To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The will of the people is to leave the EU. It is up to Parliament to approve the terms on which it will happen. Likewise, I would not expect a divorce deal with Scotland to be done without sign-off of the deal by the English and Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Irish) Parliaments.
The only meaningful way I can see would be for the EU negotiators to come & do the negotiating with the MPs as a body in the Commons. A recipe for a right old dog's breakfast of a result. Hardest Brexit of all, would be my guess.
Its nonsense anyway. Parliament legislates, the Executive enacts in accordance with the legislation and the powers granted therein.
Can anyone name another treaty in which parliament has been involved to any extent ? When parliament debated Lisbon was the a line by line discussion, or was the vote in effect "take it or leave it". Why is this one any different ?
I think the Maastricht Treaty had about 25 full days' debate in a Committee of the Whole House, which was indeed line-by-line, on top of the usual debates and votes for second reading, report stage and so on.
One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.
That's what happens when companies try and play politics.
Top of the Mail website:
#Marmitegate! Furious shoppers call for boycott of Unilever after Tesco stops selling Marmite - and 200 other items - in protest at Anglo-Dutch food giant's demand for a 10% Brexit price rise
@bbclaurak: Sturgeon also confirmed SNP will vote against the Great Repeal Act - she's also trying to brand it as the 'Brexit Bill'
As will the LibDems and the Green, I am sure.
I am surprised that May doesn't appreciate that it is Labour, which doesn't have a settled policy on anything, pretty much, that is most vulnerable to being put on the spot.
Of course it was the debate - and the need to provide some answers during it, including to any clever amendments seeking to separate the remain Tories from the rest, that is May's real reason for not wanting an early vote.
Her way out might be to simply call a general election and get a settled mandate that way, maybe in early Spring. That way the so called remain tories will be skewered. Sign up to the manifesto, or stand as an independent.
That's not the way the Tory Party works. Any number of MPs have been selected and elected with views on the record that contradict official policy. Their main obstacle would be their local Association but that would depend on the strength of their views and the extent to which it varied from their local members.
It is not the usual way it happens but 1 or 2 key statements could be taken at the selection/endorsement meeting of the Executive and the incumbent MP asked a Yes or No on them. The Executive can then decide to endorse or reject the MP.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland.....
Yep, on the face of it she has an uphill task. But as many have noted on here, there are some things more important than money and living standards. This is one hell of an opportunity for Scotland to define itself as being the very opposite of England and to extricate itself from something that many Scots now feel they are no real part of. It would be a shame to see the UK go, but we English have removed the Scots from the EU against their will. It's understandable that Scots may want to pass a judgement on that.
The difference is that there is significantly more latent admiration and positive sentiment for the Union than there ever was for the EU. The independence side would be fighting 300 years of history in addition to the economics, I'm not sure that will be possible. Not enough to swing 6% of No voters.
So, it's ok to support
"This is one hell of an opportunity for Scotland to define itself as being the very opposite of England and to extricate itself from something that many Scots now feel they are no real part of. "
But not .....
This is one hell of an opportunity for the UK to define itself as being the very opposite of the EU and to extricate itself from something that many Brits now feel they are no real part of.
The will of the people is to leave the EU. It is up to Parliament to approve the terms on which it will happen.
If you can bear to log onto the Express you can watch Andrew Neil tear a new one for a tory MP arguing precisely the same. The people knew what they were voting for.
I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.
Probably not if we intend to abide by the terms of the treaty. As I mentioned last night the Lisbon Treaty was the first opportunity a state had to leave the EU and stay in accordance with its treaty obligations. Prior to Lisbon the only alternative would be to breach the treaty obligations. As far as I know Britain has never breached Treaty obligations in modern times.
As has already been pointed out, the A50 is worded in such a way that once it has been triggered it cannot be revoked. Unless the states wanted to rip up Lisbon and have a completely new treaty there is no way they could legally allow the UK to change its mind and revoke Article 50. SO the choice we would have would be to complete the leave process and then seek to rejoin under Article 49 - which would include a requirement to join both Schengen and the Euro.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The will of the people is to leave the EU. It is up to Parliament to approve the terms on which it will happen. Likewise, I would not expect a divorce deal with Scotland to be done without sign-off of the deal by the English and Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Irish) Parliaments.
What about the Borders - if they want to Brexit and stay in the Uk - will they get a separate vote ?
All I see is a poster trying to spread Brexit doom with a Scottish angle - which bears no relation to Sindy 2 polling or Scottish opinion on a preference for the Uk over the EU.
I'll repeat what I've said a hundred times already.
It's irrelevant whether Parliament needs to be consulted or not. It is a political mistake not to get Article 50 rubber stamped, and as soon as possible.
But that implies that parliament is a rubber stamp. The government should be making it clear that it doesn't regard parliament in that light (whatever it actually feels).
To that end, it shouldn't grant a vote on Article 50 but it should be holding a full debate on what the terms - or at least the principles - of Brexit negotiations should be. The government needs parliament to have some kind of buy-in and ownership of the process.
No it is saying to MPs: please acknowledge the democratic process of the referendum.
1. They won't. Are you really telling me that the MPs for Sunderland, with UKIP breathing down their necks, will vote against their constituents. And the vast, vast majority of Conservatives will vote for the motion. It would be 550-100.
2. But let's pretend it won't be a thumping victory for the government. Mrs May then calls an election. Wins a massive majority with a manifesto that is explicit about the goals of Brexit, and therefore cannot be challenged in the Lords under the Salisbury convention.
I agree that they won't but going through that charade isn't good for anybody as it's a deception against both itself and the public about what it might do and where power really lies.
It's interesting that you mention the Salisbury Convention. What I'd suggest is needed is an equivalent convention, based on the same principle, that parliament does not overturn the substance of a referendum result.
If TMay gets her way on this, and I think she will, then that will set the convention.
For practical purposes, yes, I think you're right. It'd still be helpful for the convention to be acknowledged though, as the Salisbury one is, rather than drifting in out of habit.
Legislation, or even an acknowledgement, would never get through the Commons or the Lords. Nor should it.
