Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
Worth another 10% for "Leave".
Hard Brexit increasingly nailed on. It is why May wants a big majority.
I would instantly dismiss that list. The suggestion Amanda Milling spent any money campaigning in Cannock Chase is a lie. She had maybe half a dozen posters plus the standard mail shot and that was it. The Tories had written off the seat as unwinnable and were concentrating exclusively on holding Stafford.
"The [Liberal Democrat] party has been fined the maximum levy of £20,000 for the breaches, while the case against the party’s top campaign official has been referred to the police."
I'd like to see electoral fraudsters successfully prosecuted.
Not just Tory fraudsters, AnyParty fraudsters as well.
"The [Liberal Democrat] party has been fined the maximum levy of £20,000 for the breaches, while the case against the party’s top campaign official has been referred to the police."
I'd like to see electoral fraudsters successfully prosecuted.
Not just Tory fraudsters, AnyParty fraudsters as well.
It does say 'Tory', in all fairness. Doesn't make it any more convincing.
Love the way Brillo calmly strips away the veneers Miller uses, to expose the angry Remainer.
She's transparent. Emotion is all that drives her. That emotion being the fury that the views of great unwashed trump both of her wealth and (self-certified) sophistication.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Alternatively, despite what we keep being told that 'the UK is a shambles' and 'the EU is super prepared' they simply haven't thought it through........
"The [Liberal Democrat] party has been fined the maximum levy of £20,000 for the breaches, while the case against the party’s top campaign official has been referred to the police."
I'd like to see electoral fraudsters successfully prosecuted.
Not just Tory fraudsters, AnyParty fraudsters as well.
It does say 'Tory', in all fairness. Doesn't make it any more convincing.
As you say, it looks like a piece of fakery.
I have seen no evidence that the 30 individuals are all Tories. And they can't be, as Mark Williams' election agent is one of them
Now, I expect the majority of them are Tories, but it is just so typical and telling of the LibDems that they're own misdeeds are ignored, whilst they point accusingly to the misdeeds of others.
It is one of the main reasons why I no longer vote for the LDs.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Scottish law applies to anyone living in Scotland. We don't have separate laws for Scots in Scotland and non-Scots in Scotland.
Very sad to hear of the latest terrorist attack in Paris overnight. I hope we don't see more on polling day.
Wandering around Paris this morning, you'd never know it happened. I'm not sure if that's comforting or not?
People are getting used to it. London was the same after Westminster. I went to a busy, happy Camden bar that night and half the staff were unaware anything had even happened.
This is probably even more the case in France. They've been in a state of emergency, with armed police everywhere, for over a year. It really is the new normal. Sadly.
The upside is that it will therefore have zero effect on the French election.
I arrived in Paris last night. You wouldn't have known anything had happened.
"The [Liberal Democrat] party has been fined the maximum levy of £20,000 for the breaches, while the case against the party’s top campaign official has been referred to the police."
I'd like to see electoral fraudsters successfully prosecuted.
Not just Tory fraudsters, AnyParty fraudsters as well.
It does say 'Tory', in all fairness. Doesn't make it any more convincing.
As you say, it looks like a piece of fakery.
I have seen no evidence that the 30 individuals are all Tories. And they can't be, as Mark Williams' election agent is one of them
Now, I expect the majority of them are Tories, but it is just so typical and telling of the LibDems that they're own misdeeds are ignored, whilst they point accusingly to the misdeeds of others.
It is one of the main reasons why I no longer vote for the LDs.
The dodgy donor with the stolen money comes to mind.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
In the same territory? English law runs in Scotland? I think the Nats might have mentioned it.....
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Alternatively, despite what we keep being told that 'the UK is a shambles' and 'the EU is super prepared' they simply haven't thought it through........
Both sides are a shambles. That's supposed to make us feel better because...?
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Not very effectively though if you think through operation in practice (as opposed to for example, getting excited about standard security and its enforceability in England).
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Moot point, and well you know it.
The former operate in geographically defined jurisdictions, and the latter relates to settling civil disputes, which must ultimately work within the framework of UK law anyway.
Are you arguing the ECJ should settle civil disputes?
With 1970, because the result was very unexpected people (especially Labour) groped for any possible explanation of why they were hammered: bad economic news, the World Cup, bad weather etc. Actually there is a much more tenable case that it was won by the sophisticated long-term campaign operation Heath had been running since 1966, targeting key voters in swing seats, and the polls had simply failed to sample these properly. Heath had been confident of victory from the off even as manoeuvres went on to replace him.
Still a remarkable result, and quite an achievement by Heath to overturn a majority of that size and get one of his own - one beyond any other PM in the twentieth century. If only he'd shown the same clarity of purpose and decision as PM.
There's a fair amount of evidence that he was suffering from undiagnosed thyroid problems that left him without energy.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
Worth another 10% for "Leave".
Hard Brexit increasingly nailed on. It is why May wants a big majority.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
It was noticeable how that EU parliament dude was still keen for us to reverse A50. There are lots of bigwigs in Brussels who STILL think we can be persuaded to change our minds. This is possibly a symptom of that.
Which is why the election is important. When the referendum is reinforced by a TMay victory - and after the French, German elections - that's when compromises will begin. And they will. New forms of words will be found, which save face on both sides. The UK will have to agree to some difficult things.
Remember no other country has actually rejected a referendum. Where they have, a second one occurs (following minor / none existent changes) to ensure people vote the "right" way.
The EU are shocked that we hold a single vote and then stick to it. I suspect they will be even more shocked when they discover the result of the referendum is " and we meant it"...
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
Worth another 10% for "Leave".
Hard Brexit increasingly nailed on. It is why May wants a big majority.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
It was noticeable how that EU parliament dude was still keen for us to reverse A50. There are lots of bigwigs in Brussels who STILL think we can be persuaded to change our minds. This is possibly a symptom of that.
Which is why the election is important. When the referendum is reinforced by a TMay victory - and after the French, German elections - that's when compromises will begin. And they will. New forms of words will be found, which save face on both sides. The UK will have to agree to some difficult things.
It's rather typical of the opportunist Mrs May that she's announced the election is a vote on Brexit. She could equally have made it the pro hunting or the kosher chicken election and still got the same landslide.
Very sad to hear of the latest terrorist attack in Paris overnight. I hope we don't see more on polling day.
Wandering around Paris this morning, you'd never know it happened. I'm not sure if that's comforting or not?
People are getting used to it. London was the same after Westminster. I went to a busy, happy Camden bar that night and half the staff were unaware anything had even happened.
This is probably even more the case in France. They've been in a state of emergency, with armed police everywhere, for over a year. It really is the new normal. Sadly.
The upside is that it will therefore have zero effect on the French election.
I arrived in Paris last night. You wouldn't have known anything had happened.
I fear that jihadi attacks will become, to Europe, what mass shootings are, to Americans. Horrific and unacceptable to outsiders, but simply part of the furniture for those who experience them.
Quite. It's tragic and sad, but every time we have one and say it won't change us, we are lying to ourselves - humanity is good at weathering disaster and moving on, in adapting, and that's what we do, these things just happen and we tweak laws and procedures and get a little bit harder.
