Interesting panel base poll in Scotland - 18-21/04/17
In the UK and out of the EU - 48%
Independent and in the EU - 41%
Independent and out of the EU - 10%
Looks as if Scotland is very divided but surprised in the UK and out of the EU should top the poll
My only concern with that poll is that it contains essentially zero (maybe 1%, depends on rounding) for "in the UK, in the EU", which you would have thought has to be the view of a substantial minority of "No to Independence" voters, especially as that was one of the key messages/arguments from the "No to Independence" camp.
'twas but a 3 option poll.
So it can be completely ignored then.
And hilariously still showed 'what is going to happen' as the most popular option...
Interesting panel base poll in Scotland - 18-21/04/17
In the UK and out of the EU - 48%
Independent and in the EU - 41%
Independent and out of the EU - 10%
Looks as if Scotland is very divided but surprised in the UK and out of the EU should top the poll
My only concern with that poll is that it contains essentially zero (maybe 1%, depends on rounding) for "in the UK, in the EU", which you would have thought has to be the view of a substantial minority of "No to Independence" voters, especially as that was one of the key messages/arguments from the "No to Independence" camp.
Me for example. I guess they reckoned the UK and EU option was closed down. The reasons for supporting both unions are essentially the same.
I think the three question format is somewhat leading and likely exaggerates support for independence overall. It would be better to break it into two questions. Do you support independence? If so, do you want to be in the EU or out of it?
Interesting panel base poll in Scotland - 18-21/04/17
In the UK and out of the EU - 48%
Independent and in the EU - 41%
Independent and out of the EU - 10%
Looks as if Scotland is very divided but surprised in the UK and out of the EU should top the poll
My only concern with that poll is that it contains essentially zero (maybe 1%, depends on rounding) for "in the UK, in the EU", which you would have thought has to be the view of a substantial minority of "No to Independence" voters, especially as that was one of the key messages/arguments from the "No to Independence" camp.
Me for example. I guess they reckoned the UK and EU option was closed down. The reasons for supporting both unions are essentially the same.
I think the three question format is somewhat leading and likely exaggerates support for independence overall. It would be better to break it into two questions. Do you support independence? If so, do you want to be in the EU or out of it?
The same poll finds opposition to independence runs at 52/43% when given a straight choice.
The Conservative Party has become more populist, even if lead by a dull, dutiful, serious middle-aged woman with little on her CV . Doing so, it takes the wind out of the UKIP's sails.
Interesting panel base poll in Scotland - 18-21/04/17
In the UK and out of the EU - 48%
Independent and in the EU - 41%
Independent and out of the EU - 10%
Looks as if Scotland is very divided but surprised in the UK and out of the EU should top the poll
My only concern with that poll is that it contains essentially zero (maybe 1%, depends on rounding) for "in the UK, in the EU", which you would have thought has to be the view of a substantial minority of "No to Independence" voters, especially as that was one of the key messages/arguments from the "No to Independence" camp.
Me for example. I guess they reckoned the UK and EU option was closed down. The reasons for supporting both unions are essentially the same.
I think the three question format is somewhat leading and likely exaggerates support for independence overall. It would be better to break it into two questions. Do you support independence? If so, do you want to be in the EU or out of it?
The only fair question would be "should Scotland leave the United Kingdom and seek to join the European Union?" - because if Sturgeon wants to use Brexit as an excuse to hold Indyref2, that has to be the question on the ballot paper.
1. Keep the same levels of spending as the current Conservative plans for two years, with two exceptions: an emergency NHS cash injection over those two years, funded by freezing Corporation Tax and bringing forward the planned spend on lower Corporation Tax over the parliament into those two years. Secondly, using historically low borrowing costs to build affordable housing, using up to 2% of the Green Belt if needs be, and therefore cut the Housing Benefit bill.
