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.
Thank goodness, then, that Nigel has spent his many years in the European Parliament assiduously building bridges with potentially problematic MEPs, clearing the way for a fairer hearing and smoother ride than we might otherwise suffer, and upholding the critical national interest of the UK.
A lesser man would simply turn up to collect the filthy lucre, lubricate himself thoroughly over long lunches, and occasionally spend the afternoon spitting ludicrous invective about "Euro fascism" to people including those who had been on the receiving end of the real thing.
It's a wonder nobody has suggested he be appointed forthwith as ambassador to a major power... a genuinely brilliant thinker ought to tweet something about it.
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.
Although i am speculating like everyone else i think this is about citizens' acquired rights, which to be fair the EU side has always flagged up as tricky and a justification for the A50 talks to concentrate on separation issues. Suppose ten years after Brexit the ECJ determines that spouses should get a different treatment on pensions. It's the kind of thing courts do. What they are saying is that the same change would apply to pensions administered through the UK. I don't think there would be a huge problem with that, because the same sort of thing applies to private pensions. It gets harder on thinks like residence rights of dependents.
There is a separate question of ECJ reach into UK law. Even I think they are pushing 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.
In the same territory? English law runs in Scotland? I think the Nats might have mentioned it.....
ottish 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.
Wrong.
the supreme court's power, given to it when it was set up in 2009, to rule solely on whether a Scottish criminal court had breached the European convention on human rights or failed to uphold a defendant's human rights.
It has no power to rule on the crimes or laws passed by the Scottish parliament – unless they breach the convention – and has only ruled on two Scottish criminal cases, the Nat Fraser murder conviction and Scotland's failure to give defendants in police custody fair access to a lawyer.
From 1999, this power was previously held by the privy council under the Scotland Act 1998, but very rarely used.
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 isn't that straightforward. I can make a contract with you which we agree is subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts but to be construed in accordance with the laws of Taiwan or any other country I choose. The English courts will accept jurisdiction and find out (in practice be told by Taiwanese lawyers acting as expert witnesses) what the relevant Taiwanese law is. What the EU is beefing about is partly contracts of employment/for pensions and to that extent it's dead easy to stipulate that EU contracts of employment (however defined) must have EU law clauses in them, the only teensy drawback being that the employability of the EU bods in question will plummet like a paralysed falcon, but as a matter of legal principle it can be done.
Andy, would you like to lose some money backing your opinion below. I see lots of bollox about Tories in Scotland on here but most seem reticent to put their money where their mouth is happy. Happy to relieve you of some cash re Tories having ZERO chance of taking 8 seats off SNP.
rcs1000 said:
» show previous quotes Two or three to the LibDems, and probably a similar number to the conservatives. Do you see any labour gains?
No. There could of course be a freak result somewhere like Lab gain East Lothian from SNP. IMO the Tories could pick up 8 seats from the SNP if things go particularly well for them: Berwickshire, Dumfries, Aberdeenshire West, Moray, Perth, Aberdeen South, Renfrewshire East, Edinburgh South. Angus is probably just out of reach.
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.
Oops. Thanks St John. Apologies for my atrocious spelling.
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
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.
Good point.
But then all the EU nationals would leave. Which is perhaps what the EU wants. Except that, if they did, Eastern Europe would lose squillions in remittances and suddenly have to find jobs for 3m people.
The potential for mutual destruction is considerable
Unfortunately they get a stock of skilled workers we get lorryloads of old pensioners. Not exactly an even trade.
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.
You could look at France, where it's as easy for companies to sack useless staff as it is for Labour to get rid of Corbyn.
1) Adam Johnson is exceptionally hard done by in the Sun this morning. When you see what he said in proper context, he is expressing a view on his sentence, not planning schoolgirl rapes. He clearly doesn't think he's done much wrong, but then 30 years ago his view would have been widely shared. He's right to think he's been made an example of because he's famous (but wrong to think that's unfair).
2) Did the Sun pay anyone for a video that was clearly illegally obtained and if so, who?
I wouldn't say "exceptionally hard done by", but I think he was joking when he said he wish he had raped her. I think my problem with making an example of people like him is that it creates the false impression that we are tough on such crimes.
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.
I agree. I know the EP very well and although they are very keen on their rights and don't like being sidelined, they are dominated by the Christian Democrat and Socialist groups who in turn are massively influenced by governments. They are a complication but not an insurmountable hurdle. It's much more likely that one member will hold the deal to ransom - Hungary, poland and Greece are the obvious candidates with form - making impossible demands to suit them in return for not vetoing the deal.
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.
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.
t 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.
You could look at France, where it's as easy for companies to sack useless staff as it is for Labour to get rid of Corbyn.
They do indeed hav every good protection and have to be recompensed well if they are to be dumped unlike the UK where you can be dumped with a pittance.