To make it stick you would need an Oliver Cromwell and a civil war between those who support parliament and those who support the Queen.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The 'will of the people' was not 'clearly expressed'. There was less than 4% in it.
Erm...Waterloo was a damn close run thing too - but nonetheless decisive. The EU never ever offered an associate membership or two-speed options or anything other than balls-deep in or right the way out. More fool them. We needed to be given the choice as the whole EU stay-or-go thing has been a festering turd for 40 years in UK politics. It's frankly a scandal there was no referendum earlier (esp re ratifying Lisbon). A very simple binary choice was required. In or out. We chose out. That's pretty fucking clear to me.
Is Unilever an early exemplar of an emerging theme - 'Don't mess with Brexit'?
More like don't play politics. The Dutch side of the board are clearly trying to exert pressure on the UK operation, now they have their reaction. To lose 29% of the grocery market overnight is a disaster for the company, I'd be very, very surprised of Sainsbury's and Asda agreed to price rises now that Tesco have told them to get lost so it could rise to being cut off from 60% of the grocery market soon. That's a material impact on the company's bottom line for nothing really. If they had come in and said we need a 3% price rise for the next few months which will be reviewed if Sterling recovers, Tesco management would have waived it through and raised prices for consumers by 2%, which most people wouldn't have noticed.
Unilever have made a huge error, all it will take now is for The Sun to rabble rouse a bit and print a front page of their products and instruct readers to avoid them until Unilever gives in and "respects the public's wishes" or something like that.
I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.
I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.
Probably not if we intend to abide by the terms of the treaty. As I mentioned last night the Lisbon Treaty was the first opportunity a state had to leave the EU and stay in accordance with its treaty obligations. Prior to Lisbon the only alternative would be to breach the treaty obligations. As far as I know Britain has never breached Treaty obligations in modern times.
As has already been pointed out, the A50 is worded in such a way that once it has been triggered it cannot be revoked. Unless the states wanted to rip up Lisbon and have a completely new treaty there is no way they could legally allow the UK to change its mind and revoke Article 50. SO the choice we would have would be to complete the leave process and then seek to rejoin under Article 49 - which would include a requirement to join both Schengen and the Euro.
Prior to Art 50 (Lisbon), the Vienna convention on the Laws of Treaties would have been utilised so that the nation could leave. Although not all nations are signed up to it, it is now accepted as the accepted standard for international agreements where no specific clause supersedes it.
I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.
Probably not if we intend to abide by the terms of the treaty. As I mentioned last night the Lisbon Treaty was the first opportunity a state had to leave the EU and stay in accordance with its treaty obligations. Prior to Lisbon the only alternative would be to breach the treaty obligations. As far as I know Britain has never breached Treaty obligations in modern times.
As has already been pointed out, the A50 is worded in such a way that once it has been triggered it cannot be revoked. Unless the states wanted to rip up Lisbon and have a completely new treaty there is no way they could legally allow the UK to change its mind and revoke Article 50. SO the choice we would have would be to complete the leave process and then seek to rejoin under Article 49 - which would include a requirement to join both Schengen and the Euro.
But that's not the way it would be done. Instead the 27 other members of the EU would unanimously vote to extend the negotiations period by 25 years. Then at the next Treaty revision, they'd change it to explicitly allow an application to be rescinded.
Finding 27 countries who want our money to keep flowing towards Brussels wouldn't be a problem.
One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.
That's what happens when companies try and play politics.
Top of the Mail website:
#Marmitegate! Furious shoppers call for boycott of Unilever after Tesco stops selling Marmite - and 200 other items - in protest at Anglo-Dutch food giant's demand for a 10% Brexit price rise
Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland
Yes indeed.
And the chances that her efforts are successful depend on voters' stupidity. Recently I heard someone say that Scots didn't have a vote in the EU referendum. "What on earth is this guy talking about?" I wondered. It hit me later what he meant. What he meant was that British citizens living in Scotland didn't get a vote on whether or not Scotland should become a member of the EU.
How is one supposed to respond? Point out that exactly the same statement could be made about people living in England, or London, or the Isle of Wight? Point out that Scotland can only ever become a member of the EU if it is independent, and that people in Scotland recently voted against independence?
But no; against stupidity even the gods battle in vain. The SNP encourage a massive nationalistic chip on their shoulder among their followers and voters: every damned thing they don't like is about the English (who sometimes appear as "Westminster", sometimes "the London media") stopping them getting what they want. They live in the infantile borderland between Tantrum World and Pretending to be Like a Grown-Up. There's no reasoning with them.
If ratings agencies say an independent Scotland would get a crap rating, that must be because they're evil-minded people seeking to do Scotland down. I'm no fan of ratings agencies, but such an accusation indicates a complete lack of understanding of what lending money is all about.
When the SNP politicians are behind closed doors, of course, the "we" who want "control over our own affairs" becomes a very different "we". A Labour-Tory-LibDem coalition in the Scottish parliament would be far preferable to the SNP-Green shower that's in power in Edinburgh at the moment.
Is Unilever an early exemplar of an emerging theme - 'Don't mess with Brexit'?
More like don't play politics. The Dutch side of the board are clearly trying to exert pressure on the UK operation, now they have their reaction. To lose 29% of the grocery market overnight is a disaster for the company, I'd be very, very surprised of Sainsbury's and Asda agreed to price rises now that Tesco have told them to get lost so it could rise to being cut off from 60% of the grocery market soon. That's a material impact on the company's bottom line for nothing really. If they had come in and said we need a 3% price rise for the next few months which will be reviewed if Sterling recovers, Tesco management would have waived it through and raised prices for consumers by 2%, which most people wouldn't have noticed.
Unilever have made a huge error, all it will take now is for The Sun to rabble rouse a bit and print a front page of their products and instruct readers to avoid them until Unilever gives in and "respects the public's wishes" or something like that.
The major consequence of this is that P&G, Nestle, etc., will all make sure that no individual price rise is more than 1-2%.
First Asian financial crisis started in Thailand......
If the (admittedly wildly biased) commentator on The World Tonight is correct then the Crown Prince who is in line to succeed is hated and there could indeed be very rough times ahead for Thailand.
Polly Toynbee, bravely standing up for the right of giant corporations to hike prices on consumers.