2. Create a Health and Care Tax, and legally ring-fence it for the NHS, public health and Social Care, and establish an independent review body to recommend a level of funding that will gradually bring the NHS portion of the spend up to the EU average without reducing funding for social care. Reduce National Insurance so that this is revenue neutral in year 1. Develop plans to make all but a minimum level of social security spending contributory by the end of the following Parliament.
3. Council Tax to be replaced by a Land Value Tax of 1% of the value of homes and land over £75,000. Pensioners and people aged 55+ can choose to defer payment until the property changes hands.
4. In terms of Brexit, aim to negotiate a transitional deal with freedom of movement subject to an annual cap on numbers and only people with job offers being allowed to migrate.
5. End the Barnett formula and introduce a federal UK with only key functions such as defence, foreign policy and monetary policy remaining at the UK level.
6. Introduce regional top-up MPs as in Holyrood to make votes fairer
7. Appoint Boris Johnson as ambassador to Micronesia.
I would be fine with that. Vote Freggles! Winning here!
@thorstenbenner: Juncker's visit to planet May: "#Brexit cannot be a success". FAZ inside story of disastrous London #Brexit dinner makes for great reading. pic.twitter.com/wBMSHCiSBW
Apparently May told Juncker that she thought Brexit was like protocol 36 of the Lisbon treaty which allowed for selective opt-ins on criminal justice matters, hence the shock and phone calls to Merkel.
Interesting panel base poll in Scotland - 18-21/04/17
In the UK and out of the EU - 48%
Independent and in the EU - 41%
Independent and out of the EU - 10%
Looks as if Scotland is very divided but surprised in the UK and out of the EU should top the poll
My only concern with that poll is that it contains essentially zero (maybe 1%, depends on rounding) for "in the UK, in the EU", which you would have thought has to be the view of a substantial minority of "No to Independence" voters, especially as that was one of the key messages/arguments from the "No to Independence" camp.
Me for example. I guess they reckoned the UK and EU option was closed down. The reasons for supporting both unions are essentially the same.
I think the three question format is somewhat leading and likely exaggerates support for independence overall. It would be better to break it into two questions. Do you support independence? If so, do you want to be in the EU or out of it?
Looks like 'The National' is collating the poll figures to say 51% support independence. Poor journalism
Interesting panel base poll in Scotland - 18-21/04/17
In the UK and out of the EU - 48%
Independent and in the EU - 41%
Independent and out of the EU - 10%
Looks as if Scotland is very divided but surprised in the UK and out of the EU should top the poll
My only concern with that poll is that it contains essentially zero (maybe 1%, depends on rounding) for "in the UK, in the EU", which you would have thought has to be the view of a substantial minority of "No to Independence" voters, especially as that was one of the key messages/arguments from the "No to Independence" camp.
Me for example. I guess they reckoned the UK and EU option was closed down. The reasons for supporting both unions are essentially the same.
I think the three question format is somewhat leading and likely exaggerates support for independence overall. It would be better to break it into two questions. Do you support independence? If so, do you want to be in the EU or out of it?
Looks like 'The National' is collating the poll figures to say 51% support independence. Poor journalism
It is, to a point. She neglects the left wing populists like Melenchon, and our very own Jezza.
Populism is about simple solutions to complex problems, and tends to disintegrate in contact with reality. Trump is the most obvious example of this at the moment, with his 100 days of backtracking.
Glad to see the PBTory Private Fraser impersonations have stopped and we can all collectively laugh at the 18/20 points of Len McClusky's Christmas List...
Labour has its difficulties with its Leave supporters but Starmer is at least making an attempt to win them back and appeal to both camps.
The LDs have suffered an absolute meltdown of their 2015 supporters who voted leave. Out of a sample of 723 2015 LD voters , You Gov found 222 who voted LD in 2015 and then voted Leave. But those 222 LDs are more likely now to vote Conservative (26%) than LD (24%) with a further 26% DK. The significant Remain support the LDs are picking up has come at the expense of this group, such that the LDs net gain since their 2015 nadir is still quite limited and they are only just touching double figures in a wider political context when they should be doing far better.