On the night of the Dortmund attack, no one on PB speculated about who might have been responsible
I main people speculating (other than the alleged individual) was the bbc with their Alex Jones-esque analysis that it could be a ring wing extremist false flag attack.
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.
So when we Leave the EU, the Supreme Court will have less power over Scottish cases. Intriguing.
In case anyone wondered what happened to the Kenton East result last night, they're only counting today. (That looked on current polling like a likely Tory gain.)
French polls consitsent to the last (no more can be published, I believe) - Macron well ahead, Le Pen faltering but just a nose in front of Fillon and Melanchon. On the face of it, last night's events will have helped Le Pen slightly, so a Macron-Le Pn final round with Macron cantering home still looks odds on.
On the night of the Dortmund attack, no one on PB speculated about who might have been responsible
Does it matter any more? Two years ago, you could just about make a case that entertaining the possibility that an Islamist conspiracy was behind it was a sign of paranoid racist delusion. Now it's common sense.
One other thought struck me from listening to Farage last night - namely how important a politician's voice is. We all know looks matter but so does sound.
Farage has, I never fully appreciated before, a lovely voice. Mellifluous. Listenable to. Welcoming. I don't agree with all he says but I like to hear him say it nonetheless.
Blair's voice was clear, confident, articulate. Again, I didn't agree much of the time but I liked listening. Maggie - clipped, nasal and hectoring. But clear, controlling, powerful. Demanded attention and respect. Farron - very clear and articulate. Emanates intelligence and passion. Talks bollocks mostly but I want to hear it. A super voice. Unlike Clegg who always sounds whiney and petulant and dismissive and 'I know better than you'. May - Calm, measured, authoritative, enunciates, trustworthy. And slightly nervous... which is kind of endearing in the country's most powerful person. I think she's been having voice training. I like listening. Corbyn - Angry. Dimwitted. Breathy. Passionate. Energised. Mumbled quite often. Offputting somehow that I can't quite put my finger on. I want to switch off. Sturgeon - Har ye nae plook mar dookie the noo? Ya wee fucken numpti. Or something along those lines. It's not the soft Scottish of Morningside.
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.
So when we Leave the EU, the Supreme Court will have less power over Scottish cases. Intriguing.
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 morning, John. Endorse your sentiments re Mses C-F and P.
On the night of the Dortmund attack, no one on PB speculated about who might have been responsible
Does it matter any more? Two years ago, you could just about make a case that entertaining the possibility that an Islamist conspiracy was behind it was a sign of paranoid racist delusion. Now it's common sense.
Wrong
There is no more disgusting racist than a man who speculates that an attack may have been carried out by a Muslim, and no one of greater virtue than he who tells everyone not to speculate
Andy, would you like to lose some money backing your opinion below. I see lots of bollox about Tories in Scotland on here but most seem reticent to put their money where their mouth is happy. Happy to relieve you of some cash re Tories having ZERO chance of taking 8 seats off SNP.
rcs1000 said:
» show previous quotes Two or three to the LibDems, and probably a similar number to the conservatives. Do you see any labour gains?
No. There could of course be a freak result somewhere like Lab gain East Lothian from SNP. IMO the Tories could pick up 8 seats from the SNP if things go particularly well for them: Berwickshire, Dumfries, Aberdeenshire West, Moray, Perth, Aberdeen South, Renfrewshire East, Edinburgh South. Angus is probably just out of reach.
Taking Edinburgh South from the SNP would be an achievement given it is held by Lab.
I noticed in my local supermarket (Waitrose) the other day that they are already selling English Whisky and at a premium price too .... shades of things to come? It's not that long ago since the only major competitor to the 3 or 4 major brands of French bottled mineral water was one which emanated from Scotland. Well those days are now long gone. Top quality English "Adam's Ale" is now everywhere.
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.
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.
t 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.
You could look at France, where it's as easy for companies to sack useless staff as it is for Labour to get rid of Corbyn.
They do indeed hav every good protection and have to be recompensed well if they are to be dumped unlike the UK where you can be dumped with a pittance.
One other thought struck me from listening to Farage last night - namely how important a politician's voice is. We all know looks matter but so does sound.
Farage has, I never fully appreciated before, a lovely voice. Mellifluous. Listenable to. Welcoming. I don't agree with all he says but I like to hear him say it nonetheless.
Blair's voice was clear, confident, articulate. Again, I didn't agree much of the time but I liked listening. Maggie - clipped, nasal and hectoring. But clear, controlling, powerful. Demanded attention and respect. Farron - very clear and articulate. Emanates intelligence and passion. Talks bollocks mostly but I want to hear it. A super voice. Unlike Clegg who always sounds whiney and petulant and dismissive and 'I know better than you'. May - Calm, measured, authoritative, enunciates, trustworthy. And slightly nervous... which is kind of endearing in the country's most powerful person. I think she's been having voice training. I like listening. Corbyn - Angry. Dimwitted. Breathy. Passionate. Energised. Mumbled quite often. Offputting somehow that I can't quite put my finger on. I want to switch off. Sturgeon - Har ye nae plook mar dookie the noo? Ya wee fucken numpti. Or something along those lines. It's not the soft Scottish of Morningside.