A new arrogance is developing amongst the elite. Once the plebs see the price of their beer and bingo going up, they will soon change their tunes.
Just as nauseating as the others.
"Every day that passes shows how disastrous a referendum can be"
She would always have wanted a technocracy over a democracy - she thinks the plebs aren't clever enough to rule themselves. That's one of the reasons people like her removed Grammar schools - too many plebs getting to the top.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The 'will of the people' was not 'clearly expressed'. There was less than 4% in it.
I can see you saying just the same if it was 50%+1 Remain, honest, I really can!
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The will of the people is to leave the EU. It is up to Parliament to approve the terms on which it will happen. Likewise, I would not expect a divorce deal with Scotland to be done without sign-off of the deal by the English and Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Irish) Parliaments.
What about the Borders - if they want to Brexit and stay in the Uk - will they get a separate vote ?
All I see is a poster trying to spread Brexit doom with a Scottish angle - which bears no relation to Sindy 2 polling or Scottish opinion on a preference for the Uk over the EU.
Is Unilever an early exemplar of an emerging theme - 'Don't mess with Brexit'?
More like don't play politics. The Dutch side of the board are clearly trying to exert pressure on the UK operation, now they have their reaction. To lose 29% of the grocery market overnight is a disaster for the company, I'd be very, very surprised of Sainsbury's and Asda agreed to price rises now that Tesco have told them to get lost so it could rise to being cut off from 60% of the grocery market soon. That's a material impact on the company's bottom line for nothing really. If they had come in and said we need a 3% price rise for the next few months which will be reviewed if Sterling recovers, Tesco management would have waived it through and raised prices for consumers by 2%, which most people wouldn't have noticed.
Unilever have made a huge error, all it will take now is for The Sun to rabble rouse a bit and print a front page of their products and instruct readers to avoid them until Unilever gives in and "respects the public's wishes" or something like that.
The major consequence of this is that P&G, Nestle, etc., will all make sure that no individual price rise is more than 1-2%.
In that sense Unilever has done the British consumer a massive favour as food price inflation will be held down to 2-3% over the next year or so vs 4-6% which is what I was expecting.
The only meaningful way I can see would be for the EU negotiators to come & do the negotiating with the MPs as a body in the Commons. A recipe for a right old dog's breakfast of a result. Hardest Brexit of all, would be my guess.
Its nonsense anyway. Parliament legislates, the Executive enacts in accordance with the legislation and the powers granted therein.
Can anyone name another treaty in which parliament has been involved to any extent ? When parliament debated Lisbon was the a line by line discussion, or was the vote in effect "take it or leave it". Why is this one any different ?
I think the Maastricht Treaty had about 25 full days' debate in a Committee of the Whole House, which was indeed line-by-line, on top of the usual debates and votes for second reading, report stage and so on.
And Parliament's ability to change a word of it was zero, the treaty was there, we either signed it or we didnt.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The 'will of the people' was not 'clearly expressed'. There was less than 4% in it.
One of the weaknesses of your point is that we all know you'd be saying "less than 9%" or "less than 12%" or "less than 19%" or whatever figure was extant to push exactly the same agenda.
The thing is, she knows Parliament will have to grant her the right to do it. And her entire motive is for Parliament to block it, as they certainly must until the art 50 negotiations are over.
As long as it's just Unilever, then a boycott (very SNP, of course) is possible. If other companies start putting up process it gets trickier.
As Robert points out, the price rises will be limited to 1-2% rather than the 10% Unilever asked for, no company wants that kind of bad press. When you're on the wrong side of the argument vs Tesco and people are calling Tesco a consumer champion that's a huge PR loss.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The 'will of the people' was not 'clearly expressed'. There was less than 4% in it.
Christ on a bike it's a majority FFS.
Had remain won with 4% or even a few dozen votes we would not be having this conversation and the line would have been the people have spoken, that's it no further discussion needed Remain has a full mandate.
Remain fully engaged in this referendum they must accept the result. The present scenario just clearly demonstrates the worst aspects of the EU and its predatory ways. I can understand why you like it so much. A referendum is only acceptable if it agrees with your views, they did not by well over a million people.
You know it ......I know it ......everyone on the board knows it. Hypocrisy and being a sore loser is so EU.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The will of the people is to leave the EU. It is up to Parliament to approve the terms on which it will happen. Likewise, I would not expect a divorce deal with Scotland to be done without sign-off of the deal by the English and Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Irish) Parliaments.
What about the Borders - if they want to Brexit and stay in the Uk - will they get a separate vote ?
All I see is a poster trying to spread Brexit doom with a Scottish angle - which bears no relation to Sindy 2 polling or Scottish opinion on a preference for the Uk over the EU.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The will of the people is to leave the EU. It is up to Parliament to approve the terms on which it will happen. Likewise, I would not expect a divorce deal with Scotland to be done without sign-off of the deal by the English and Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Irish) Parliaments.
What about the Borders - if they want to Brexit and stay in the Uk - will they get a separate vote ?
All I see is a poster trying to spread Brexit doom with a Scottish angle - which bears no relation to Sindy 2 polling or Scottish opinion on a preference for the Uk over the EU.
As long as it's just Unilever, then a boycott (very SNP, of course) is possible. If other companies start putting up process it gets trickier.
I am not sure the number of people happy to boycott Unilever is substantially greater than the number of people who might be upset at not being able to buy their favourite brands "because of Brexit"
It may yet be another interesting exercise in "the will of the people"
EDIT: Added extra bit. It might also be that the wealthier leafier parts that voted remain would join the boycott, and those more deprived areas that voted out would be most upset
One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.
That's what happens when companies try and play politics.
Top of the Mail website:
#Marmitegate! Furious shoppers call for boycott of Unilever after Tesco stops selling Marmite - and 200 other items - in protest at Anglo-Dutch food giant's demand for a 10% Brexit price rise
"soap powder is soap powder, people will just get a non Unilever product"
Well quite..
Well not quite.
There is a reason for using brand names.
Unilever is not used as a brand name in this country.