I think Farron realises that, and is worried about the impact in particular on all those SW Leave-voting former LD seats, given these comments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39761746
Ultimately like in Scotland the lib dems in England will become the party of remain and the tories the party of leave. I am a remain union Scottish Tory and I now see that I will have to switch my vote soon or later. Just no real party left that represents me despite my view being the most common one in Scotland. That is unionist remainer
1. Keep the same levels of spending as the current Conservative plans for two years, with two exceptions: an emergency NHS cash injection over those two years, funded by freezing Corporation Tax and bringing forward the planned spend on lower Corporation Tax over the parliament into those two years. Secondly, using historically low borrowing costs to build affordable housing, using up to 2% of the Green Belt if needs be, and therefore cut the Housing Benefit bill.
2. Create a Health and Care Tax, and legally ring-fence it for the NHS, public health and Social Care, and establish an independent review body to recommend a level of funding that will gradually bring the NHS portion of the spend up to the EU average without reducing funding for social care. Reduce National Insurance so that this is revenue neutral in year 1. Develop plans to make all but a minimum level of social security spending contributory by the end of the following Parliament.
3. Council Tax to be replaced by a Land Value Tax of 1% of the value of homes and land over £75,000. Pensioners and people aged 55+ can choose to defer payment until the property changes hands.
4. In terms of Brexit, aim to negotiate a transitional deal with freedom of movement subject to an annual cap on numbers and only people with job offers being allowed to migrate.
5. End the Barnett formula and introduce a federal UK with only key functions such as defence, foreign policy and monetary policy remaining at the UK level.
6. Introduce regional top-up MPs as in Holyrood to make votes fairer
7. Appoint Boris Johnson as ambassador to Micronesia.
Very good. Some practical stuff there - too often sadly lacking from the so-called "professional" politicians. I shall keep a more careful eye on your postings from now on.
1) - How to stop recruitment stone dead 2) - Most people on ZHC like them 3) - Bang goes any pretence Labour have of being Pro EU _ British Jobs for British Workers. 4) - Cannot comment - except would need evidence for assertion. 5) - Guarantee Union Zealots can intimidate workers. 6) - Wouldn't make much difference - Employers would amend contracts. 7) - Great Idea - encourage more firms to leave for Eastern Europe. help the EU. Excellent! 8) - Thought wages were going up by 1% - other than high earners. Increased taxes. 9) - Do we still have TUPE? 10 - Laughable. What would happen is that a company would set up a subsidiary, with high earners being employed by the main company and 'on loan' or advisors to the subsidiary. 11- This affects very few - (What happened to Apprentiships by the way) 12 - Does this mean that all firms have to hire a trade union representative - to do SFA for 350 days a year? 13 - The problem is: if something is free then people try it on. 14 - Also on offer - hormone treatment so that male lactating occurs as well. 15 - Already protected 16 - I am sure I heard the word 'SCAB' a few times in the 1980s. Blaclisting goes both ways. 17 - WTF are these? Non productive layabouts. 18 - Will this extend to protection from secondary picketing????? - see 5. 19 - Non-sequitur 20 - Jobs for the boys - more beaurocracy - I am sure we have an Act of Parliament already.
Glad to see the PBTory Private Fraser impersonations have stopped and we can all collectively laugh at the 18/20 points of Len McClusky's Christmas List...
Interesting panel base poll in Scotland - 18-21/04/17
In the UK and out of the EU - 48%
Independent and in the EU - 41%
Independent and out of the EU - 10%
Looks as if Scotland is very divided but surprised in the UK and out of the EU should top the poll
My only concern with that poll is that it contains essentially zero (maybe 1%, depends on rounding) for "in the UK, in the EU", which you would have thought has to be the view of a substantial minority of "No to Independence" voters, especially as that was one of the key messages/arguments from the "No to Independence" camp.