I have seen no evidence that the 30 individuals are all Tories. And they can't be, as Mark Williams' election agent is one of them
Now, I expect the majority of them are Tories, but it is just so typical and telling of the LibDems that they're own misdeeds are ignored, whilst they point accusingly to the misdeeds of others.
It is one of the main reasons why I no longer vote for the LDs.
I think it's a list of, 'here's all the MPs who beat the Liberal Democrats plus some I really, really hate for whatever reason'. It may not have occurred to the writer that in doing so s/he's committed libel if it's invented and potentially contempt of court if it isn't.
The most telling point to my mind is that Stafford, which I would be very surprised to learn was NOT overspent, isn't on there. Nor is Telford. But Tamworth - a safe Tory seat - and Montgomeryshire? Please!
I would instantly dismiss that list. The suggestion Amanda Milling spent any money campaigning in Cannock Chase is a lie. She had maybe half a dozen posters plus the standard mail shot and that was it. The Tories had written off the seat as unwinnable and were concentrating exclusively on holding Stafford.
I have seen no evidence that the 30 individuals are all Tories. And they can't be, as Mark Williams' election agent is one of them
Now, I expect the majority of them are Tories, but it is just so typical and telling of the LibDems that they're own misdeeds are ignored, whilst they point accusingly to the misdeeds of others.
It is one of the main reasons why I no longer vote for the LDs.
I think it's a list of, 'here's all the MPs who beat the Liberal Democrats plus some I really, really hate for whatever reason'. It may not have occurred to the writer that in doing so s/he's committed libel if it's invented and potentially contempt of court if it isn't.
The most telling point to my mind is that Stafford, which I would be very surprised to learn was NOT overspent, isn't on there. Nor is Telford. But Tamworth - a safe Tory seat - and Montgomeryshire? Please!
Aren't incorrect declarations also investigated, even if not overspent? That might explain it.
Very sad to hear of the latest terrorist attack in Paris overnight. I hope we don't see more on polling day.
Wandering around Paris this morning, you'd never know it happened. I'm not sure if that's comforting or not?
People are getting used to it. London was the same after Westminster. I went to a busy, happy Camden bar that night and half the staff were unaware anything had even happened.
This is probably even more the case in France. They've been in a state of emergency, with armed police everywhere, for over a year. It really is the new normal. Sadly.
The upside is that it will therefore have zero effect on the French election.
I am not so sure, I still expect Macron to win but it could be enough to tip late undecideds to Le Pen in the first round at least to send a message, it may also help Fillon a little
I would instantly dismiss that list. The suggestion Amanda Milling spent any money campaigning in Cannock Chase is a lie. She had maybe half a dozen posters plus the standard mail shot and that was it. The Tories had written off the seat as unwinnable and were concentrating exclusively on holding Stafford.
Amanda Milling features in this list. Undeclared "battle bus" visits to Cannock Chase seem to be the point of contention.
There was no visit by the battle bus so I'm not bloody surprised it wasn't declared!
It may have stopped in the constituency on its way to somewhere else. But it didn't visit because as I have said the Tories wrote this seat off at the start and concentrated their energies elsewhere.
They weren't to know that Janos Toth would commit suicide multiple times in his election literature by saying he would put the NHS in Mid-Staffordshire back to the way it was under Labour.
"The [Liberal Democrat] party has been fined the maximum levy of £20,000 for the breaches, while the case against the party’s top campaign official has been referred to the police."
I'd like to see electoral fraudsters successfully prosecuted.
Not just Tory fraudsters, AnyParty fraudsters as well.
It does say 'Tory', in all fairness. Doesn't make it any more convincing.
One advantage to the CPS having to make up its mind is that the broadcast media, at least, won't be able to pretend that only one party has been at fault.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
It was noticeable how that EU parliament dude was still keen for us to reverse A50. There are lots of bigwigs in Brussels who STILL think we can be persuaded to change our minds. This is possibly a symptom of that.
Which is why the election is important. When the referendum is reinforced by a TMay victory - and after the French, German elections - that's when compromises will begin. And they will. New forms of words will be found, which save face on both sides. The UK will have to agree to some difficult things.
It's rather typical of the opportunist Mrs May that she's announced the election is a vote on Brexit. She could equally have made it the pro hunting or the kosher chicken election and still got the same landslide.
Which of the following do you think are the most important issues facing the country at this time? Please tick up to three. Britain leaving the EU: 68 Health: 42 Immigration: 36 Economy: 36 . . . . . None of these: 0
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
Worth another 10% for "Leave".
Hard Brexit increasingly nailed on. It is why May wants a big majority.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Scottish law applies to anyone living in Scotland. We don't have separate laws for Scots in Scotland and non-Scots in Scotland.
I reckon we will agree to EU citizens in the U.K. retaining ECJ rights they already have. That makes sense, tho it will be a difficult sell for TMay. What we can't accept is the idea we must enforce NEW ECJ laws after we leave, and apply them to EU citizens here, or that we must allow all family members of U.K. based EU citizens, living abroad, to come to the UK in the future, bringing their ECJ rights with them.
That's just bonkers. And is unsellable. If it really is a red line, we will crash out of the EU - and EU citizens in the U.K. will have no rights at all.
Which is why there will probably be a compromise
The soft and compromise crowd have been finding reasons to be optimistic all this time, and hopes are continually dashed. I suspect that like our own dear euro fanatics the eu negotiators believe they hold all the cards rather than merely a strong hand, so they are not prepared to back down, while May lives in fear of negative press and so won't dare compromise to any significant degree.
Hence why the eu is focusing on punishment and may is focusing on preparing us to get nothing.
After reading the previous thread, I've come up with a great idea to raise money: add 100% tax to any meal that costs over £50 per person, excluding drinks.
It may stop posters embarrassing themselves with sentences like: "... but it was, even at £437 + service, good value."
Surely it would just lead to posters embarrassing themselves with sentences like: "... but it was, even at £874 + service, good value"?
Pretty sure that double the pleasure from self satisfied braggadocio would easily make up for any extra embarrassment.
I have seen no evidence that the 30 individuals are all Tories. And they can't be, as Mark Williams' election agent is one of them
Now, I expect the majority of them are Tories, but it is just so typical and telling of the LibDems that they're own misdeeds are ignored, whilst they point accusingly to the misdeeds of others.
It is one of the main reasons why I no longer vote for the LDs.
I think it's a list of, 'here's all the MPs who beat the Liberal Democrats plus some I really, really hate for whatever reason'. It may not have occurred to the writer that in doing so s/he's committed libel if it's invented and potentially contempt of court if it isn't.
The most telling point to my mind is that Stafford, which I would be very surprised to learn was NOT overspent, isn't on there. Nor is Telford. But Tamworth - a safe Tory seat - and Montgomeryshire? Please!
Corbyn fans will be pumping this list round twitter and facebook far more than Lib Dems. We like to trade on facts y'know.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
Worth another 10% for "Leave".
Hard Brexit increasingly nailed on. It is why May wants a big majority.
"The [Liberal Democrat] party has been fined the maximum levy of £20,000 for the breaches, while the case against the party’s top campaign official has been referred to the police."
I'd like to see electoral fraudsters successfully prosecuted.
Not just Tory fraudsters, AnyParty fraudsters as well.
It does say 'Tory', in all fairness. Doesn't make it any more convincing.