During the 2012 Olympics, Proctor and Gamble pushed their own name quite a lot, something like "proud sponsor of mums". A friend of mine said this was an odd decision as he thinks a company like P&G should aim keep a low profile and not allow customers to realize that a number of brands are owned by the same people. Until yesterday I didn't know who owned Marmite (but I'd have guessed either P&G or Unilever). I'd suggest that Unilever have made a mistake in allowing their name to become associated with their products.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The 'will of the people' was not 'clearly expressed'. There was less than 4% in it.
Christ on a bike it's a majority FFS.
Had remain won with 4% or even a few dozen votes we would not be having this conversation and the line would have been the people have spoken, that's it no further discussion needed Remain has a full mandate.
Remain fully engaged in this referendum they must accept the result. The present scenario just clearly demonstrates the worst aspects of the EU and its predatory ways. I can understand why you like it so much. A referendum is only acceptable if it agrees with your views, they did not by well over a million people.
You know it ......I know it ......everyone on the board knows it. Hypocrisy and being a sore loser is so EU.
I see your point - but the fact remains that had it been the opposite result by the same margin, we'd still be on here day after day arguing the toss with leavers who refused to accept the result. We all know this is true.
edit/ indeed Farage - thinking he had lost - was already trying to set this up in his comments during Referendum week.
First Asian financial crisis started in Thailand......
If the (admittedly wildly biased) commentator on The World Tonight is correct then the Crown Prince who is in line to succeed is hated and there could indeed be very rough times ahead for Thailand.
He is not held in remotely the same regard as his father.
Lese majeste laws or not, In the age of the internet, photographs of him stepping out of a jet in Munich in what's clearly his wife's top, which doesn't even reach his (ample) midriff, will have been widely seen in Thailand......talk about 'letting light in on the magic'!
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The 'will of the people' was not 'clearly expressed'. There was less than 4% in it.
Christ on a bike it's a majority FFS.
Had remain won with 4% or even a few dozen votes we would not be having this conversation and the line would have been the people have spoken, that's it no further discussion needed Remain has a full mandate.
Remain fully engaged in this referendum they must accept the result. The present scenario just clearly demonstrates the worst aspects of the EU and its predatory ways. I can understand why you like it so much. A referendum is only acceptable if it agrees with your views, they did not by well over a million people.
You know it ......I know it ......everyone on the board knows it. Hypocrisy and being a sore loser is so EU.
I see your point - but the fact remains that had it been the opposite result by the same margin, we'd still be on here day after day arguing the toss with leavers who refused to accept the result. We all know this is true.
But Parliament would have steamed full ahead into the superstate. Game over.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The will of the people is to leave the EU. It is up to Parliament to approve the terms on which it will happen. Likewise, I would not expect a divorce deal with Scotland to be done without sign-off of the deal by the English and Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Irish) Parliaments.
What about the Borders - if they want to Brexit and stay in the Uk - will they get a separate vote ?
All I see is a poster trying to spread Brexit doom with a Scottish angle - which bears no relation to Sindy 2 polling or Scottish opinion on a preference for the Uk over the EU.
No, the Borders are an integral part of Scotland.
Scotland is an integral part of the Uk - and its citizens agreed - as confirmed by recent referendum.
As long as it's just Unilever, then a boycott (very SNP, of course) is possible. If other companies start putting up process it gets trickier.
As Robert points out, the price rises will be limited to 1-2% rather than the 10% Unilever asked for, no company wants that kind of bad press. When you're on the wrong side of the argument vs Tesco and people are calling Tesco a consumer champion that's a huge PR loss.
Is Unilever an early exemplar of an emerging theme - 'Don't mess with Brexit'?
More like don't play politics. The Dutch side of the board are clearly trying to exert pressure on the UK operation, now they have their reaction. To lose 29% of the grocery market overnight is a disaster for the company, I'd be very, very surprised of Sainsbury's and Asda agreed to price rises now that Tesco have told them to get lost so it could rise to being cut off from 60% of the grocery market soon. That's a material impact on the company's bottom line for nothing really. If they had come in and said we need a 3% price rise for the next few months which will be reviewed if Sterling recovers, Tesco management would have waived it through and raised prices for consumers by 2%, which most people wouldn't have noticed.
Unilever have made a huge error, all it will take now is for The Sun to rabble rouse a bit and print a front page of their products and instruct readers to avoid them until Unilever gives in and "respects the public's wishes" or something like that.
The major consequence of this is that P&G, Nestle, etc., will all make sure that no individual price rise is more than 1-2%.
In that sense Unilever has done the British consumer a massive favour as food price inflation will be held down to 2-3% over the next year or so vs 4-6% which is what I was expecting.
Unilever and other food manufacturers have the choice of reverting to UK manufacture and avoiding the problem of sterling depreciation other than necessary imported ingedients.
Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland
Yes indeed.
And the chances that her efforts are successful depend on voters' stupidity. Recently I heard someone say that Scots didn't have a vote in the EU referendum. "What on earth is this guy talking about?" I wondered. It hit me later what he meant. What he meant was that British citizens living in Scotland didn't get a vote on whether or not Scotland should become a member of the EU.
How is one supposed to respond? Point out that exactly the same statement could be made about people living in England, or London, or the Isle of Wight? Point out that Scotland can only ever become a member of the EU if it is independent, and that people in Scotland recently voted against independence?
But no; against stupidity even the gods battle in vain. The SNP encourage a massive nationalistic chip on their shoulder among their followers and voters: every damned thing they don't like is about the English (who sometimes appear as "Westminster", sometimes "the London media") stopping them getting what they want. They live in the infantile borderland between Tantrum World and Pretending to be Like a Grown-Up. There's no reasoning with them.
If ratings agencies say an independent Scotland would get a crap rating, that must be because they're evil-minded people seeking to do Scotland down. I'm no fan of ratings agencies, but such an accusation indicates a complete lack of understanding of what lending money is all about.
When the SNP politicians are behind closed doors, of course, the "we" who want "control over our own affairs" becomes a very different "we". A Labour-Tory-LibDem coalition in the Scottish parliament would be far preferable to the SNP-Green shower that's in power in Edinburgh at the moment.