Me for example. I guess they reckoned the UK and EU option was closed down. The reasons for supporting both unions are essentially the same.
I think the three question format is somewhat leading and likely exaggerates support for independence overall. It would be better to break it into two questions. Do you support independence? If so, do you want to be in the EU or out of it?
Looks like 'The National' is collating the poll figures to say 51% support independence. Poor journalism
As Brexit will have occurred before Scotland declares independence, IndyScotland would be outside the EU. I suspect agreeing accession criteria would be swift as Scotland would be compliant, so the Indy Scots could vote on the package.
Labour has its difficulties with its Leave supporters but Starmer is at least making an attempt to win them back and appeal to both camps.
The LDs have suffered an absolute meltdown of their 2015 supporters who voted leave. Out of a sample of 723 2015 LD voters , You Gov found 222 who voted LD in 2015 and then voted Leave. But those 222 LDs are more likely now to vote Conservative (26%) than LD (24%) with a further 26% DK. The significant Remain support the LDs are picking up has come at the expense of this group, such that the LDs net gain since their 2015 nadir is still quite limited and they are only just touching double figures in a wider political context when they should be doing far better.
I think Farron realises that, and is worried about the impact in particular on all those SW Leave-voting former LD seats, given these comments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39761746
Ultimately like in Scotland the lib dems in England will become the party of remain and the tories the party of leave. I am a remain union Scottish Tory and I now see that I will have to switch my vote soon or later. Just no real party left that represents me despite my view being the most common one in Scotland. That is unionist remainer
I think we need to see how this works out. It could be resolved by negotiation and hopefully Theresa May will achieve a deal. As a former remain voter and an avid Scots Unionist I am hoping that we will be able to achieve a deal that supports the Scottish fishing industry
Are trade unions even popular any more? Surely membership is dwindling?
In certain sectors they are still very "popular". In things like health, care, everybody I know who works in that sector are UNISON members, not because they are necessarily big trade unionists as such, but because of insurance and support should a claim be made against.
Are trade unions even popular any more? Surely membership is dwindling?
As a trade unionist I would be happy with most of it (my other half likes to be on a ZHC).
I think the right for unions to approach workers, and the right of representation would end some of the exploitative practices that we see. Unions being allowed to get on with their day job is a good thing.
Interesting panel base poll in Scotland - 18-21/04/17
In the UK and out of the EU - 48%
Independent and in the EU - 41%
Independent and out of the EU - 10%
Looks as if Scotland is very divided but surprised in the UK and out of the EU should top the poll
My only concern with that poll is that it contains essentially zero (maybe 1%, depends on rounding) for "in the UK, in the EU", which you would have thought has to be the view of a substantial minority of "No to Independence" voters, especially as that was one of the key messages/arguments from the "No to Independence" camp.
Me for example. I guess they reckoned the UK and EU option was closed down. The reasons for supporting both unions are essentially the same.
I think the three question format is somewhat leading and likely exaggerates support for independence overall. It would be better to break it into two questions. Do you support independence? If so, do you want to be in the EU or out of it?
Looks like 'The National' is collating the poll figures to say 51% support independence. Poor journalism
As Brexit will have occurred before Scotland declares independence, IndyScotland would be outside the EU. I suspect agreeing accession criteria would be swift as Scotland would be compliant, so the Indy Scots could vote on the package.
I doubt that indy2 will happen before the 2021 Holyrood elections
1. Keep the same levels of spending as the current Conservative plans for two years, with two exceptions: an emergency NHS cash injection over those two years, funded by freezing Corporation Tax and bringing forward the planned spend on lower Corporation Tax over the parliament into those two years. Secondly, using historically low borrowing costs to build affordable housing, using up to 2% of the Green Belt if needs be, and therefore cut the Housing Benefit bill.