May vs Corbyn on yesterday morning tv news pieces were striking. May doing her Merkel Mutti routine, calm what we need is stability, where as Corbyn was ranting like a Speaker's Corner nutter banging on about the end is nigh.
I am sure Corbynistas thinks that demonstrates passion, he just sounded bloody bonkers.
One other thought struck me from listening to Farage last night - namely how important a politician's voice is. We all know looks matter but so does sound.
Farage has, I never fully appreciated before, a lovely voice. Mellifluous. Listenable to. Welcoming. I don't agree with all he says but I like to hear him say it nonetheless.
Blair's voice was clear, confident, articulate. Again, I didn't agree much of the time but I liked listening. Maggie - clipped, nasal and hectoring. But clear, controlling, powerful. Demanded attention and respect. Farron - very clear and articulate. Emanates intelligence and passion. Talks bollocks mostly but I want to hear it. A super voice. Unlike Clegg who always sounds whiney and petulant and dismissive and 'I know better than you'. May - Calm, measured, authoritative, enunciates, trustworthy. And slightly nervous... which is kind of endearing in the country's most powerful person. I think she's been having voice training. I like listening. Corbyn - Angry. Dimwitted. Breathy. Passionate. Energised. Mumbled quite often. Offputting somehow that I can't quite put my finger on. I want to switch off. Sturgeon - Har ye nae plook mar dookie the noo? Ya wee fucken numpti. Or something along those lines. It's not the soft Scottish of Morningside.
TMay has deffo been having training. The weird grimacing has nearly gone.
Blairs voice now has aged dramatically, he sounds very croaky and hoarse. One of those people where you're thinking "just clear your throat!" When you hear them.
Farage does have a good, distinctive voice.
Ed miliband takes the prize for most unfortunate voice in politics sadly. That definitely played a big part towards his 'not tough enuss' geeky image
You knew trouble was ahead for the UK economy when the IMF upgraded their growth forecasts.
Not doubting the figures and comments - a recession at some point is a certainty but it's a strange comparison - Q4 2016 contains Christmas, Q1 2017 doesn't even contain Easter...
One other thought struck me from listening to Farage last night - namely how important a politician's voice is. We all know looks matter but so does sound.
Farage has, I never fully appreciated before, a lovely voice. Mellifluous. Listenable to. Welcoming. I don't agree with all he says but I like to hear him say it nonetheless.
Blair's voice was clear, confident, articulate. Again, I didn't agree much of the time but I liked listening. Maggie - clipped, nasal and hectoring. But clear, controlling, powerful. Demanded attention and respect. Farron - very clear and articulate. Emanates intelligence and passion. Talks bollocks mostly but I want to hear it. A super voice. Unlike Clegg who always sounds whiney and petulant and dismissive and 'I know better than you'. May - Calm, measured, authoritative, enunciates, trustworthy. And slightly nervous... which is kind of endearing in the country's most powerful person. I think she's been having voice training. I like listening. Corbyn - Angry. Dimwitted. Breathy. Passionate. Energised. Mumbled quite often. Offputting somehow that I can't quite put my finger on. I want to switch off. Sturgeon - Har ye nae plook mar dookie the noo? Ya wee fucken numpti. Or something along those lines. It's not the soft Scottish of Morningside.
Hollande had the best voice in European politics I reckon. His mastery of the registre soutenu was close to de Gaulle's. Didn't do him much good though...
Putin is terrible in Russian, he is almost always over rehearsed. It probably stems from him being an upstart dwarf of German extraction.
A couple of non-election observations. For me, the economy began to slow down markedly in February - nowhere near as bad as 2007-8 but certainly slower than it had been since the EU Referendum. I'm not sure why - perhaps the impact of sterling devaluation on costs was starting to come through.
A second point or issue and here I'm going to try to pick my words carefully. I don't know to what extent the numbers of EU nationals living over here and working through the black economy is known or acknowledged. Yes, there are plenty working in construction and service industries but there are, I think, many who operate outside the normal economy living and working cash in hand.
I presume as we move from the EU, part of the exit package will be to formalise or regularise the status of EU nationals living in Britain. Those with work will I imagine have no issues but there are a number (and I've no idea how many) who have come here without employment and have ended up in the black economy and those who simply don't work at all.
No, this is seasonally adjusted; it's the first quarterly decline since 2013. The ONS are tentatively identifying a pick up in price inflation as the culprit.
TBH (and rcs1000 will probably lambast me for this) a genuine sign of inflation taking hold across the economy might not be the worst thing in the world.
