, well before the lagershed. Can we please revert to the more inventive words of abuse and response that PB is esteemed for?
Are five letter Anglo-Saxon words permitted? As in Swive Off?
Yes, that is much more like it!
So the lovely Mrs May is a FLOTTILTS or WILS for short......
Glad we've got that sorted then.
I am at a loss to explain the sudden outpouring of sexual desire for Theresa May by pb'ers today.
Owen Smith started it. Though it may not have been precisely what he had in mind.
Don't some of the plans - such as preventing foreigners from owning media outlets in Poland - fall foul of their treaty obligations?
Those changes haven't been made, slap them with single market violations if they are.
What has happened is the Polish government were elected with a majority and decided that the last government had acted without honour by appointing three judges to their constitutional court as they left office. The new government hace blocked their ascent and nominated their own judges who are rather more Eurosceptic. The EU has decided this is the hill it wants to die on.
Thank God we voted Brexit. And still they don't get it.
I hope the Poles rebuke them for so arrogantly pretending to have such powers.
Maybe what we need to do is set up a Commonwealth single market and invite countries like Poland, Denmark etc. to leave the EU and join the Commonwealth.
Don't some of the plans - such as preventing foreigners from owning media outlets in Poland - fall foul of their treaty obligations?
Those changes haven't been made, slap them with single market violations if they are.
What has happened is the Polish government were elected with a majority and decided that the last government had acted without honour by appointing three judges to their constitutional court as they left office. The new government hace blocked their ascent and nominated their own judges who are rather more Eurosceptic. The EU has decided this is the hill it wants to die on.
Thank God we voted Brexit. And still they don't get it.
I hope the Poles rebuke them for so arrogantly pretending to have such powers.
Maybe what we need to do is set up a Commonwealth single market and invite countries like Poland, Denmark etc. to leave the EU and join the Commonwealth.
Alternate history timeline - European nations joining the Commonwealth:
1973 Ireland, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy, West Germany, 1981 Greece 1986 Spain, Portugal 1990 East Germany and Berlin 1995 Austria, Finland, Sweden 2004 Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia 2007 Bulgaria, Romania 2013 Croatia
Don't some of the plans - such as preventing foreigners from owning media outlets in Poland - fall foul of their treaty obligations?
Those changes haven't been made, slap them with single market violations if they are.
What has happened is the Polish government were elected with a majority and decided that the last government had acted without honour by appointing three judges to their constitutional court as they left office. The new government hace blocked their ascent and nominated their own judges who are rather more Eurosceptic. The EU has decided this is the hill it wants to die on.
Thank God we voted Brexit. And still they don't get it.
I hope the Poles rebuke them for so arrogantly pretending to have such powers.
Maybe what we need to do is set up a Commonwealth single market and invite countries like Poland, Denmark etc. to leave the EU and join the Commonwealth.
Alternate history timeline - European nations joining the Commonwealth:
1973 Ireland, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy, West Germany, 1981 Greece 1986 Spain, Portugal 1990 East Germany and Berlin 1995 Austria, Finland, Sweden 2004 Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia 2007 Bulgaria, Romania 2013 Croatia
East Germany didn't really join the EU, it joined West Germany. So it wouldn't really have joined the Commonwealth :P
Comments
Even taking the most pessimistic scenarios the Trident successor will cost us about 1/25th of what we spend on the NHS, or about 0.25% of GDP.
We need to look elsewhere for the explanation. In large part I think because in the UK workers have taken wage freezes and ZHCs over redundancy.
I see that not much is changing in dear old Blighty, and that Jeremy Corbyn continues to be a laughing stock that nobody finds very funny.
In light of events in Europe it seems sadly ironic that my father was very concerned when I told him about this visit to Israel. So far everyone apart from two highly aggressive beggars has been friendly, the scenery is stunning, the food is good and while it isn't cheap it isn't as expensive as Tenerife. I can definitely recommend Nazareth and the accommodation in the al-Mutran Square.
On topic, @justin124 is as ever correct with his figures. But they only tell part of the story. This story is about Corbyn himself. It is not that his policies are poor, although they are. It is not his age, although that doesn't help. It is not even that he is chronically unpopular although that's not ideal in a politician. Michael Howard had all those disadvantages and wasn't floored by them in this way. Admittedly he lost an election but his organisational reforms, attack oratory on a weakened Blair and personal energy revitalised the Conservatives and saved them from oblivion.
It is that he really is absolutely useless as a leader - indecisive, stupid, rude, dogmatic and unwilling to get on with people, that makes this crisis so unusual. Churchill, Gaitskell, and Kinnock were all much better at the actual job of leading (has any leader since the disastrous tenure of Lansbury been worse?) and therefore there was always a chance things would turn around, as indeed they did for all three.