2. Create a Health and Care Tax, and legally ring-fence it for the NHS, public health and Social Care, and establish an independent review body to recommend a level of funding that will gradually bring the NHS portion of the spend up to the EU average without reducing funding for social care. Reduce National Insurance so that this is revenue neutral in year 1. Develop plans to make all but a minimum level of social security spending contributory by the end of the following Parliament.
3. Council Tax to be replaced by a Land Value Tax of 1% of the value of homes and land over £75,000. Pensioners and people aged 55+ can choose to defer payment until the property changes hands.
4. In terms of Brexit, aim to negotiate a transitional deal with freedom of movement subject to an annual cap on numbers and only people with job offers being allowed to migrate.
5. End the Barnett formula and introduce a federal UK with only key functions such as defence, foreign policy and monetary policy remaining at the UK level.
6. Introduce regional top-up MPs as in Holyrood to make votes fairer
7. Appoint Boris Johnson as ambassador to Micronesia.
Could go for that, BUT Micronesia is an agreeable, peaceful location. Perhaps his talents would be better suited to South Sudan?
1) - How to stop recruitment stone dead ... 20 - Jobs for the boys - more beaurocracy - I am sure we have an Act of Parliament already.
One thing good though, any big business that thinks Brexit is the big problem on the horizon will be disabused of that notion when the see Corbyn's shopping list.
Are trade unions even popular any more? Surely membership is dwindling?
As a trade unionist I would be happy with most of it (my other half likes to be on a ZHC).
I think the right for unions to approach workers, and the right of representation would end some of the exploitative practices that we see. Unions being allowed to get on with their day job is a good thing.
Employers being allowed to get on with their day jobs not so much, though, right?
No kidding, that manifesto could be summarised as "the moon on a stick". I'd love to know how the hell Labour intends to pay for it.
By waving a hand at big business and the rich and saying, "They have spare cash, they'll pay for everything."
It's bollocks, of course. Most of the individuals would be on the first plane to New York or Geneva. The businesses that could move would run away, the ones that couldn't would go bankrupt.
"The 1%" already pay 27.5% of the entire income tax take, whilst 44% of all adults pay none at all. And the income tax base has shrunk, and the proportion paid by the very wealthy has increased, under the current Government.
If you keep screwing money out of business and the rich then at some point your returns actually start to go down as they run away. Then you have to extort ever-increasing amounts of money out of a shrinking middle class to compensate. And then you get Venezuela.
God help us if this lot ever get a chance to implement their policies.
Are trade unions even popular any more? Surely membership is dwindling?
As a trade unionist I would be happy with most of it (my other half likes to be on a ZHC).
I think the right for unions to approach workers, and the right of representation would end some of the exploitative practices that we see. Unions being allowed to get on with their day job is a good thing.
I remember my mate having to sneak into work because the pickets were being a bit handy.
Are trade unions even popular any more? Surely membership is dwindling?
As a trade unionist I would be happy with most of it (my other half likes to be on a ZHC).
I think the right for unions to approach workers, and the right of representation would end some of the exploitative practices that we see. Unions being allowed to get on with their day job is a good thing.
Employers being allowed to get on with their day jobs not so much, though, right?
Both employer and employee need representation and advice over terms and conditions.
Good Industrial relations are usually more about co-operation and resolution than conflict.
Ultimately like in Scotland the lib dems in England will become the party of remain and the tories the party of leave. I am a remain union Scottish Tory and I now see that I will have to switch my vote soon or later. Just no real party left that represents me despite my view being the most common one in Scotland. That is unionist remainer
There's no party in Scotland and the UK that represents an internationalist outward looking liberalism. UKIP and the SNP don't, but neither do the Conservatives and Labour. The Lib Dems support the EU but have become somewhat parochial under Farron. Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and even to some extent Thatcher were the real liberal internationalist deal. But they and their like have been swept away.
The conversation between you and @isam is quite amusing, looking back.
Rightwingers with a moral compass, I can respect. But not you, YOU'RE A TROLL.
I'm not a right-winger (my last two parliamentary votes were Lib Dem and Labour), and what on earth are you talking about? I'm flattered that you remember a conversation from nearly two years ago, but it's not significant here.