One other thought struck me from listening to Farage last night - namely how important a politician's voice is. We all know looks matter but so does sound.
Farage has, I never fully appreciated before, a lovely voice. Mellifluous. Listenable to. Welcoming. I don't agree with all he says but I like to hear him say it nonetheless.
Blair's voice was clear, confident, articulate. Again, I didn't agree much of the time but I liked listening. Maggie - clipped, nasal and hectoring. But clear, controlling, powerful. Demanded attention and respect. Farron - very clear and articulate. Emanates intelligence and passion. Talks bollocks mostly but I want to hear it. A super voice. Unlike Clegg who always sounds whiney and petulant and dismissive and 'I know better than you'. May - Calm, measured, authoritative, enunciates, trustworthy. And slightly nervous... which is kind of endearing in the country's most powerful person. I think she's been having voice training. I like listening. Corbyn - Angry. Dimwitted. Breathy. Passionate. Energised. Mumbled quite often. Offputting somehow that I can't quite put my finger on. I want to switch off. Sturgeon - Har ye nae plook mar dookie the noo? Ya wee fucken numpti. Or something along those lines. It's not the soft Scottish of Morningside.
May vs Corbyn on yesterday morning tv news pieces were striking. May doing her Merkel Mutti routine, calm what we need is stability, where as Corbyn was ranting like a Speaker's Corner nutter banging on about the end is nigh.
I am sure Corbynistas thinks that demonstrates passion, he just sounded bloody bonkers.
Indeed. I hear Labour ex-miners are asking for Tory posters in the NE. This would be funny if we weren't talking about our own democracy.
Andy, would you like to lose some money backing your opinion below. I see lots of bollox about Tories in Scotland on here but most seem reticent to put their money where their mouth is happy. Happy to relieve you of some cash re Tories having ZERO chance of taking 8 seats off SNP.
rcs1000 said:
» show previous quotes Two or three to the LibDems, and probably a similar number to the conservatives. Do you see any labour gains?
No. There could of course be a freak result somewhere like Lab gain East Lothian from SNP. IMO the Tories could pick up 8 seats from the SNP if things go particularly well for them: Berwickshire, Dumfries, Aberdeenshire West, Moray, Perth, Aberdeen South, Renfrewshire East, Edinburgh South. Angus is probably just out of reach.
Taking Edinburgh South from the SNP would be an achievement given it is held by Lab.
To many folks using peak SCON poll numbers & applying UNS across Scotland !
One other thought struck me from listening to Farage last night - namely how important a politician's voice is. We all know looks matter but so does sound.
Farage has, I never fully appreciated before, a lovely voice. Mellifluous. Listenable to. Welcoming. I don't agree with all he says but I like to hear him say it nonetheless.
Blair's voice was clear, confident, articulate. Again, I didn't agree much of the time but I liked listening. Maggie - clipped, nasal and hectoring. But clear, controlling, powerful. Demanded attention and respect. Farron - very clear and articulate. Emanates intelligence and passion. Talks bollocks mostly but I want to hear it. A super voice. Unlike Clegg who always sounds whiney and petulant and dismissive and 'I know better than you'. May - Calm, measured, authoritative, enunciates, trustworthy. And slightly nervous... which is kind of endearing in the country's most powerful person. I think she's been having voice training. I like listening. Corbyn - Angry. Dimwitted. Breathy. Passionate. Energised. Mumbled quite often. Offputting somehow that I can't quite put my finger on. I want to switch off. Sturgeon - Har ye nae plook mar dookie the noo? Ya wee fucken numpti. Or something along those lines. It's not the soft Scottish of Morningside.
If I was an existing Labour MP with a majority of < 6000, I'd be helping in the neighbouring constituency where the majority > 6000. ... There is no way I'd be faffing about being an independent or an SDP Mk2 (which would simply destroy my chances of holding my seat).
Helping in the neighbouring constituency is a guarantee for defeat in your own and if you are going to lose anyway then what is the harm in trying something radically different? If you cannot change the result then you still lose, but if you do change the result then you are still around to fight for getting your old party back or setting up a sane alternative to it.
If, as an MP, you are going to admit defeat before you start then you might as well join the ranks of those resigning.
One other thought struck me from listening to Farage last night - namely how important a politician's voice is. We all know looks matter but so does sound.
Farage has, I never fully appreciated before, a lovely voice. Mellifluous. Listenable to. Welcoming. I don't agree with all he says but I like to hear him say it nonetheless.
Blair's voice was clear, confident, articulate. Again, I didn't agree much of the time but I liked listening. Maggie - clipped, nasal and hectoring. But clear, controlling, powerful. Demanded attention and respect. Farron - very clear and articulate. Emanates intelligence and passion. Talks bollocks mostly but I want to hear it. A super voice. Unlike Clegg who always sounds whiney and petulant and dismissive and 'I know better than you'. May - Calm, measured, authoritative, enunciates, trustworthy. And slightly nervous... which is kind of endearing in the country's most powerful person. I think she's been having voice training. I like listening. Corbyn - Angry. Dimwitted. Breathy. Passionate. Energised. Mumbled quite often. Offputting somehow that I can't quite put my finger on. I want to switch off. Sturgeon - Har ye nae plook mar dookie the noo? Ya wee fucken numpti. Or something along those lines. It's not the soft Scottish of Morningside.