One advantage to the CPS having to make up its mind is that the broadcast media, at least, won't be able to pretend that only one party has been at fault.
Oh, you're wrong there, if one is significantly more at fault then others, or can be portrayed that way.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And thsh**hole ey think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Supposing they wanted to use English (let's stick to that for the moment) rather than European law? Bearing in mind a lot of the time it is actually simpler, quicker and fairer than European equivalents. What then?
Or do we have something like the situation in the OPT where they have to use a different judicial system whether they like it or not?
It would just mean that English law would have to have a clause etc that covers the protection of workers rights etc. If this sh**hole was half decent we would already have laws to protect people. Instead of whinging about it any decent person should be ashamed that this country is so sh**y to its people that it even needs to be discussed.
I have seen no evidence that the 30 individuals are all Tories. And they can't be, as Mark Williams' election agent is one of them
Now, I expect the majority of them are Tories, but it is just so typical and telling of the LibDems that they're own misdeeds are ignored, whilst they point accusingly to the misdeeds of others.
It is one of the main reasons why I no longer vote for the LDs.
I think it's a list of, 'here's all the MPs who beat the Liberal Democrats plus some I really, really hate for whatever reason'. It may not have occurred to the writer that in doing so s/he's committed libel if it's invented and potentially contempt of court if it isn't.
The most telling point to my mind is that Stafford, which I would be very surprised to learn was NOT overspent, isn't on there. Nor is Telford. But Tamworth - a safe Tory seat - and Montgomeryshire? Please!
Aren't incorrect declarations also investigated, even if not overspent? That might explain it.
If they are investigating the failed declaration of the fifty pounds that Milling appears to the discerning eye to have spent, then it's time the CPS were themselves investigated for being terminally stupid and incompetent.
On a lighter note, I am looking forward to seeing if Milling chooses the same place for her poster (note singular) this time. It very much amused me that it was on the local funeral parlour!
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And thsh**hole ey think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Supposing they wanted to use English (let's stick to that for the moment) rather than European law? Bearing in mind a lot of the time it is actually simpler, quicker and fairer than European equivalents. What then?
Or do we have something like the situation in the OPT where they have to use a different judicial system whether they like it or not?
It would just mean that English law would have to have a clause etc that covers the protection of workers rights etc. If this sh**hole was half decent we would already have laws to protect people. Instead of whinging about it any decent person should be ashamed that this country is so sh**y to its people that it even needs to be discussed.
You don't even live in England Malcolm - would you be happy for English people in Scotland should it go Indy to still live by English law?
(I imagine your first question will be, 'why would they want to? )
Just goes to show truth is always stranger than fiction.
And that rushing to conclusions is not a good idea.
If you go back and read the threads, the only rushing-to-conclusions that I can recall was TheUnionDivvie leaping on the idea it was a far right attack, minutes after it was suggested.
You've fair got a feather up your ass on that one. Feel free to quote me leaping on the idea it was a far right attack minutes after it was suggested.
Very sad to hear of the latest terrorist attack in Paris overnight. I hope we don't see more on polling day.
Wandering around Paris this morning, you'd never know it happened. I'm not sure if that's comforting or not?
People are getting used to it. London was the same after Westminster. I went to a busy, happy Camden bar that night and half the staff were unaware anything had even happened.
This is probably even more the case in France. They've been in a state of emergency, with armed police everywhere, for over a year. It really is the new normal. Sadly.
The upside is that it will therefore have zero effect on the French election.
I am not so sure, I still expect Macron to win but it could be enough to tip late undecideds to Le Pen in the first round at least to send a message, it may also help Fillon a little
Aren't both their bases supposed to be more certain than Macron? So it could be they edge over the line and it's thought this latest tipped a few, but actually it would have happened anyway.
Though I believe Macron has been edging ahead again?
I liked a comment the other day about why if the top 2 didn't even name it to 50 percent you couldn't take three to a second round. Do it, then have a third, I love it.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Scottish law applies to anyone living in Scotland. We don't have separate laws for Scots in Scotland and non-Scots in Scotland.
I reckon we will agree to EU citizens in the U.K. retaining ECJ rights they already have. That makes sense, tho it will be a difficult sell for TMay. What we can't accept is the idea we must enforce NEW ECJ laws after we leave, and apply them to EU citizens here, or that we must allow all family members of U.K. based EU citizens, living abroad, to come to the UK in the future, bringing their ECJ rights with them.
That's just bonkers. And is unsellable. If it really is a red line, we will crash out of the EU - and EU citizens in the U.K. will have no rights at all.
Which is why there will probably be a compromise
No, it's unworkable. Anyone living in this country has to be subject to our laws. I can't live in France and demand to be subject to the laws of England and Wales.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
It was noticeable how that EU parliament dude was still keen for us to reverse A50. There are lots of bigwigs in Brussels who STILL think we can be persuaded to change our minds. This is possibly a symptom of that.
Which is why the election is important. When the referendum is reinforced by a TMay victory - and after the French, German elections - that's when compromises will begin. And they will. New forms of words will be found, which save face on both sides. The UK will have to agree to some difficult things.
Remember no other country has actually rejected a referendum. Where they have, a second one occurs (following minor / none existent changes) to ensure people vote the "right" way.
The EU are shocked that we hold a single vote and then stick to it. I suspect they will be even more shocked when they discover the result of the referendum is " and we meant it"...
Much of the shock is that we don't know what it means. Witness Davis thinking that they'd be ok with EU agencies staying in London.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
Worth another 10% for "Leave".
Hard Brexit increasingly nailed on. It is why May wants a big majority.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And thsh**hole ey think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Supposing they wanted to use English (let's stick to that for the moment) rather than European law? Bearing in mind a lot of the time it is actually simpler, quicker and fairer than European equivalents. What then?
Or do we have something like the situation in the OPT where they have to use a different judicial system whether they like it or not?
It would just mean that English law would have to have a clause etc that covers the protection of workers rights etc. If this sh**hole was half decent we would already have laws to protect people. Instead of whinging about it any decent person should be ashamed that this country is so sh**y to its people that it even needs to be discussed.
You don't even live in England Malcolm - would you be happy for English people in Scotland should it go Indy to still live by English law?
(I imagine your first question will be, 'why would they want to? )
As you hint at , Scottish Law being far far superior then only a fool would want to be under English law. Unfortunately at present neither English or Scottish law offer much protection to workers etc, people can be discarded like rags. I would like to hope that an independent Scotland would at least try to treat people better and introduce some protections at least, though would not be too hopeful on it.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Scottish law applies to anyone living in Scotland. We don't have separate laws for Scots in Scotland and non-Scots in Scotland.
That's just bonkers. And is unsellable. If it really is a red line, we will crash out of the EU - and EU citizens in the U.K. will have no rights at all.
Which is why there will probably be a compromise
The soft and compromise crowd have been finding reasons to be optimistic all this time, and hopes are continually dashed. I suspect that like our own dear euro fanatics the eu negotiators believe they hold all the cards rather than merely a strong hand, so they are not prepared to back down, while May lives in fear of negative press and so won't dare compromise to any significant degree.
Hence why the eu is focusing on punishment and may is focusing on preparing us to get nothing.
I genuinely dunno. Brexit is Sui generis.
I still believe that fudge and compromise is what the EU actually DOES, so this is the likely outcome. At the moment we are seeing initial hardline positions from both sides.