Nationalism clearly played a large part in the Brexit vote too. And, as many on here have said, some things are more important than money. The political trajectories of Scotland and England are clearly going in very different directions.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The 'will of the people' was not 'clearly expressed'. There was less than 4% in it.
Christ on a bike it's a majority FFS.
Had remain won with 4% or even a few dozen votes we would not be having this conversation and the line would have been the people have spoken, that's it no further discussion needed Remain has a full mandate.
Remain fully engaged in this referendum they must accept the result. The present scenario just clearly demonstrates the worst aspects of the EU and its predatory ways. I can understand why you like it so much. A referendum is only acceptable if it agrees with your views, they did not by well over a million people.
You know it ......I know it ......everyone on the board knows it. Hypocrisy and being a sore loser is so EU.
Calm down dear. You won (just), but don't continue claiming that it was 'the will of the people'. It was close, that's a really simple fact. By the way, if Remain had won by 3.8% I would still have said that it was close, no hypocrisy here. Just give me the facts.
I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.
Polly Toynbee, bravely standing up for the right of giant corporations to hike prices on consumers.
A new arrogance is developing amongst the elite. Once the plebs see the price of their beer and bingo going up, they will soon change their tunes.
Just as nauseating as the others.
"Every day that passes shows how disastrous a referendum can be"
She would always have wanted a technocracy over a democracy - she thinks the plebs aren't clever enough to rule themselves. That's one of the reasons people like her removed Grammar schools - too many plebs getting to the top.
Broadly speaking, yes. Although not the "top". They never let the plebs in at the top.
In the 1950s and 1960s the few hundred families that own Britain needed to hire some state-school types to do things like manage railway stations in the public sector, and they wanted them to have a bit of education, and even a sense of social responsibility, so that they could do a proper job. Since the late 1970s, as the citadels of finance rise ever higher in the City (and Canary Wharf), the few hundred families have deliberately made the country fall apart. The middle-level personnel whom they require nowadays are much more likely to work in the private sector, and even if they work in the state sector their attitudes aren't what they were 50 years ago. With very few exceptions, the kind of people needed are those who sacrifice at the altar of "dog eat dog" - selfish, stupid, greedy and often cruel buggers who are with the program of "smash, grab, pocket the payoff, and oh look, aren't there a lot of 'chavs' and 'losers' about?" For all the self-regard of some at Oxford and Cambridge, in many areas of life in Britain the idea is NOT that those who are allowed to be more "educated" or "clever" should be the ones who get jobs administering things or standing above others.
Scotland is an integral part of the Uk - and its citizens agreed - as confirmed by recent referendum.
The TPA's research shows we are subsidizing Scotland's governing elite to hate us. IF they want to go this time, let's let them. I've had enough of this petulant child.
If you really, really want to shake up the establishment and the elite in the UK - if you want to rock them to their very core of their being - the best thing you could do is to break the UK up.
Been doing some maths this morning, in USD terms, productivity adjusted UK unit labour costs are now competitive with Southern Europe and lower than anywhere in Northern Europe. If the exchange rate holds then investment will follow, Brexit or no Brexit.
I see your point - but the fact remains that had it been the opposite result by the same margin, we'd still be on here day after day arguing the toss with leavers who refused to accept the result. We all know this is true.
edit/ indeed Farage - thinking he had lost - was already trying to set this up in his comments during Referendum week.
Any movement at all towards closer integration would have been fair game. A 52-48 result to Remain could only have been seen as a result for the states quo. Which, in many ways would have been an even more impossible high-wire act for Prime Minister Cameron...
He was stuffed all ways round on anything less than a sizeable Remain majority.
If you really, really want to shake up the establishment and the elite in the UK - if you want to rock them to their very core of their being - the best thing you could do is to break the UK up.
Then there wouldn't be an "elite in the UK" to be shaken up, so your comment doesn't make any sense.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate.
Sorry no.
What sort of referendum majority is required for them to leave being a majority or even a 4 % one is not considered the people's will.
Either way if Scotland votes to leave then Parliament should be asked to agree the separation terms, then rebel and vote it down, ask at least 170 questions and generally ignore the will of the Scottish people thus preventing it ever happening.
The process will be agreed in advance. That should have been done with the EU referendum.
Then they just simply frustrate that process as would have Remain
Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the will of the people or you don't. That will was clearly expressed. Now they should get on with it.*
* as I said before the referendum and since if the result was 50% + 1 person in remains favour we should the following morning join Schengen and commence entry into the Euro. I would not have liked the Euro but at least I understand what the democratic will of the people means.
The 'will of the people' was not 'clearly expressed'. There was less than 4% in it.
Christ on a bike it's a majority FFS.
Had remain won with 4% or even a few dozen votes we would not be having this conversation and the line would have been the people have spoken, that's it no further discussion needed Remain has a full mandate.
Remain fully engaged in this referendum they must accept the result. The present scenario just clearly demonstrates the worst aspects of the EU and its predatory ways. I can understand why you like it so much. A referendum is only acceptable if it agrees with your views, they did not by well over a million people.
You know it ......I know it ......everyone on the board knows it. Hypocrisy and being a sore loser is so EU.
[snip] By the way, if Remain had won by 3.8% I would still have said that it was close, no hypocrisy here. Just give me the facts.
How many Scots Remain votes came from SNP supporters who are ambivalent or sceptical towards the EU but just wanted to drive a wedge between Scotland and England, I wonder?
If you really, really want to shake up the establishment and the elite in the UK - if you want to rock them to their very core of their being - the best thing you could do is to break the UK up.
Then there wouldn't be an "elite in the UK" to be shaken up, so your comment doesn't make any sense.
Scotland would not get independence the day after voting for it.
I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.
"I see your point - but the fact remains that had it been the opposite result by the same margin, we'd still be on here day after day arguing the toss with leavers who refused to accept the result. We all know this is true.
edit/ indeed Farage - thinking he had lost - was already trying to set this up in his comments during Referendum week."
Yes' without any doubt we all would have been but not to frustrate the enactment of a referendum result clearly stated. I am sure the "fight would go on" but this was in a situation of no change, the Status Quo as some put it.