Labour posted a 20 point plan with 18 points on their website, and I reported that. This was truthful, yet you accused me of lying.
Indepedent and in the EU is a non sequitur. They might as well have asked Indepedent and in the UK.
Echo chamber being echoey shock.
It's not an echo chamber when plenty of people disagree, vigorously and frequently, questioning the echoes and putting forth alternate opinion. What you have identified is some people sharing an opinion, I don't know that that is shocking enough to get on a patronising high horse about - could someone find a quote of yours and then find 2 other ones that agree? My gods, an echo chamber has developed!
No kidding, that manifesto could be summarised as "the moon on a stick". I'd love to know how the hell Labour intends to pay for it.
By waving a hand at big business and the rich and saying, "They have spare cash, they'll pay for everything."
It's bollocks, of course. Most of the individuals would be on the first plane to New York or Geneva. The businesses that could move would run away, the ones that couldn't would go bankrupt.
"The 1%" already pay 27.5% of the entire income tax take, whilst 44% of all adults pay none at all. And the income tax base has shrunk, and the proportion paid by the very wealthy has increased, under the current Government.
If you keep screwing money out of business and the rich then at some point your returns actually start to go down as they run away. Then you have to extort ever-increasing amounts of money out of a shrinking middle class to compensate. And then you get Venezuela.
God help us if this lot ever get a chance to implement their policies.
Thank you BlackrRook,
I was going to post somthng simmiler in reply, but you have done it, and worded better than I could.
it is worth noting that the amount and proportion of tax pain by the top 1% went up when the rate was cut from 50% to 45% and while it is impossible to calculate in advance it is most likely that an additional cut would boost the tax paid by the rich even more, with the optimal rate for revenues maximization probably about 37.5%
The conversation between you and @isam is quite amusing, looking back.
Rightwingers with a moral compass, I can respect. But not you, YOU'RE A TROLL.
I'm not a right-winger (my last two parliamentary votes were Lib Dem and Labour), and what on earth are you talking about? I'm flattered that you remember a conversation from nearly two years ago, but it's not significant here.
Labour posted a 20 point plan with 18 points on their website, and I reported that. This was truthful, yet you accused me of lying.
Please retract.
Seriously, I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF LYING.
I may have accused you of being a right winger - which - if you self identify as something else, well, then I withdraw that allegation.
May appears to be approaching Brexit in the same way Trump approached the Presidency
We are going to build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it
We will not pay an exit bill
We will repeal and replace Obamacare
We will get access to the single market without freedom of movement
And she is not going to be as successful...
We'll get a FTA. Even the EU's own trade commissioner says so!
I don't know why everyone has leapt on that comment. She clearly said it would be after Brexit, so no different to the line from the EU since the beginning. She won't be given the authority to negotiate a trade deal with the UK before Brexit happens.
Indepedent and in the EU is a non sequitur. They might as well have asked Indepedent and in the UK.
Echo chamber being echoey shock.
It's not an echo chamber when plenty of people disagree, vigorously and frequently, questioning the echoes and putting forth alternate opinion. What you have identified is some people sharing an opinion, I don't know that that is shocking enough to get on a patronising high horse about - could someone find a quote of yours and then find 2 other ones that agree? My gods, an echo chamber has developed!
You don't think it's amusing that three people made an almost identical (& crushingly banal) point within minutes of each other?
In any case, you seem to have got a bit over excited if you think that's me getting so shocked that I'm getting on my 'patronising high horse'. I can do a lot better than that.
The conversation between you and @isam is quite amusing, looking back.
Rightwingers with a moral compass, I can respect. But not you, YOU'RE A TROLL.
I'm not a right-winger (my last two parliamentary votes were Lib Dem and Labour), and what on earth are you talking about? I'm flattered that you remember a conversation from nearly two years ago, but it's not significant here.