But there is a non-trivial risk we will, indeed, crash out.
Given May in October said she wanted to end the writ of the ECJ in the UK its more than a little provocative of the EU members to stick it in as a red line - something Tusk hadn't done.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
It was noticeable how that EU parliament dude was still keen for us to reverse A50. There are lots of bigwigs in Brussels who STILL think we can be persuaded to change our minds. This is possibly a symptom of that.
Which is why the election is important. When the referendum is reinforced by a TMay victory - and after the French, German elections - that's when compromises will begin. And they will. New forms of words will be found, which save face on both sides. The UK will have to agree to some difficult things.
Remember no other country has actually rejected a referendum. Where they have, a second one occurs (following minor / none existent changes) to ensure people vote the "right" way.
The EU are shocked that we hold a single vote and then stick to it. I suspect they will be even more shocked when they discover the result of the referendum is " and we meant it"...
Much of the shock is that we don't know what it means. Witness Davis thinking that they'd be ok with EU agencies staying in London.
It is going to be a disaster, we have a set of numpties leading the negotiations, the clowns think they just ask EU for anything and everything and they will just say yes. It will be a Hard Brexit and UK will be paying much more out for much less benefits for certain. Tories should enjoy themselves while they can, will not be pretty when the sheeple realise they have been fleeced.
No, it's unworkable. Anyone living in this country has to be subject to our laws. I can't live in France and demand to be subject to the laws of England and Wales.
Absolutely. The law of the land in the UK is UK law.
But I'm also confused. What exactly is being proposed?
EU law - https://europa.eu/european-union/law_en - is largely about product specifications. (The required energy efficiency of vacuum cleaners and the like.)
Now, there are working time directives and the the other parts of the social chapter. Is it proposed that an EU citizen in the UK would only have to work 35 hours a week, while British citizens could work 45? (If so, I suspect few EU citizens would successfully get jobs.)
The EFTA/EEA treaties don't bestow those rights on Belgians in Norway or Iceland, so it's not clear why they would apply to Italians in London.
I was listening to the Nigel farage show on LBC last night. He made, I thought, a good point - that the EU Parliament is absolutely on the Brexit critical path. We'll get all sorts of progress with Tusk/Barnier/Verhofstadt, right up to and including a handshake. They're rational people. But then the agreement goes to the UK parliament and the EU one for final ratification. We'll approve by a massive majority. The EU parliement will very likely not. And then diamond Brexit it is.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Scottish law applies to anyone living in Scotland. We don't have separate laws for Scots in Scotland and non-Scots in Scotland.
I reckon we will agree to EU citizens in the U.K. retaining ECJ rights they already have. That makes sense, tho it will be a difficult sell for TMay. What we can't accept is the idea we must enforce NEW ECJ laws after we leave, and apply them to EU citizens here, or that we must allow all family members of U.K. based EU citizens, living abroad, to come to the UK in the future, bringing their ECJ rights with them.
That's just bonkers. And is unsellable. If it really is a red line, we will crash out of the EU - and EU citizens in the U.K. will have no rights at all.
Which is why there will probably be a compromise
No, it's unworkable. Anyone living in this country has to be subject to our laws. I can't live in France and demand to be subject to the laws of England and Wales.
Quite. You can't produce a German passport and say you are entitled to do 150 mph down the M5 'cos it's ok in Stuttgart honest officer.
It's extaordinary that Labour doesn't have a USP on the biggest issue at this election.
I can't think what you might want out of Brexit where you would believe a vote for Labour would be the answer
The voters' judgement on Corbyn Labour is something I am looking forward to seeing. The only downside is that it will deliver long years of numbing mediocrity in government.
Not necessarily .... try looking on the positive side, we are likely to somewhere between 80 - 100 new faces, injecting, hopefully, some much required fresh talent and in all probability one or even two future Prime Ministers in the making.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And thsh**hole ey think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Supposing they wanted to use English (let's stick to that for the moment) rather than European law? Bearing in mind a lot of the time it is actually simpler, quicker and fairer than European equivalents. What then?
Or do we have something like the situation in the OPT where they have to use a different judicial system whether they like it or not?
It would just mean that English law would have to have a clause etc that covers the protection of workers rights etc. If this sh**hole was half decent we would already have laws to protect people. Instead of whinging about it any decent person should be ashamed that this country is so sh**y to its people that it even needs to be discussed.
You don't even live in England Malcolm - would you be happy for English people in Scotland should it go Indy to still live by English law?
(I imagine your first question will be, 'why would they want to? )
As you hint at , Scottish Law being far far superior then only a fool would want to be under English law. Unfortunately at present neither English or Scottish law offer much protection to workers etc, people can be discarded like rags. I would like to hope that an independent Scotland would at least try to treat people better and introduce some protections at least, though would not be too hopeful on it.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
Worth another 10% for "Leave".
Hard Brexit increasingly nailed on. It is why May wants a big majority.
I was listening to the Nigel farage show on LBC last night. He made, I thought, a good point - that the EU Parliament is absolutely on the Brexit critical path. We'll get all sorts of progress with Tusk/Barnier/Verhofstadt, right up to and including a handshake. They're rational people. But then the agreement goes to the UK parliament and the EU one for final ratification. We'll approve by a massive majority. The EU parliement will very likely not. And then diamond Brexit it is.
Diamond Brexit. Far better than "lump o' coal" Brexit!
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Scottish law applies to anyone living in Scotland. We don't have separate laws for Scots in Scotland and non-Scots in Scotland.
I reckon we will agree to EU citizens
That's just bonkers. And is unsellable. If it really is a red line, we will crash out of the EU - and EU citizens in the U.K. will have no rights at all.
Which is why there will probably be a compromise
The soft and compromise crowd have been finding reasons to be optimistic all this time, and hopes are continually dashed. I suspect that like our own dear euro fanatics the eu negotiators believe they hold all the cards rather than merely a strong hand, so they are not prepared to back down, while May lives in fear of negative press and so won't dare compromise to any significant degree.
Hence why the eu is focusing on punishment and may is focusing on preparing us to get nothing.
I genuinely dunno. Brexit is Sui generis.
I still believe that fudge and compromise is what the EU actually DOES, so this is the likely outcome. At the moment we are seeing initial hardline positions from both sides.
But there is a non-trivial risk we will, indeed, crash out.
It's not even in the interests of nationals of EU member States. Employment of EU nationals in this country would dry up if employers had to operate different employment laws depending on nationality; likewise who would want to contract with EU nationals here if they were subject to different laws of contract to British nationals.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
In the same territory? English law runs in Scotland? I think the Nats might have mentioned it.....
Well yes. Kinda.
Alex Salmond nearly had an aneurysm over this.
Alex Salmond has provoked a furious row with senior legal figures after launching a series of attacks on the authority of the UK supreme court and the competence of its two Scottish judges.
The first minister and his justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, accused the court of "intervening aggressively" in Scotland's independent legal system after it ruled that the Scottish system had twice breached the European convention on human rights in significant criminal cases.
The Scottish cabinet decided on Monday to set up an expert legal group to urgently consider how Salmond's government can block the supreme court from its oversight of criminal cases.
It's extaordinary that Labour doesn't have a USP on the biggest issue at this election.