Not sure I wholly agree but there's a lot of truth in your comments.
For me, Obama is the king of the political voice - the pauses, the intonation are just sublime. Bill Clinton, oddly enough, is also very good.
One other thought struck me from listening to Farage last night - namely how important a politician's voice is. We all know looks matter but so does sound.
Farage has, I never fully appreciated before, a lovely voice. Mellifluous. Listenable to. Welcoming. I don't agree with all he says but I like to hear him say it nonetheless.
Blair's voice was clear, confident, articulate. Again, I didn't agree much of the time but I liked listening. Maggie - clipped, nasal and hectoring. But clear, controlling, powerful. Demanded attention and respect. Farron - very clear and articulate. Emanates intelligence and passion. Talks bollocks mostly but I want to hear it. A super voice. Unlike Clegg who always sounds whiney and petulant and dismissive and 'I know better than you'. May - Calm, measured, authoritative, enunciates, trustworthy. And slightly nervous... which is kind of endearing in the country's most powerful person. I think she's been having voice training. I like listening. Corbyn - Angry. Dimwitted. Breathy. Passionate. Energised. Mumbled quite often. Offputting somehow that I can't quite put my finger on. I want to switch off. Sturgeon - Har ye nae plook mar dookie the noo? Ya wee fucken numpti. Or something along those lines. It's not the soft Scottish of Morningside.
No, this is seasonally adjusted; it's the first quarterly decline since 2013. The ONS are tentatively identifying a pick up in price inflation as the culprit.
TBH (and rcs1000 will probably lambast me for this) a genuine sign of inflation taking hold across the economy might not be the worst thing in the world.
Why? Genuine question
Inflation helps reduce debt. Everything else gets bigger, it stays the same. It will also force monetary authorities into raising base rates, which reinvigorates the banking sector; we may not like it, but it is the lubricant for the rest of the economy. Other secondary effects, also.
One other thought struck me from listening to Farage last night - namely how important a politician's voice is. We all know looks matter but so does sound.
Farage has, I never fully appreciated before, a lovely voice. Mellifluous. Listenable to. Welcoming. I don't agree with all he says but I like to hear him say it nonetheless.
Blair's voice was clear, confident, articulate. Again, I didn't agree much of the time but I liked listening. Maggie - clipped, nasal and hectoring. But clear, controlling, powerful. Demanded attention and respect. Farron - very clear and articulate. Emanates intelligence and passion. Talks bollocks mostly but I want to hear it. A super voice. Unlike Clegg who always sounds whiney and petulant and dismissive and 'I know better than you'. May - Calm, measured, authoritative, enunciates, trustworthy. And slightly nervous... which is kind of endearing in the country's most powerful person. I think she's been having voice training. I like listening. Corbyn - Angry. Dimwitted. Breathy. Passionate. Energised. Mumbled quite often. Offputting somehow that I can't quite put my finger on. I want to switch off. Sturgeon - Har ye nae plook mar dookie the noo? Ya wee fucken numpti. Or something along those lines. It's not the soft Scottish of Morningside.
Not sure I wholly agree but there's a lot of truth in your comments.
For me, Obama is the king of the political voice - the pauses, the intonation are just sublime. Bill Clinton, oddly enough, is also very good.
Mr. G, Macron-Fillon's probably my best result. Hope things don't get any bloodier in France.
Good luck with that Mr Dancer, I think you have a reasonable chance. I am convinced that Fillon will get more than he has been polling due to shy Fillon supporters.
And I think we all share the view about wishing for no further incidents in France, even Le Pen backers, I would hope.
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"...
With the French "Non" and Dutch "Nee" votes over the Constitution all that the powers that be did was rebrand the Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty and ratify it without a new referendum. As far as the French and Dutch are concerned their last vote was a rejection yet that just got ignored they weren't even trusted to vote the "right" way in case they got it wrong a second time.
One other thought struck me from listening to Farage last night - namely how important a politician's voice is. We all know looks matter but so does sound.
Farage has, I never fully appreciated before, a lovely voice. Mellifluous. Listenable to. Welcoming. I don't agree with all he says but I like to hear him say it nonetheless.