Labour posted a 20 point plan with 18 points on their website, and I reported that. This was truthful, yet you accused me of lying.
Please retract.
Seriously, I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF LYING
I may have accused you of being a right winger - which - if you self identify as something else, well, then I withdraw that allegation.
I'M ACCUSING YOU OF TROLLING.
You did accuse me of lying: you accused me of "posting fake news". I posted true news.
Please withdraw the accusation of "posting fake news".
The conversation between you and @isam is quite amusing, looking back.
Rightwingers with a moral compass, I can respect. But not you, YOU'RE A TROLL.
I'm not a right-winger (my last two parliamentary votes were Lib Dem and Labour), and what on earth are you talking about? I'm flattered that you remember a conversation from nearly two years ago, but it's not significant here.
Labour posted a 20 point plan with 18 points on their website, and I reported that. This was truthful, yet you accused me of lying.
Please retract.
Seriously, I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF LYING.
I may have accused you of being a right winger - which - if you self identify as something else, well, then I withdraw that allegation.
The conversation between you and @isam is quite amusing, looking back.
Rightwingers with a moral compass, I can respect. But not you, YOU'RE A TROLL.
I'm not a right-winger (my last two parliamentary votes were Lib Dem and Labour), and what on earth are you talking about? I'm flattered that you remember a conversation from nearly two years ago, but it's not significant here.
Labour posted a 20 point plan with 18 points on their website, and I reported that. This was truthful, yet you accused me of lying.
Please retract.
Seriously, I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF LYING
I may have accused you of being a right winger - which - if you self identify as something else, well, then I withdraw that allegation.
I'M ACCUSING YOU OF TROLLING.
You did accuse me of lying: you accused me of "posting fake news". I posted true news.
Please withdraw the accusation of "posting fake news".
The conversation between you and @isam is quite amusing, looking back.
Rightwingers with a moral compass, I can respect. But not you, YOU'RE A TROLL.
I'm not a right-winger (my last two parliamentary votes were Lib Dem and Labour), and what on earth are you talking about? I'm flattered that you remember a conversation from nearly two years ago, but it's not significant here.
Labour posted a 20 point plan with 18 points on their website, and I reported that. This was truthful, yet you accused me of lying.
Please retract.
Seriously, I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU OF LYING
I may have accused you of being a right winger - which - if you self identify as something else, well, then I withdraw that allegation.
I'M ACCUSING YOU OF TROLLING.
You did accuse me of lying: you accused me of "posting fake news". I posted true news.
Please withdraw the accusation of "posting fake news".
Now this, apparently, is a translation of part of the German article on what supposedly happened in the May-Juncker meeting at Downing St.
The first thing that strikes me as odd is the suggestion that the Prime Minister said she didn't want to pay any money in respect of UK liabilities. Insofar as I am aware, she has never suggested that Britain owes the EU nothing. I've actually just been watching a clip of May on the Andrew Marr Show this morning; she said that she knows the EU wants to talk about money; what she didn't do is take the opportunity to say "but they're wrong." I fully expect that, if the EU and UK can come to a reasonable agreement, it will involve the UK agreeing to pay its fair share of accumulated obligations, and the EU agreeing to hand over its fair share of accumulated assets (or monetary compensation, in the case of fixed assets like buildings.) Next.
May apparently re-iterated the view that Brexit would be a success. Brussels, apparently, believes that this cannot be the case because the UK cannot be better off as a third party rather than an EU member. This doesn't suggest that May has asked for a relationship with the EU that is identical to the current one, but from which all the things we find objectionable have been removed - rather, it reflects a fundamental difference of opinion in terms of the value of the European Union itself. The UK Government believes it can do perfectly well without the EU; the EU believes this to be impossible. Next.