I can't think what you might want out of Brexit where you would believe a vote for Labour would be the answer
The voters' judgement on Corbyn Labour is something I am looking forward to seeing. The only downside is that it will deliver long years of numbing mediocrity in government.
Not necessarily .... try looking on the positive side, we are likely to somewhere between 80 - 100 new faces, injecting, hopefully, some much required fresh talent and in all probability one or even two future Prime Ministers in the making.
The Tories only have 37%, and less than a 4,000 majority over them, the UKIP residual vote is tiny, and there's a sizeable Labour and Green vote to squeeze.
Plus, I expect a chunk of the existing Tory vote is quite soft anyway, and rather Remainy. Bath and North East Somerset voted Remain by 57.8%
DYOR.
This prompts me - and gives me an excuse - to reprise one of my favourite PB Xmas Xword clues.
Bath he sat in, to wet the baby's head, has special tap fitted (5,6)
I was listening to the Nigel farage show on LBC last night. He made, I thought, a good point - that the EU Parliament is absolutely on the Brexit critical path. We'll get all sorts of progress with Tusk/Barnier/Verhofstadt, right up to and including a handshake. They're rational people. But then the agreement goes to the UK parliament and the EU one for final ratification. We'll approve by a massive majority. The EU parliement will very likely not. And then diamond Brexit it is.
Diamond Brexit. Far better than "lump o' coal" Brexit!
Far more likely to be "Sac de merde" Brexit methinks.
Good morning, comedians. I see the Dortmund news again makes my point about PB frothing to conclusions for me.
Good posts from Bev re: Labour's future - what is to stop all PLP candidates running on a anti Corbyn ticket? Careful choice of language should be enough. After all, Jezza ran on an anti PLP ticket for most of his career.
Also, the Unite leadership election still hasn't had enough coverage. What little news we have had suggests the anti Corbyn Coyne is ahead. That one of Big Len's surrogates has tried to marginalise Coyne after the fact with a non-binding suspension suggests she is frit. One to dig into. If Coyne wins, Corbyn is toast walking.
The Tories only have 37%, and less than a 4,000 majority over them, the UKIP residual vote is tiny, and there's a sizeable Labour and Green vote to squeeze.
Plus, I expect a chunk of the existing Tory vote is quite soft anyway, and rather Remainy. Bath and North East Somerset voted Remain by 57.8%
DYOR.
This prompts me - and gives me an excuse - to reprise one of my favourite PB Xmas Xword clues.
Bath he sat in, to wet the baby's head, has special tap fitted (5,6)
I was listening to the Nigel farage show on LBC last night. He made, I thought, a good point - that the EU Parliament is absolutely on the Brexit critical path. We'll get all sorts of progress with Tusk/Barnier/Verhofstadt, right up to and including a handshake. They're rational people. But then the agreement goes to the UK parliament and the EU one for final ratification. We'll approve by a massive majority. The EU parliement will very likely not. And then diamond Brexit it is.
A plausible scenario it seems - the parliament, perhaps due to historically having less power, is very extreme where it does have influence perhaps. That is also part of my theory for why the EU has over the year involved itself in so much minutiae, the tiny little power grabs which really annoy people, and maybe its because the big stuff, like an eu army and unified foreign policy, have for a long time been out of reach, so they expanded into everywhere they could.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
It was noticeable how that EU parliament dude was still keen for us to reverse A50. There are lots of bigwigs in Brussels who STILL think we can be persuaded to change our minds. This is possibly a symptom of that.
Which is why the election is important. When the referendum is reinforced by a TMay victory - and after the French, German elections - that's when compromises will begin. And they will. New forms of words will be found, which save face on both sides. The UK will have to agree to some difficult things.
Remember no other country has actually rejected a referendum. Where they have, a second one occurs (following minor / none existent changes) to ensure people vote the "right" way.
The EU are shocked that we hold a single vote and then stick to it. I suspect they will be even more shocked when they discover the result of the referendum is " and we meant it"...
Much of the shock is that we don't know what it means. Witness Davis thinking that they'd be ok with EU agencies staying in London.
It is going to be a disaster, we have a set of numpties leading the negotiations, the clowns think they just ask UK for anything and everything and they will just say yes. It will be a Hard Indy and Scotland will be paying much more out for much less benefits for certain. SNP should enjoy themselves while they can, will not be pretty when the sheeple realise they have been fleeced.
We have a weak hand, the EU has a strong hand. It is us that need to do the compromising. If this doesn't happen which is now looking likely with the idiotic rhetoric coming from May and the Tories, a brutally hard Brexit is imminent. Of course this is what the swivel eyed loons on the right want. For the rest of us, it will be calamitous.
I've just listened to the podcast. Someone at the end said there's always the possibility of someting really unexpected happening in the campaign which could turn everything round....
......I remember William Hague after he'd just been hammered in 2001 saying general election campaigns hardly ever make a difference to the result. The final result closely match the the polls at the start.
Obviously in his case it was a mea non culpa for the 14 pints the baseball cap and the XXX to save the pound.... but he's right. I can't think of one event which has changed an election result since I started voting.
I agree, parties need to put their troops through their paces but generally campaigns just reinforce existing predjudices. Labours problem though may well be GOTV as much as switchers.
On the other hand this will be a 7-week campaign. Both 1974 elections were just 3 weeks long and subsequent campaigns were approx a month - with 1979 being 5 weeks and 2015 6 weeks due to FTPA. It is,therefore, a significantly longer campaign period. Whether that - and the fact that the election has come out of the blue - will make a difference is far from clear.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
In the same territory? English law runs in Scotland? I think the Nats might have mentioned it.....
Well yes. Kinda.
Alex Salmond nearly had an aneurysm over this.
Alex Salmond has provoked a furious row with senior legal figures after launching a series of attacks on the authority of the UK supreme court and the competence of its two Scottish judges.
The first minister and his justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, accused the court of "intervening aggressively" in Scotland's independent legal system after it ruled that the Scottish system had twice breached the European convention on human rights in significant criminal cases.
The Scottish cabinet decided on Monday to set up an expert legal group to urgently consider how Salmond's government can block the supreme court from its oversight of criminal cases.
Carlotta's bubble burst, as any fool knows the English Supreme Court can trump Scottish law anytime it wishes. Why would London let teh uppity Scots make any decisions without their approval.
The Tories only have 37%, and less than a 4,000 majority over them, the UKIP residual vote is tiny, and there's a sizeable Labour and Green vote to squeeze.
Plus, I expect a chunk of the existing Tory vote is quite soft anyway, and rather Remainy. Bath and North East Somerset voted Remain by 57.8%
DYOR.
This prompts me - and gives me an excuse - to reprise one of my favourite PB Xmas Xword clues.
Bath he sat in, to wet the baby's head, has special tap fitted (5,6)
Chris Patton
Almost. Chris Patten. To wet the baby's head is christen. Special tap is pat. Chris (pat) ten.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
In the same territory? English law runs in Scotland? I think the Nats might have mentioned it.....
Well yes. Kinda.
Alex Salmond nearly had an aneurysm over this.
Alex Salmond has provoked a furious row with senior legal figures after launching a series of attacks on the authority of the UK supreme court and the competence of its two Scottish judges.