Remain would and could have shut this down easily and UKIP would have been laughed out of both the EU parliaments by those who they had tormented for years. Probably rightly so as they could not even secure the backing of the British people in such a scenario. Of course it didn't happen that way so the point is mute really
One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.
That's what happens when companies try and play politics.
Top of the Mail website:
#Marmitegate! Furious shoppers call for boycott of Unilever after Tesco stops selling Marmite - and 200 other items - in protest at Anglo-Dutch food giant's demand for a 10% Brexit price rise
"soap powder is soap powder, people will just get a non Unilever product"
Well quite..
Well not quite.
There is a reason for using brand names.
Unilever is not used as a brand name in this country.
During the 2012 Olympics, Proctor and Gamble pushed their own name quite a lot, something like "proud sponsor of mums". A friend of mine said this was an odd decision as he thinks a company like P&G should aim keep a low profile and not allow customers to realize that a number of brands are owned by the same people. Until yesterday I didn't know who owned Marmite (but I'd have guessed either P&G or Unilever). I'd suggest that Unilever have made a mistake in allowing their name to become associated with their products.
I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.
One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.
That's what happens when companies try and play politics.
Top of the Mail website:
#Marmitegate! Furious shoppers call for boycott of Unilever after Tesco stops selling Marmite - and 200 other items - in protest at Anglo-Dutch food giant's demand for a 10% Brexit price rise
"soap powder is soap powder, people will just get a non Unilever product"
Well quite..
Well not quite.
There is a reason for using brand names.
Unilever is not used as a brand name in this country.
During the 2012 Olympics, Proctor and Gamble pushed their own name quite a lot, something like "proud sponsor of mums". A friend of mine said this was an odd decision as he thinks a company like P&G should aim keep a low profile and not allow customers to realize that a number of brands are owned by the same people. Until yesterday I didn't know who owned Marmite (but I'd have guessed either P&G or Unilever). I'd suggest that Unilever have made a mistake in allowing their name to become associated with their products.
First Asian financial crisis started in Thailand......
If the (admittedly wildly biased) commentator on The World Tonight is correct then the Crown Prince who is in line to succeed is hated and there could indeed be very rough times ahead for Thailand.
He is not held in remotely the same regard as his father.
Lese majeste laws or not, In the age of the internet, photographs of him stepping out of a jet in Munich in what's clearly his wife's top, which doesn't even reach his (ample) midriff, will have been widely seen in Thailand......talk about 'letting light in on the magic'!
Agree; however, his (elder) sister, is wildly popular.
IIRC, the succession is, at least partly, in the gift of the King.
If you really, really want to shake up the establishment and the elite in the UK - if you want to rock them to their very core of their being - the best thing you could do is to break the UK up.
Not really - they (you) hate Britain so much that would be like a dream come true.
One of the advantages they have is they don't sell under their own brand. Now, if the Mail and Sun declared war on Unilever products on their front page, well they would be in serious trouble.
That's what happens when companies try and play politics.
Top of the Mail website:
#Marmitegate! Furious shoppers call for boycott of Unilever after Tesco stops selling Marmite - and 200 other items - in protest at Anglo-Dutch food giant's demand for a 10% Brexit price rise
"soap powder is soap powder, people will just get a non Unilever product"
Well quite..
Well not quite.
There is a reason for using brand names.
Unilever is not used as a brand name in this country.
During the 2012 Olympics, Proctor and Gamble pushed their own name quite a lot, something like "proud sponsor of mums". A friend of mine said this was an odd decision as he thinks a company like P&G should aim keep a low profile and not allow customers to realize that a number of brands are owned by the same people. Until yesterday I didn't know who owned Marmite (but I'd have guessed either P&G or Unilever). I'd suggest that Unilever have made a mistake in allowing their name to become associated with their products.
Scotland is an integral part of the Uk - and its citizens agreed - as confirmed by recent referendum.
The TPA's research shows we are subsidizing Scotland's governing elite to hate us. IF they want to go this time, let's let them. I've had enough of this petulant child.
Yes their citizens agreed to be part of a UK that was a member of the EU, as the No campaign campaigned on in 2014. Sturgeon is absolutely right to call another referendum, and I hope for the Scots' sake that they take this opportunity. I was a staunch opponent of Sindy. Not any more. They should go for it.
If you really, really want to shake up the establishment and the elite in the UK - if you want to rock them to their very core of their being - the best thing you could do is to break the UK up.
Yes, I'm sure the anti-'liberal elite', anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, PB Trumper Leavers will be promoting exactly that.
Scotland is an integral part of the Uk - and its citizens agreed - as confirmed by recent referendum.
The TPA's research shows we are subsidizing Scotland's governing elite to hate us. IF they want to go this time, let's let them. I've had enough of this petulant child.
Yes their citizens agreed to be part of a UK that was a member of the EU, as the No campaign campaigned on in 2014. Sturgeon is absolutely right to call another referendum, and I hope for the Scots' sake that they take this opportunity. I was a staunch opponent of Sindy. Not any more. They should go for it.
Yes great - then have one after every bill and budget passes through Westminster just incase minds have been changed by every single event..
Calm down dear. You won (just), but don't continue claiming that it was 'the will of the people'. It was close, that's a really simple fact. By the way, if Remain had won by 3.8% I would still have said that it was close, no hypocrisy here. Just give me the facts.
You won? Sorry. The only winners was democracy there was no ( just ) in it and that was the result. The people spoke and the will of the people was to leave. So yes it was the will of the people when put to a vote.
If the result is not accepted then any football team that ever wins again scoring a goal n the dying minutes of injury time or extra time can have the result annulled and be awarded the win. Even if they lost. As much as that may appeal to the initial losing team it is complete, total utter tosh.
When finally asked after numerous treaties signed behind closed doors, ignoring the people for years, cancelling referendums that were promised and the final one sneaking into the Lisbon " tidying up" exercise even after France / Netherlands rejected the original. Remain still could not carry the people. Over 1 million people is not just. It's huge. Larger than I thought as I was convinced remain would win which as stated was fine by me if so
If you really, really want to shake up the establishment and the elite in the UK - if you want to rock them to their very core of their being - the best thing you could do is to break the UK up.