Blair's voice was clear, confident, articulate. Again, I didn't agree much of the time but I liked listening. Maggie - clipped, nasal and hectoring. But clear, controlling, powerful. Demanded attention and respect. Farron - very clear and articulate. Emanates intelligence and passion. Talks bollocks mostly but I want to hear it. A super voice. Unlike Clegg who always sounds whiney and petulant and dismissive and 'I know better than you'. May - Calm, measured, authoritative, enunciates, trustworthy. And slightly nervous... which is kind of endearing in the country's most powerful person. I think she's been having voice training. I like listening. Corbyn - Angry. Dimwitted. Breathy. Passionate. Energised. Mumbled quite often. Offputting somehow that I can't quite put my finger on. I want to switch off. Sturgeon - Har ye nae plook mar dookie the noo? Ya wee fucken numpti. Or something along those lines. It's not the soft Scottish of Morningside.
TMay has deffo been having training. The weird grimacing has nearly gone.
Blairs voice now has aged dramatically, he sounds very croaky and hoarse. One of those people where you're thinking "just clear your throat!" When you hear them.
Farage does have a good, distinctive voice.
Ed miliband takes the prize for most unfortunate voice in politics sadly. That definitely played a big part towards his 'not tough enuss' geeky image
I agree. I know the EP very well and although they are very keen on their rights and don't like being sidelined, they are dominated by the Christian Democrat and Socialist groups who in turn are massively influenced by governments. They are a complication but not an insurmountable hurdle. It's much more likely that one member will hold the deal to ransom - Hungary, poland and Greece are the obvious candidates with form - making impossible demands to suit them in return for not vetoing the deal.
But first, um, get the deal, eh?
Get the deal.... has anyone looked at the progress so far and the timeline ahead?
- 10 months ago we voted out
- 1 month ago (after 9 months...) we serve notice
- We are now told that negotiations are likely to start at the end of 2017
- We are told that settling citizenship and outstanding bills come first, then trade
- We have been told that negotiations need to be complete by Autumn 2018 so that it can be ratified in early 2019 for departure in March 2019
So the highly complex negotiations have to be done in 12 months maximum and probably less than that if any more delays crop up. The trade part will have a few months which is not enough.
We are running out of time and I think it is deliberate. What could be more reasonable than the EU suggesting delays, extensions and transitional periods well out past 2022? Whilst we keep paying in of course...
The Brexit that never quite manages to happen? Delay, obfuscate and delay some more?
Concerning the discussion about the continuity of EU citizen rights and the application of EU law after Brexit, the EU draft guidelines can be viewed here
Economically, I'm rather glad to see retail sales fall. In this country, we are rather too keen to applaud plucky British shoppers for getting their credit cards out and spending our way out of trouble, kicking the can down the road. What we really need to keep the wolf from the door in something other than the immediate term is productivity, frugality (saving/investment), and exporting.
But I do see why it speaks to an earlier election rather than waiting.
To my mind, the biggest concern is the fall in retail sales volumes, which is being masked by rises in price.
I do a lot of work in web and online retail. In past downturns we have seen a sharp dropoff in business about 6 months before the general economy nosedives, partly because we are easy to cut back on partly because it is easy to ramp up spending again when things improve.
It has been quietening down again over the last few weeks and it feels like some of the previous slowdowns. If the Q2 figures are down then......
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.
So when we Leave the EU, the Supreme Court will have less power over Scottish cases. Intriguing.
No chance London will take full control and keep it there.
To my mind, the biggest concern is the fall in retail sales volumes, which is being masked by rises in price.
Looks like Q1 last year was exceptionally high so could there partially be a reversion to mean effect undoing that?
I think that's a fair bet. However, there is no doubt that the gap between rising prices and slowing income growth is affecting consumer spending. We have also - as I've pointed out on numerous occasions - got a problem with consumers spending too much of their income, and saving too little. What we might be seeing is the beginning of a process of normalisation. Hopefully that happens over a multi-year period, rather than in a rush. (The danger is that savings rates rise, depressing spending, which reduces employment, and therefore lowers confidence. Lower confidence pushes the savings rate ever higher. This is exactly what happened in Spain at the height of the Eurozone crisis.)
I agree. I know the EP very well and although they are very keen on their rights and don't like being sidelined, they are dominated by the Christian Democrat and Socialist groups who in turn are massively influenced by governments. They are a complication but not an insurmountable hurdle. It's much more likely that one member will hold the deal to ransom - Hungary, poland and Greece are the obvious candidates with form - making impossible demands to suit them in return for not vetoing the deal.
But first, um, get the deal, eh?
Get the deal.... has anyone looked at the progress so far and the timeline ahead?
- 10 months ago we voted out
- 1 month ago (after 9 months...) we serve notice
- We are now told that negotiations are likely to start at the end of 2017
- We are told that settling citizenship and outstanding bills come first, then trade
- We have been told that negotiations need to be complete by Autumn 2018 so that it can be ratified in early 2019 for departure in March 2019
So the highly complex negotiations have to be done in 12 months maximum and probably less than that if any more delays crop up. The trade part will have a few months which is not enough.