The first minister and his justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, accused the court of "intervening aggressively" in Scotland's independent legal system after it ruled that the Scottish system had twice breached the European convention on human rights in significant criminal cases.
The Scottish cabinet decided on Monday to set up an expert legal group to urgently consider how Salmond's government can block the supreme court from its oversight of criminal cases.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
It was noticeable how that EU parliament dude was still keen for us to reverse A50. There are lots of bigwigs in Brussels who STILL think we can be persuaded to change our minds. This is possibly a symptom of that.
Which is why the election is important. When the referendum is reinforced by a TMay victory - and after the French, German elections - that's when compromises will begin. And they will. New forms of words will be found, which save face on both sides. The UK will have to agree to some difficult things.
Remember no other country has actually rejected a referendum. Where they have, a second one occurs (following minor / none existent changes) to ensure people vote the "right" way.
The EU are shocked that we hold a single vote and then stick to it. I suspect they will be even more shocked when they discover the result of the referendum is " and we meant it"...
Much of the shock is that we don't know what it means. Witness Davis thinking that they'd be ok with EU agencies staying in London.
It is going to be a disaster, we have a set of numpties leading the negotiations, the clowns think they just ask UK for anything and everything and they will just say yes. It will be a Hard Indy and Scotland will be paying much more out for much less benefits for certain. SNP should enjoy themselves while they can, will not be pretty when the sheeple realise they have been fleeced.
We have a weak hand, the EU has a strong hand. It is us that need to do the compromising. If this doesn't happen which is now looking likely with the idiotic rhetoric coming from May and the Tories, a brutally hard Brexit is imminent. Of course this is what the swivel eyed loons on the right want. For the rest of us, it will be calamitous.
They have a strong hand, but its still in their interests to reach a harmonious deal too, so being overly stubborn doesn't help them, even if it hurts them less.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Scottish law applies to anyone living in Scotland. We don't have separate laws for Scots in Scotland and non-Scots in Scotland.
I reckon we will agree to EU citizens in the U.K. retaining ECJ rights they already have. That makes sense, tho it will be a difficult sell for TMay. What we can't accept is the idea we must enforce NEW ECJ laws after we leave, and apply them to EU citizens here, or that we must allow all family members of U.K. based EU citizens, living abroad, to come to the UK in the future, bringing their ECJ rights with them.
That's just bonkers. And is unsellable. If it really is a red line, we will crash out of the EU - and EU citizens in the U.K. will have no rights at all.
Which is why there will probably be a compromise
No, it's unworkable. Anyone living in this country has to be subject to our laws. I can't live in France and demand to be subject to the laws of England and Wales.
Quite. You can't produce a German passport and say you are entitled to do 150 mph down the M5 'cos it's ok in Stuttgart honest officer.
I was hoping to get a Dutch passport and then open a coffee shop.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
In the same territory? English law runs in Scotland? I think the Nats might have mentioned it.....
The Scottish cabinet decided on Monday to set up an expert legal group to urgently consider how Salmond's government can block the supreme court from its oversight of criminal cases.
Did Salmond's government block the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (not England) from its oversight of criminal cases?
And I note:
The supreme court had only limited powers over Scottish criminal cases, purely covering human rights and EU law.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
In the same territory? English law runs in Scotland? I think the Nats might have mentioned it.....
Well yes. Kinda.
Alex Salmond nearly had an aneurysm over this.
Alex Salmond has provoked a furious row with senior legal figures after launching a series of attacks on the authority of the UK supreme court and the competence of its two Scottish judges.
The first minister and his justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, accused the court of "intervening aggressively" in Scotland's independent legal system after it ruled that the Scottish system had twice breached the European convention on human rights in significant criminal cases.
The Scottish cabinet decided on Monday to set up an expert legal group to urgently consider how Salmond's government can block the supreme court from its oversight of criminal cases.
I've just listened to the podcast. Someone at the end said there's always the possibility of someting really unexpected happening in the campaign which could turn everything round....
......I remember William Hague after he'd just been hammered in 2001 saying general election campaigns hardly ever make a difference to the result. The final result closely match the the polls at the start.
Obviously in his case it was a mea non culpa for the 14 pints the baseball cap and the XXX to save the pound.... but he's right. I can't think of one event which has changed an election result since I started voting.
I agree, parties need to put their troops through their paces but generally campaigns just reinforce existing predjudices. Labours problem though may well be GOTV as much as switchers.
On the other hand this will be a 7-week campaign. Both 1974 elections were just 3 weeks long and subsequent campaigns were approx a month - with 1979 being 5 weeks and 2015 6 weeks due to FTPA. It is,therefore, a significantly longer campaign period. Whether that - and the fact that the election has come out of the blue - will make a difference is far from clear.
I was listening to the Nigel farage show on LBC last night. He made, I thought, a good point - that the EU Parliament is absolutely on the Brexit critical path. We'll get all sorts of progress with Tusk/Barnier/Verhofstadt, right up to and including a handshake. They're rational people. But then the agreement goes to the UK parliament and the EU one for final ratification. We'll approve by a massive majority. The EU parliement will very likely not. And then diamond Brexit it is.
Hmm. If governments in Berlin, Paris, Rome and Madrid etc have all agreed to a Brexit deal, there will be INTENSE pressure on their MEPs to wave it through. I do not believe the EU parliament would veto, in that scenario.
The national parties decide who will stand for election to the European parliament. MEPs almost never go against their wishes. And on something as big as Brexit it is inconceivable. Farage needs conspiracy and a bterayal narrative to remain even vaguely relevant.
It seems this GE will be rather nostalgic - those who remember GE before John Major and his soapbox in 1992 will remember wistfully the hugely organised visits by Margaret Thatcher to factories, stilted conversations with pliant workers and the Press pack following at an adoring distance seeking the merest hint of a word from the leader.
May is following the Thatcher election fighting handbook as she does so much else from the Thatcher years - indeed, June 8th will be close to the anniversary of the 1983 landslide and perhaps May seeks to surpass her political mentor in that as well.
So, no debates either as it drags her down to their level - the Cabinet can play those games, May has to be statesmanlike, above the fray.
Yet it's not 1983 or 1987 - the world and media have moved on. There's less respect and deferment among broadcasters. If May won't come to the debate, they'll have the debate anyway without her or any Conservative if necessary and if they can get away with it.
Corbyn looks invigorated by contrast but Kinnock would turn up to big crowds in 1992 as indeed did Major in 1997 and it didn't do them much good. Corbyn the campaigner is a very different animal from Corbyn the Commons performer. It's not unlike May in some aspects - there is control, no opportunity for the difficult question, the awkward question.
So what do you want - theatre, pomp or interrogation ? I'd opt for the last - a 2-hour interview with each Party leader grilled, roasted and dissected (not necessarily in that order) by a panel of hostile journalists and a hostile crowd. It would be theatre and we'd see the politician coping with a real challenge.
Somebody called May's campaign "hermetically sealed". It is and so is Corbyn's but that's because modern electioneering is about appearance not substance and control not challenge.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
It was noticeable how that EU parliament dude was still keen for us to reverse A50. There are lots of bigwigs in Brussels who STILL think we can be persuaded to change our minds. This is possibly a symptom of that.
Which is why the election is important. When the referendum is reinforced by a TMay victory - and after the French, German elections - that's when compromises will begin. And they will. New forms of words will be found, which save face on both sides. The UK will have to agree to some difficult things.