But Corbyn - what has he got to fall back on? He's not even got any political instincts that some quite dim politicians have used instead of intellect (neither Liverpool nor Salisbury were clever, but they were superb readers of the public mood). That's why Labour MPs and our sane Labour posters - Rochdale, Joff, Jonathan to name the obvious - are despairing. And that's why this gap is significant even though ostensibly it's not historically unusual.
Still, quite sobering. A lot of work to do.
In this case I suspect currency levels, since the individual comparisons being made are UK vs certain individual Euro countries.
The comparisons are 2007-2015 in constant 2015 dollars afaics.
Then between 2007-2015 the Euro fell by about 13% against the dollar, from 1.30 to 1.13, while the UK pound fell by about 25% from approx 1.90 to 1.53 against the dollar.
The difference between 13% for Euro vs Dollar, and 25% fall for Pound vs Dollar over the comparison period seems to account for all of the difference between relative wages between eg Greece and UK over that period?
Or am I just demonstrating why I am not a currency trader :-) ?
Merkel made her infamous statement partly in response to an existing crisis (it was not the initiating factor) largely in response to aspects of mid and late 20th century German history in both creating refugees and also in absobing refugees from the Volksdeutsch of the east.
It clearly requires repatriation of CFP and CAP.
- all the first bullet point is saying that the new judges must be lawfully selected. That's a process issue.
- the second is about publication and implementation of a judgment. No actual breach as far as I can tell but a request to do something in the future.
- The third is also about future changes.
- The fourth is about future reviews.
Hard to see from this that some fundamental value is being breached. It reads more like the sort of view that one might get from a superior court overturning a decision of a lower court on the finer points of local government law.
A government is entitled to make changes to the law which overturn previous judgments of the highest court of the land. It happens in the UK and elsewhere. It is not per se a mark of tyranny. Of course those who like those judgments may not like the changes but that does not mean that such changes are, without more, a breach of fundamental values.
Rule#1 "Do what you are told."
Does the EU have a similar power to direct the composition of the German constitutional court, for example?
- The Joker to Batman, in "The Dark Knight" (2008)
It's as if Trump got elected and then tried to remove the Supreme Court judges he didn't like and replace them with his picks.
protection moneymembership fee is £8.5 billion a year (NET!)!Glad we've got that sorted then.
'Surely that neverending supply of labour can go to Germany too? - and indeed there are a very large number of Poles and Greeks in Germany, as well as Portuguese in France, Romanians in Italy and Spain etc.
We need to look elsewhere for the explanation. In large part I think because in the UK workers have taken wage freezes and ZHCs over redundancy.'
Firstly Germany & every other EU country does not have the generous 'few questions asked' benefits system (how does the DHSS actually check the number of children that child benefit is being claimed for in Poland ,Romania et al ?).
Secondly far more EU citizens speak English, although as we know in this country speaking the local language is not a requirement to work here or claim benefits..
The low wage economy of the UK is not something new, if you look at the Resolution Foundation report (not exactly a right wing think tank) , real wages were stagnant from 2003 - 2008 then we had the crash.During the 2003 - 2008 period this stagnation was camouflaged by endless cheap credit, self certified 125% mortgages and never ending new & more generous state benefits..
It's an amazing coincidence that wages start to decline at the same time as we started having mass immigration from Eastern Europe, although during the same period the economy was supposedly booming !
Trends in wages and incomes: 2003-2008 - Resolution Foundation
www.resolutionfoundation.org › Publications
21 Sep 2012 - The ASHE wage data reveals that the stagnation in median wages over the period 2003 to 2008 was driven principally by male employees and ...
In any event plenty of governments - Germany, France, Italy, for instance - have breached the EU's own rules (in some cases, repeatedly) and have faced no sanctions whatsoever. The suspicion is that the EU's interference in this case is not primarily because of a breach or intended breach of rules or fundamental values but because the EU Commission does not like the substance of what Poland may be seeking to do. The two are not the same.
Is it helpful to our society to watch as people die and to see the body parts scattered, or humans lit like a torch? Or is it enough to know that people have been killed by terrorist without all the technicolor? I'd vote for the latter. Too much dwelling on the issue is bad for our soul, quite apart from being what the terrorists want.
As for the victims (including the families and loved ones of the persons physically and emotionally scarred), of course we should not downplay their suffering and consequences. But insofar as these costs can be compared to economic damage and increased security costs, it is clear that the bulk of the cost comes from the overreaction.
Take, for example, Fukishima nuclear reactor. Many more people died as a direct result of the evacuation (old people rushing to leave without their medications, old people being abandoned without care) than died from the explosions and radioactive contamination at the plant - or indeed would have died had no-one been evacuated.