We are running out of time and I think it is deliberate. What could be more reasonable than the EU suggesting delays, extensions and transitional periods well out past 2022? Whilst we keep paying in of course...
The Brexit that never quite manages to happen? Delay, obfuscate and delay some more?
I'm pretty sure Brexit will happen and we will notice it. It will be a tightening of the screws rather than a "one bound and we're free"
To my mind, the biggest concern is the fall in retail sales volumes, which is being masked by rises in price.
Looks like Q1 last year was exceptionally high so could there partially be a reversion to mean effect undoing that?
Ist't hat the mistake I made, i.e. the comparison is with Q4? Unless strong performance last Q1 has affected our seasonal adjustments.
Is it seasonally adjusted or is it effectively a comparison between 2016Q1 and 2017Q1? If the latter, and if 2016Q1 was unusually strong, then that might explain the fall.
I agree. I know the EP very well and although they are very keen on their rights and don't like being sidelined, they are dominated by the Christian Democrat and Socialist groups who in turn are massively influenced by governments. They are a complication but not an insurmountable hurdle. It's much more likely that one member will hold the deal to ransom - Hungary, poland and Greece are the obvious candidates with form - making impossible demands to suit them in return for not vetoing the deal.
But first, um, get the deal, eh?
Get the deal.... has anyone looked at the progress so far and the timeline ahead?
- 10 months ago we voted out
- 1 month ago (after 9 months...) we serve notice
- We are now told that negotiations are likely to start at the end of 2017
- We are told that settling citizenship and outstanding bills come first, then trade
- We have been told that negotiations need to be complete by Autumn 2018 so that it can be ratified in early 2019 for departure in March 2019
So the highly complex negotiations have to be done in 12 months maximum and probably less than that if any more delays crop up. The trade part will have a few months which is not enough.
We are running out of time and I think it is deliberate. What could be more reasonable than the EU suggesting delays, extensions and transitional periods well out past 2022? Whilst we keep paying in of course...
The Brexit that never quite manages to happen? Delay, obfuscate and delay some more?
I'm pretty sure Brexit will happen and we will notice it. It will be a tightening of the screws rather than a "one bound and we're free"
I agree it will happen but I am thinking that it too is being kicked further down the road
Comments
Ugo Ehigou has died.
A lesser man would simply turn up to collect the filthy lucre, lubricate himself thoroughly over long lunches, and occasionally spend the afternoon spitting ludicrous invective about "Euro fascism" to people including those who had been on the receiving end of the real thing.
It's a wonder nobody has suggested he be appointed forthwith as ambassador to a major power... a genuinely brilliant thinker ought to tweet something about it.
There is a separate question of ECJ reach into UK law. Even I think they are pushing it.
the supreme court's power, given to it when it was set up in 2009, to rule solely on whether a Scottish criminal court had breached the European convention on human rights or failed to uphold a defendant's human rights.
It has no power to rule on the crimes or laws passed by the Scottish parliament – unless they breach the convention – and has only ruled on two Scottish criminal cases, the Nat Fraser murder conviction and Scotland's failure to give defendants in police custody fair access to a lawyer.
From 1999, this power was previously held by the privy council under the Scotland Act 1998, but very rarely used.
Andy, would you like to lose some money backing your opinion below. I see lots of bollox about Tories in Scotland on here but most seem reticent to put their money where their mouth is happy.
Happy to relieve you of some cash re Tories having ZERO chance of taking 8 seats off SNP.
rcs1000 said:
» show previous quotes
Two or three to the LibDems, and probably a similar number to the conservatives. Do you see any labour gains?
No. There could of course be a freak result somewhere like Lab gain East Lothian from SNP. IMO the Tories could pick up 8 seats from the SNP if things go particularly well for them: Berwickshire, Dumfries, Aberdeenshire West, Moray, Perth, Aberdeen South, Renfrewshire East, Edinburgh South. Angus is probably just out of reach.
But first, um, get the deal, eh?
I echo your sentiment on Miss Plato as well.
French polls consitsent to the last (no more can be published, I believe) - Macron well ahead, Le Pen faltering but just a nose in front of Fillon and Melanchon. On the face of it, last night's events will have helped Le Pen slightly, so a Macron-Le Pn final round with Macron cantering home still looks odds on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
Farage has, I never fully appreciated before, a lovely voice. Mellifluous. Listenable to. Welcoming. I don't agree with all he says but I like to hear him say it nonetheless.
Blair's voice was clear, confident, articulate. Again, I didn't agree much of the time but I liked listening.
Maggie - clipped, nasal and hectoring. But clear, controlling, powerful. Demanded attention and respect.
Farron - very clear and articulate. Emanates intelligence and passion. Talks bollocks mostly but I want to hear it. A super voice. Unlike Clegg who always sounds whiney and petulant and dismissive and 'I know better than you'.