Remember no other country has actually rejected a referendum. Where they have, a second one occurs (following minor / none existent changes) to ensure people vote the "right" way.
The EU are shocked that we hold a single vote and then stick to it. I suspect they will be even more shocked when they discover the result of the referendum is " and we meant it"...
Much of the shock is that we don't know what it means. Witness Davis thinking that they'd be ok with EU agencies staying in London.
It is going to be a disaster, we have a set of numpties leading the negotiations, the clowns think they just ask UK for anything and everything and they will just say yes. It will be a Hard Indy and Scotland will be paying much more out for much less benefits for certain. SNP should enjoy themselves while they can, will not be pretty when the sheeple realise they have been fleeced.
Fixed it for you..... ;-)
Another hackneyed and deeply irritating phrase (even when one has some sympathy with the sentiment) which ought to be banned on here.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Scottish law applies to anyone living in Scotland. We don't have separate laws for Scots in Scotland and non-Scots in Scotland.
I reckon we will agree to EU citizens in the U.K. retaining ECJ rights they already have. That makes sense, tho it will be a difficult sell for TMay. What we can't accept is the idea we must enforce NEW ECJ laws after we leave, and apply them to EU citizens here, or that we must allow all family members of U.K. based EU citizens, living abroad, to come to the UK in the future, bringing their ECJ rights with them.
That's just bonkers. And is unsellable. If it really is a red line, we will crash out of the EU - and EU citizens in the U.K. will have no rights at all.
Which is why there will probably be a compromise
No, it's unworkable. Anyone living in this country has to be subject to our laws. I can't live in France and demand to be subject to the laws of England and Wales.
Quite. You can't produce a German passport and say you are entitled to do 150 mph down the M5 'cos it's ok in Stuttgart honest officer.
I was hoping to get a Dutch passport and then open a coffee shop.
Not sure that was the kind of laws they had in mind.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
In the same territory? English law runs in Scotland? I think the Nats might have mentioned it.....
Well yes. Kinda.
Alex Salmond nearly had an aneurysm over this.
Alex Salmond has provoked a furious row with senior legal figures after launching a series of attacks on the authority of the UK supreme court and the competence of its two Scottish judges.
The first minister and his justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, accused the court of "intervening aggressively" in Scotland's independent legal system after it ruled that the Scottish system had twice breached the European convention on human rights in significant criminal cases.
The Scottish cabinet decided on Monday to set up an expert legal group to urgently consider how Salmond's government can block the supreme court from its oversight of criminal cases.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
In the same territory? English law runs in Scotland? I think the Nats might have mentioned it.....
Well yes. Kinda.
Alex Salmond nearly had an aneurysm over this.
Alex Salmond has provoked a furious row with senior legal figures after launching a series of attacks on the authority of the UK supreme court and the competence of its two Scottish judges.
The first minister and his justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, accused the court of "intervening aggressively" in Scotland's independent legal system after it ruled that the Scottish system had twice breached the European convention on human rights in significant criminal cases.
The Scottish cabinet decided on Monday to set up an expert legal group to urgently consider how Salmond's government can block the supreme court from its oversight of criminal cases.
Good morning, comedians. I see the Dortmund news again makes my point about PB frothing to conclusions for me.
Good posts from Bev re: Labour's future - what is to stop all PLP candidates running on a anti Corbyn ticket? Careful choice of language should be enough. After all, Jezza ran on an anti PLP ticket for most of his career.
Also, the Unite leadership election still hasn't had enough coverage. What little news we have had suggests the anti Corbyn Coyne is ahead. That one of Big Len's surrogates has tried to marginalise Coyne after the fact with a non-binding suspension suggests she is frit. One to dig into. If Coyne wins, Corbyn is toast walking.
Corbyn is toast whatever happens in Unite, but what is happening shows you all you need to know about the hard left.
Just popped on to wish Ms @Cyclefree my very best wishes for a speedy recovery, and to continue to lament the absence of @Plato. We are the poorer for both absences.
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
You could argue with English & Welsh law v Scottish law, or the Jewish courts too.
Scottish law applies to anyone living in Scotland. We don't have separate laws for Scots in Scotland and non-Scots in Scotland.
I reckon we will agree to EU citizens in the U.K. retaining ECJ rights they already have. That makes sense, tho it will be a difficult sell for TMay. What we can't accept is the idea we must enforce NEW ECJ laws after we leave, and apply them to EU citizens here, or that we must allow all family members of U.K. based EU citizens, living abroad, to come to the UK in the future, bringing their ECJ rights with them.
That's just bonkers. And is unsellable. If it really is a red line, we will crash out of the EU - and EU citizens in the U.K. will have no rights at all.
Which is why there will probably be a compromise
No, it's unworkable. Anyone living in this country has to be subject to our laws. I can't live in France and demand to be subject to the laws of England and Wales.
Quite. You can't produce a German passport and say you are entitled to do 150 mph down the M5 'cos it's ok in Stuttgart honest officer.
I was hoping to get a Dutch passport and then open a coffee shop.
I think they have banned the type of coffee shop you had in mind..
Leaked European Commission negotiating guidelines reveal that the EU is demanding that Mrs May indefinitely submit to rulings by the ECJ on the pensions, employment and welfare rights of the three million EU citizens living in the UK.
So, the Uk would have two sets of laws running in parallel - one for UK citizens, one for EU citizens.
The ECJ says 'State Pension starts at 50' and European Citizens in the UK start their pensions at 50, while UK Citizens work to 70 or older to pay for it.......
And they think we'll agree to this because?
I suspect there's more to that story than meets the eye.
The UK is never (and can't) accept parallel systems of laws for people residing in its territory.
Oh really? We have different legal systems operating here.
In the same territory? English law runs in Scotland? I think the Nats might have mentioned it.....
Well yes. Kinda.
Alex Salmond nearly had an aneurysm over this.
Alex Salmond has provoked a furious row with senior legal figures after launching a series of attacks on the authority of the UK supreme court and the competence of its two Scottish judges.
The first minister and his justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, accused the court of "intervening aggressively" in Scotland's independent legal system after it ruled that the Scottish system had twice breached the European convention on human rights in significant criminal cases.
The Scottish cabinet decided on Monday to set up an expert legal group to urgently consider how Salmond's government can block the supreme court from its oversight of criminal cases.
You'd think there would be some Tory losing candidates from 2015 involved with the expenses scandal, as well? They can't have won every seat the bus visited?
SeanT - I hope you're right. But the EU MEPs are a ragtag bunch of losers, weirdos and hasbeens. Hard to be confident.
If we do get a diamond Brexit I for one won't be unhappy. Nothing in politics lasts forever. I was astonished our unhappy and incompatible junction with a wannabe superstate lasted as long as it did. A renegotiation of our relationship with the EU is very likely to happen anyway in a few years' time as some of the agreed issues don't quite pan out the way either side thought. Leaving is the important thing. Over time a rational new normal will emerge.
Good morning, comedians. I see the Dortmund news again makes my point about PB frothing to conclusions for me.
Good posts from Bev re: Labour's future - what is to stop all PLP candidates running on a anti Corbyn ticket? Careful choice of language should be enough. After all, Jezza ran on an anti PLP ticket for most of his career.