The best guestimates are that 600 people died as a result of the evacuation, whereas between 3 and 245 lives were saved by it.
In fact, that estimate of lives saved should probably be zero. Fukishima released only one tenth of the radioactive materials as did Chernobyl, and 80% of that was deposited over the Pacific. A WHO study has found that, apart from the 32 heroic workers who died of radiation sickness sealing the Chernobyl plant, there has been no perceivable increase in cancer or other radiation-related sicknesses in the Chernobyl-contaminated population.
Just to finish with some counterintuitive facts: riding a bike for 10 miles, driving a car for 300 miles, flying in a commercial plane for 1000 miles, drinking 30 soda drinks, smoking 1.4 cigarettes, living 50 years within 5 miles of a nuclear reactor and eating 100 charcoal-grilled steaks all pose exactly the same risk to our health.
Corbyn, on the other hand, seems perfectly happy with violence when it is practised by any of his favourite groups and whines incessantly about how unfair life is when the rules go against him.
Lansbury went quietly in 1935 when a group in the shadow cabinet organised by the man I firmly regard as Labour's finest statesman made it clear they felt the national interest demanded a change. Corbyn is hanging on for grim death even though everyone apart from a few thousand Labour members is desperate for him to leave.
Of course, Lansbury never actually wanted the leadership and only became leader by accident. For all Corbyn's claims, I think he really does want it. Maybe that's the key difference.
Verizon tapping the US bond market today, said to be for approx USD5bn.
Totally smashed. The man is so poor he does inspire apathy...
Indeed, but they also have some big debt maturities coming up in Sept 2016.
The accusation the EU Commission wants the Polish government to answer is one of "Systemic threat to the rule of law". They imply, I think, that the government is deliberately undermining the country's legal institutions.
Anyway, as Mr Eagles explained, this is merely work-related research on my part. I have a lot of chats from sexually inventive traders to read...................
If the EU has aggrandised such powers or pretends to have such powers it is a disgrace and makes me say thank God we voted to leave ever more heartfeltly.
If PES were ahead on seats, it'd be the other way round.
In both cases it'd make virtually no difference to the future course of the EU and it's almost inconceivable that neither the EPP or PES would win most seats in the EP. Voters have clocked this too which is why hardly anyone bothers to vote in EP elections.
So do I laugh when europhiles claim that Juncker has legitimacy because he was indirectly elected by the EP.
With that, I am off to get some dinner.
Remember: Alan Clark said he didn't want actual penetration, just a really big snog.
PS. I am not sure if the term "Corbot" was coined to refer to a Corbyn supporting Trot or just someone parroting the latest Momentum party (within a party) line, but it seems an apt term to describe either or indeed both and I am trying to cover all the possible bases here.
What has happened is the Polish government were elected with a majority and decided that the last government had acted without honour by appointing three judges to their constitutional court as they left office. The new government hace blocked their ascent and nominated their own judges who are rather more Eurosceptic. The EU has decided this is the hill it wants to die on.
We can look to this mornings decision not to punish Portugal and Spain for non-compliance with EZ rules as just one example.
-----------------------------------------------
Yes, as long as you keep saying 'we love the EU, three bags full' or similar, you may get a light ticking off but that's it.
The naughtier children (for that is certainly how they are seen) get the birch.
No wonder Labour get so excited over sexism and racism if their own members are such impolite boors.
He is being defined by his own words. And that is a problem for him.
I explained that 'smash' is a woman a well known sexual idiom.
It is sowing the wind for its downfall.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36904597?client=ms-android-oneplus
If following EU rules is important then this principle must be applied to all EU states equally and not just to those states with governments which the EU Commission doesn't approve of. Unfortunately, as we have seen, some EU states find it very easy indeed to ignore EU rules without so much as a peep from the Commission.
EU law is not equal for all - and this is - or ought to be - a fundamental value.
I hope the Poles rebuke them for so arrogantly pretending to have such powers.
Maybe what we need to do is set up a Commonwealth single market and invite countries like Poland, Denmark etc. to leave the EU and join the Commonwealth.
"They're the nasty party now."
https://twitter.com/BR_Franken/status/758308623575416832
1973 Ireland, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy, West Germany,
1981 Greece
1986 Spain, Portugal
1990 East Germany and Berlin
1995 Austria, Finland, Sweden
2004 Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia
2007 Bulgaria, Romania
2013 Croatia
http://dailym.ai/2aw1eS4.
How many years before Mutti Merkels guests can qualify for German Passports and live in the UK under freedom of movement rules?
Expect a different narrative for this one...