Yes, I'm sure the anti-'liberal elite', anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, PB Trumper Leavers will be promoting exactly that.
Scotland is an integral part of the Uk - and its citizens agreed - as confirmed by recent referendum.
The TPA's research shows we are subsidizing Scotland's governing elite to hate us. IF they want to go this time, let's let them. I've had enough of this petulant child.
Yes their citizens agreed to be part of a UK that was a member of the EU, as the No campaign campaigned on in 2014. Sturgeon is absolutely right to call another referendum, and I hope for the Scots' sake that they take this opportunity. I was a staunch opponent of Sindy. Not any more. They should go for it.
Yes great - then have one after every bill and budget passes through Westminster just incase minds have been changed by every single event..
for reference the question was
""Should Scotland be an independent country?""
No mention of the EU.
Hmm. As I recall the EU referendum question was:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
No mention of leaving the Single Market, or appointing Liam "Wrecker" Fox to run our international trade affairs.
'I cannot see Parliament blocking the move rather there would be lots of amendments and efforts to set conditions for the invocation.'
I can. Emma Reynolds let the cat out of the bag on the DP. If MPs don't like the terms - ie - no membership of the single market (and therefore the freedom of movement of people) - they will vote this down and the whole process will be finished. Membership of the EU is the driving force of all Left wing politicians, probably more than their own constituencies. I reckon Miliband, Clegg, etc would be happy to sacrifice their own seats to end Brexit.
In what way would it end Brexit?
1. If they sacrificed their own seats, it'd imply a substantially increased Con majority, possibly bolstered by a UKIP block. That new government could then enact Brexit.
2. Once A50 is invoked, it's near-enough impossible to stop the process. If parliament doesn't like the exit terms then that just means it will be a chaotic rather than an ordered exit.
The referendum was advisory and it was close. Those are simple facts.
Only one of those is a fact. The other is a silly meme invented by people who want to disregard the democratic decision of the British people.
To get a referendum approved at Westminster the SNP will need a specific mandate. That means that a vote is not going to happen before 2021. In the meantime, Sturgeon has four years to build a narrative of a right-wing British government standing in Scotland's way and of being able to blame any poor economic data on Brexit. In 2021, Scotland either votes to go it alone or the Union is cemented for the foreseeable future and the SNP fragments. Big stakes. And this time I'll be watching as a dispassionate observer. It seems somehow right that David Cameron's fear of upsetting a few right wing Tory MPs back in 2012 should lead to the break-up of the UK within 10 years. What a legacy that would be.
Sturgeon wants to remove Scotland from the Union which accounts for 60% of its trade and which transfers money into Scotland, to one which accounts for 15% of its trade and will expect Scotland to transfer money out of Scotland.....
A referendum in the next 20 years would be a breach of the Edinburgh Agreement. If Sturgeon wants to breach the said agreement, she's going to have a devil of a time getting another one.
I am not so sure. If the EU is willing (which I admit could go either way) we could stop the process at any point after A50 until the point of actual exit.
In reality, if the will is there, I suggest that politics will be trumps
Kadi & Al Barakaat v. Council of the EU & EC Commission
Suggests you are wrong. The ECJ throwing out the ruling of the UN Security Council.
Does the UN Security Council have any legal standing, though?
No, neither do agreements in the Council of Ministers that was my point.
The contention was the politics would win over what the ECJ ruled in the end, an UNSC ruling supported by all the member countries including the two permanent members in the EU was thrown out by the ECJ, seems hard to think of a better example of politics playing second fiddle to the ECJ, except for the aforementioned Danish Renegotiation, unanimously agreed by the Council of Europe, in much the same way as the renegotiation deal proposed by Cameron would have been and then thrown out by the ECJ when they tried to use it.
Comments
"This is one hell of an opportunity for Scotland to define itself as being the very opposite of England and to extricate itself from something that many Scots now feel they are no real part of. "
But not .....
This is one hell of an opportunity for the UK to define itself as being the very opposite of the EU and to extricate itself from something that many Brits now feel they are no real part of.
Ok got it.
If you can bear to log onto the Express you can watch Andrew Neil tear a new one for a tory MP arguing precisely the same. The people knew what they were voting for.
As has already been pointed out, the A50 is worded in such a way that once it has been triggered it cannot be revoked. Unless the states wanted to rip up Lisbon and have a completely new treaty there is no way they could legally allow the UK to change its mind and revoke Article 50. SO the choice we would have would be to complete the leave process and then seek to rejoin under Article 49 - which would include a requirement to join both Schengen and the Euro.
All I see is a poster trying to spread Brexit doom with a Scottish angle - which bears no relation to Sindy 2 polling or Scottish opinion on a preference for the Uk over the EU.
To make it stick you would need an Oliver Cromwell and a civil war between those who support parliament and those who support the Queen.
EDIT: And we know who won last time.
Polly Toynbee, bravely standing up for the right of giant corporations to hike prices on consumers.
A new arrogance is developing amongst the elite. Once the plebs see the price of their beer and bingo going up, they will soon change their tunes.
Just as nauseating as the others.
Unilever have made a huge error, all it will take now is for The Sun to rabble rouse a bit and print a front page of their products and instruct readers to avoid them until Unilever gives in and "respects the public's wishes" or something like that.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/the_79_times_that_the_ecj_has_ignored_the_danish_renegotiation.html
Finding 27 countries who want our money to keep flowing towards Brussels wouldn't be a problem.
https://youtu.be/8PvzAFfQPJ8
There is a reason for using brand names.
Unilever is not used as a brand name in this country.
And the chances that her efforts are successful depend on voters' stupidity. Recently I heard someone say that Scots didn't have a vote in the EU referendum. "What on earth is this guy talking about?" I wondered. It hit me later what he meant. What he meant was that British citizens living in Scotland didn't get a vote on whether or not Scotland should become a member of the EU.
How is one supposed to respond? Point out that exactly the same statement could be made about people living in England, or London, or the Isle of Wight? Point out that Scotland can only ever become a member of the EU if it is independent, and that people in Scotland recently voted against independence?