Also, the Unite leadership election still hasn't had enough coverage. What little news we have had suggests the anti Corbyn Coyne is ahead. That one of Big Len's surrogates has tried to marginalise Coyne after the fact with a non-binding suspension suggests she is frit. One to dig into. If Coyne wins, Corbyn is toast walking.
Re. Bev's suggestion, there are voters who like Corbyn, of course. In that scenario they could lose as much as they gained.
Comments
And also, if this is a list of fraudsters, why is Mark Williams not on it?
https://tinyurl.com/mp3wt6a
"The [Liberal Democrat] party has been fined the maximum levy of £20,000 for the breaches, while the case against the party’s top campaign official has been referred to the police."
I'd like to see electoral fraudsters successfully prosecuted.
Not just Tory fraudsters, AnyParty fraudsters as well.
Mine have disappeared from my active markets but are not in my lapsed./void bets...
I have seen no evidence that the 30 individuals are all Tories. And they can't be, as Mark Williams' election agent is one of them
Now, I expect the majority of them are Tories, but it is just so typical and telling of the LibDems that they're own misdeeds are ignored, whilst they point accusingly to the misdeeds of others.
It is one of the main reasons why I no longer vote for the LDs.
The former operate in geographically defined jurisdictions, and the latter relates to settling civil disputes, which must ultimately work within the framework of UK law anyway.
Are you arguing the ECJ should settle civil disputes?
Remoaner's wet dream......you do know what happens to the shark in the end, don't you?
I'm not sure they thought this one through...
The EU are shocked that we hold a single vote and then stick to it. I suspect they will be even more shocked when they discover the result of the referendum is " and we meant it"...
The most telling point to my mind is that Stafford, which I would be very surprised to learn was NOT overspent, isn't on there. Nor is Telford. But Tamworth - a safe Tory seat - and Montgomeryshire? Please!
Amanda Milling features in this list. Undeclared "battle bus" visits to Cannock Chase seem to be the point of contention.
It may have stopped in the constituency on its way to somewhere else. But it didn't visit because as I have said the Tories wrote this seat off at the start and concentrated their energies elsewhere.
They weren't to know that Janos Toth would commit suicide multiple times in his election literature by saying he would put the NHS in Mid-Staffordshire back to the way it was under Labour.
Britain leaving the EU: 68
Health: 42
Immigration: 36
Economy: 36
.
.
.
.
.
None of these: 0
Hence why the eu is focusing on punishment and may is focusing on preparing us to get nothing.
On a lighter note, I am looking forward to seeing if Milling chooses the same place for her poster (note singular) this time. It very much amused me that it was on the local funeral parlour!
(I imagine your first question will be, 'why would they want to?
Though I believe Macron has been edging ahead again?
I liked a comment the other day about why if the top 2 didn't even name it to 50 percent you couldn't take three to a second round. Do it, then have a third, I love it.
:-(
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_extreme30_part2.html
Trying to digest it.
Have a good morning everyone!
Gets coat.
Tories should enjoy themselves while they can, will not be pretty when the sheeple realise they have been fleeced.
But I'm also confused. What exactly is being proposed?
EU law - https://europa.eu/european-union/law_en - is largely about product specifications. (The required energy efficiency of vacuum cleaners and the like.)
Now, there are working time directives and the the other parts of the social chapter. Is it proposed that an EU citizen in the UK would only have to work 35 hours a week, while British citizens could work 45? (If so, I suspect few EU citizens would successfully get jobs.)
The EFTA/EEA treaties don't bestow those rights on Belgians in Norway or Iceland, so it's not clear why they would apply to Italians in London.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4jbuk8Bes1rwkg8yo1_500.gif
Alex Salmond nearly had an aneurysm over this.
Alex Salmond has provoked a furious row with senior legal figures after launching a series of attacks on the authority of the UK supreme court and the competence of its two Scottish judges.
The first minister and his justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, accused the court of "intervening aggressively" in Scotland's independent legal system after it ruled that the Scottish system had twice breached the European convention on human rights in significant criminal cases.
The Scottish cabinet decided on Monday to set up an expert legal group to urgently consider how Salmond's government can block the supreme court from its oversight of criminal cases.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/01/alex-salmond-scotland-supreme-court
Bath he sat in, to wet the baby's head, has special tap fitted (5,6)
Good posts from Bev re: Labour's future - what is to stop all PLP candidates running on a anti Corbyn ticket? Careful choice of language should be enough. After all, Jezza ran on an anti PLP ticket for most of his career.
Also, the Unite leadership election still hasn't had enough coverage. What little news we have had suggests the anti Corbyn Coyne is ahead. That one of Big Len's surrogates has tried to marginalise Coyne after the fact with a non-binding suspension suggests she is frit. One to dig into. If Coyne wins, Corbyn is toast walking.
We have a weak hand, the EU has a strong hand. It is us that need to do the compromising. If this doesn't happen which is now looking likely with the idiotic rhetoric coming from May and the Tories, a brutally hard Brexit is imminent. Of course this is what the swivel eyed loons on the right want. For the rest of us, it will be calamitous.
Update. this is superb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7juXEvyjT0
And I note:
The supreme court had only limited powers over Scottish criminal cases, purely covering human rights and EU law.
It seems this GE will be rather nostalgic - those who remember GE before John Major and his soapbox in 1992 will remember wistfully the hugely organised visits by Margaret Thatcher to factories, stilted conversations with pliant workers and the Press pack following at an adoring distance seeking the merest hint of a word from the leader.
May is following the Thatcher election fighting handbook as she does so much else from the Thatcher years - indeed, June 8th will be close to the anniversary of the 1983 landslide and perhaps May seeks to surpass her political mentor in that as well.
So, no debates either as it drags her down to their level - the Cabinet can play those games, May has to be statesmanlike, above the fray.
Yet it's not 1983 or 1987 - the world and media have moved on. There's less respect and deferment among broadcasters. If May won't come to the debate, they'll have the debate anyway without her or any Conservative if necessary and if they can get away with it.
Corbyn looks invigorated by contrast but Kinnock would turn up to big crowds in 1992 as indeed did Major in 1997 and it didn't do them much good. Corbyn the campaigner is a very different animal from Corbyn the Commons performer. It's not unlike May in some aspects - there is control, no opportunity for the difficult question, the awkward question.
So what do you want - theatre, pomp or interrogation ? I'd opt for the last - a 2-hour interview with each Party leader grilled, roasted and dissected (not necessarily in that order) by a panel of hostile journalists and a hostile crowd. It would be theatre and we'd see the politician coping with a real challenge.
Somebody called May's campaign "hermetically sealed". It is and so is Corbyn's but that's because modern electioneering is about appearance not substance and control not challenge.
Just popped on to wish Ms @Cyclefree my very best wishes for a speedy recovery, and to continue to lament the absence of @Plato. We are the poorer for both absences.
Good day to all.
If we do get a diamond Brexit I for one won't be unhappy. Nothing in politics lasts forever. I was astonished our unhappy and incompatible junction with a wannabe superstate lasted as long as it did. A renegotiation of our relationship with the EU is very likely to happen anyway in a few years' time as some of the agreed issues don't quite pan out the way either side thought. Leaving is the important thing. Over time a rational new normal will emerge.