May - Calm, measured, authoritative, enunciates, trustworthy. And slightly nervous... which is kind of endearing in the country's most powerful person. I think she's been having voice training. I like listening.
Corbyn - Angry. Dimwitted. Breathy. Passionate. Energised. Mumbled quite often. Offputting somehow that I can't quite put my finger on. I want to switch off.
Sturgeon - Har ye nae plook mar dookie the noo? Ya wee fucken numpti. Or something along those lines. It's not the soft Scottish of Morningside.
"One mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist..."
There is no more disgusting racist than a man who speculates that an attack may have been carried out by a Muslim, and no one of greater virtue than he who tells everyone not to speculate
It's not that long ago since the only major competitor to the 3 or 4 major brands of French bottled mineral water was one which emanated from Scotland. Well those days are now long gone. Top quality English "Adam's Ale" is now everywhere.
But not good (except for the incompetent staff).
I am sure Corbynistas thinks that demonstrates passion, he just sounded bloody bonkers.
Farage does have a good, distinctive voice.
Ed miliband takes the prize for most unfortunate voice in politics sadly. That definitely played a big part towards his 'not tough enuss' geeky image
Isn't that just the Christmas effect?
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/the-power-paradox.html
Putin is terrible in Russian, he is almost always over rehearsed. It probably stems from him being an upstart dwarf of German extraction.
A couple of non-election observations. For me, the economy began to slow down markedly in February - nowhere near as bad as 2007-8 but certainly slower than it had been since the EU Referendum. I'm not sure why - perhaps the impact of sterling devaluation on costs was starting to come through.
A second point or issue and here I'm going to try to pick my words carefully. I don't know to what extent the numbers of EU nationals living over here and working through the black economy is known or acknowledged. Yes, there are plenty working in construction and service industries but there are, I think, many who operate outside the normal economy living and working cash in hand.
I presume as we move from the EU, part of the exit package will be to formalise or regularise the status of EU nationals living in Britain. Those with work will I imagine have no issues but there are a number (and I've no idea how many) who have come here without employment and have ended up in the black economy and those who simply don't work at all.
First up, Elabe:
Macron 24 (=)
Le Pen 21.5 (-1.5)
Fillon 20 (+0.5)
Melenchon 19.5 (+1.5)
http://elabe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/20042017_bfmtv_lexpress_intentions-de-vote-presidentielles-vague-10.pdf
TBH (and rcs1000 will probably lambast me for this) a genuine sign of inflation taking hold across the economy might not be the worst thing in the world.
A Bloomberg report showed that Juicero’s packs could be squeezed by hand, no expensive juicer required.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/20/juicero-ceo-responds-refund/
Helping in the neighbouring constituency is a guarantee for defeat in your own and if you are going to lose anyway then what is the harm in trying something radically different? If you cannot change the result then you still lose, but if you do change the result then you are still around to fight for getting your old party back or setting up a sane alternative to it.
If, as an MP, you are going to admit defeat before you start then you might as well join the ranks of those resigning.
For me, Obama is the king of the political voice - the pauses, the intonation are just sublime. Bill Clinton, oddly enough, is also very good.
(Spot who has spent time trying to convince the big boss not to get too excited with the March sales figures...)
https://twitter.com/BenChu_/status/855344475845120000
And I think we all share the view about wishing for no further incidents in France, even Le Pen backers, I would hope.
As long as Melenchon fails, I should be ok.
oh, my coat!
To my mind, the biggest concern is the fall in retail sales volumes, which is being masked by rises in price.
- 10 months ago we voted out
- 1 month ago (after 9 months...) we serve notice
- We are now told that negotiations are likely to start at the end of 2017
- We are told that settling citizenship and outstanding bills come first, then trade
- We have been told that negotiations need to be complete by Autumn 2018 so that it can be ratified in early 2019 for departure in March 2019
So the highly complex negotiations have to be done in 12 months maximum and probably less than that if any more delays crop up. The trade part will have a few months which is not enough.
We are running out of time and I think it is deliberate. What could be more reasonable than the EU suggesting delays, extensions and transitional periods well out past 2022? Whilst we keep paying in of course...
The Brexit that never quite manages to happen? Delay, obfuscate and delay some more?
Which is a pity, because what she has to say for Labour is a damn sight better than most of what Labour has at the moment.
But I do see why it speaks to an earlier election rather than waiting.
It has been quietening down again over the last few weeks and it feels like some of the previous slowdowns. If the Q2 figures are down then......
https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/855314234007212034
Reminds me a bit of physics and accelerating rates of deceleration.
Or ITV News a few years ago saying inflation had reached a three year high, then saying prices were rising like never before...
Edit: And the poorest paid less tax.
Have you been selected for Tatton yet?
I'm sure Clive Lewis could come up with something for you.
Lewis has to win support in Labour to become its leader, should he stand in the future. Preaching to the converted will help in that regard.
It won't be very clever for the forthcoming election, however.