But no; against stupidity even the gods battle in vain. The SNP encourage a massive nationalistic chip on their shoulder among their followers and voters: every damned thing they don't like is about the English (who sometimes appear as "Westminster", sometimes "the London media") stopping them getting what they want. They live in the infantile borderland between Tantrum World and Pretending to be Like a Grown-Up. There's no reasoning with them.
If ratings agencies say an independent Scotland would get a crap rating, that must be because they're evil-minded people seeking to do Scotland down. I'm no fan of ratings agencies, but such an accusation indicates a complete lack of understanding of what lending money is all about.
When the SNP politicians are behind closed doors, of course, the "we" who want "control over our own affairs" becomes a very different "we". A Labour-Tory-LibDem coalition in the Scottish parliament would be far preferable to the SNP-Green shower that's in power in Edinburgh at the moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_reigning_monarchs_by_length_of_reign
https://www.unilever.co.uk/about/who-we-are/our-local-leadership/gina-boswell.html
Uk is only Unilever's 4th biggest market.
Clinton 41 .. Trump 43
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/rasmussen-26154
This Brexit lark has made some odd bedfellows....
Had remain won with 4% or even a few dozen votes we would not be having this conversation and the line would have been the people have spoken, that's it no further discussion needed Remain has a full mandate.
Remain fully engaged in this referendum they must accept the result. The present scenario just clearly demonstrates the worst aspects of the EU and its predatory ways. I can understand why you like it so much. A referendum is only acceptable if it agrees with your views, they did not by well over a million people.
You know it ......I know it ......everyone on the board knows it. Hypocrisy and being a sore loser is so EU.
It may yet be another interesting exercise in "the will of the people"
EDIT: Added extra bit. It might also be that the wealthier leafier parts that voted remain would join the boycott, and those more deprived areas that voted out would be most upset
That is what is so magnificent about it, and why it will be increasingly popular.
edit/ indeed Farage - thinking he had lost - was already trying to set this up in his comments during Referendum week.
Lese majeste laws or not, In the age of the internet, photographs of him stepping out of a jet in Munich in what's clearly his wife's top, which doesn't even reach his (ample) midriff, will have been widely seen in Thailand......talk about 'letting light in on the magic'!
"Rasmussen ... Home. I'll go home to Rasmussen.. And I'll think of some way to get Trump back in front .. After all... tomorrow is another day."
You won (just), but don't continue claiming that it was 'the will of the people'. It was close, that's a really simple fact.
By the way, if Remain had won by 3.8% I would still have said that it was close, no hypocrisy here. Just give me the facts.
In the 1950s and 1960s the few hundred families that own Britain needed to hire some state-school types to do things like manage railway stations in the public sector, and they wanted them to have a bit of education, and even a sense of social responsibility, so that they could do a proper job. Since the late 1970s, as the citadels of finance rise ever higher in the City (and Canary Wharf), the few hundred families have deliberately made the country fall apart. The middle-level personnel whom they require nowadays are much more likely to work in the private sector, and even if they work in the state sector their attitudes aren't what they were 50 years ago. With very few exceptions, the kind of people needed are those who sacrifice at the altar of "dog eat dog" - selfish, stupid, greedy and often cruel buggers who are with the program of "smash, grab, pocket the payoff, and oh look, aren't there a lot of 'chavs' and 'losers' about?" For all the self-regard of some at Oxford and Cambridge, in many areas of life in Britain the idea is NOT that those who are allowed to be more "educated" or "clever" should be the ones who get jobs administering things or standing above others.
The TPA's research shows we are subsidizing Scotland's governing elite to hate us. IF they want to go this time, let's let them. I've had enough of this petulant child.
He was stuffed all ways round on anything less than a sizeable Remain majority.
Suggests you are wrong. The ECJ throwing out the ruling of the UN Security Council.
edit/ indeed Farage - thinking he had lost - was already trying to set this up in his comments during Referendum week."
Yes' without any doubt we all would have been but not to frustrate the enactment of a referendum result clearly stated. I am sure the "fight would go on" but this was in a situation of no change, the Status Quo as some put it.
Remain would and could have shut this down easily and UKIP would have been laughed out of both the EU parliaments by those who they had tormented for years. Probably rightly so as they could not even secure the backing of the British people in such a scenario. Of course it didn't happen that way so the point is mute really
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-the-major-brands-1599537576
@ExMiliMed1
At least it makes a change from fecking *reepy *lowns.
IIRC, the succession is, at least partly, in the gift of the King.
Newt jumps off the trump train
Yes, I'm sure the anti-'liberal elite', anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, PB Trumper Leavers will be promoting exactly that.
for reference the question was
""Should Scotland be an independent country?""
No mention of the EU.
You won (just), but don't continue claiming that it was 'the will of the people'. It was close, that's a really simple fact.
By the way, if Remain had won by 3.8% I would still have said that it was close, no hypocrisy here. Just give me the facts.
You won? Sorry. The only winners was democracy there was no ( just ) in it and that was the result. The people spoke and the will of the people was to leave. So yes it was the will of the people when put to a vote.
If the result is not accepted then any football team that ever wins again scoring a goal n the dying minutes of injury time or extra time can have the result annulled and be awarded the win. Even if they lost. As much as that may appeal to the initial losing team it is complete, total utter tosh.
When finally asked after numerous treaties signed behind closed doors, ignoring the people for years, cancelling referendums that were promised and the final one sneaking into the Lisbon " tidying up" exercise even after France / Netherlands rejected the original. Remain still could not carry the people. Over 1 million people is not just. It's huge. Larger than I thought as I was convinced remain would win which as stated was fine by me if so
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
No mention of leaving the Single Market, or appointing Liam "Wrecker" Fox to run our international trade affairs.
Funny old world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC9abcLLQpI
They should give qualified backing for independence.
The contention was the politics would win over what the ECJ ruled in the end, an UNSC ruling supported by all the member countries including the two permanent members in the EU was thrown out by the ECJ, seems hard to think of a better example of politics playing second fiddle to the ECJ, except for the aforementioned Danish Renegotiation, unanimously agreed by the Council of Europe, in much the same way as the renegotiation deal proposed by Cameron would have been and then thrown out by the ECJ when they tried to use it.