May wants a swift deal on the status of EU nationals, but the EU thinks that this is impossible because it wants its citizens in the UK to continue to have all sorts of (unspecified) additional rights after the UK has left the EU. I'm not completely sure what's going on here, but I'm taking it to assume that the European Union wants to guarantee the right of EU nationals to continue to live, in effect, under the jurisdiction of EU law (with respect, presumably, to issues such as employment rights) after the UK has left the EU itself. Whereas the UK Government most likely just wants to give everybody who was here up until a certain date (either the date of the referendum or the date we leave) the right to continue to stay for as long as they like. If this is anything like the case then it would be the EU not the UK that would be acting delusionally: no sovereign state can be expected to allow most of the people on its territory to be subject to its laws, but a substantial group to live under somebody else's. It would be rather like giving several million people a weird form of partial diplomatic immunity. It would be crackers.
Of course, its entirely possible that these reports are based on garbled information or are straightforwardly false. The truth will out in the weeks after the election, when the Government can get on with the start of negotiations. We don't have too long to wait to find out.
The most incredible - and stupid - comment was David Davis assertion that as we would be out of the ECJ nothing we committed to would be enforceable.
Sorry, once we are out of the EU the rule of the ECJ will cease. That is one of the things May has been consistent on. So if we have EU citizens here, their rights will be guaranteed by our laws and our courts. It isn't complicated.
Actually, I take great comfort from that report. Clearly, May is not going to cave on our negotiating points just because Druncker tells her to.
It is simple - all EU citizens living here stay as UK citizens subject to UK laws. The EU have lost their senses if they think the ECJ will have any rule in this matter
Just another example of the EU not thinking it through
I had lunch with a Scotsman, he believes that independent Scotland will have no trouble in joining the EU, as the EU will compell England to continue the Barnett payments... I just nodded.
I had lunch with a Scotsman, he believes that independent Scotland will have no trouble in joining the EU, as the EU will compell England to continue the Barnett payments... I just nodded.
The most incredible - and stupid - comment was David Davis assertion that as we would be out of the ECJ nothing we committed to would be enforceable.
Sorry, once we are out of the EU the rule of the ECJ will cease. That is one of the things May has been consistent on. So if we have EU citizens here, their rights will be guaranteed by our laws and our courts. It isn't complicated.
Formally that might* be correct. But think of the implication of Davis' remark: we don't intend to negotiate in good faith. How can we get a good deal or be trusted on anything on that basis?
* That's Mrs May's intention, but it might not be immediate or total. We'll see.
I had lunch with a Scotsman, he believes that independent Scotland will have no trouble in joining the EU, as the EU will compell England to continue the Barnett payments... I just nodded.
No TRUE scotsman would beleive that.
FWIW I think the EU are out of their depth here - they have never had to negotiate a position where they weren't holding the whip hand and it was obvious to all how that lay. Now they are facing a determined opponent. They are probably looking for a safe space.
The most incredible - and stupid - comment was David Davis assertion that as we would be out of the ECJ nothing we committed to would be enforceable.
Sorry, once we are out of the EU the rule of the ECJ will cease. That is one of the things May has been consistent on. So if we have EU citizens here, their rights will be guaranteed by our laws and our courts. It isn't complicated.
Formally that might* be correct. But think of the implication of Davis' remark: we don't intend to negotiate in good faith. How can we get a good deal or be trusted on anything on that basis?
* That's Mrs May's intention, but it might not be immediate or total. We'll see.
How can we trust the EU to negotiate unless we take as hard a line as they take with us. This will be a battle but in the end a fudge will happen and a deal struck.
Ukip's 'rampant rabbi': Candidate in sex role-play scandal with woman he met on bondage site won't even shake female rivals' hands 'on religious grounds'
Ukip's 'rampant rabbi': Candidate in sex role-play scandal with woman he met on bondage site won't even shake female rivals' hands 'on religious grounds'
I had lunch with a Scotsman, he believes that independent Scotland will have no trouble in joining the EU, as the EU will compell England to continue the Barnett payments... I just nodded.
Oh my days. Was he smoking a crack pipe at the time?
'FWIW I think the EU are out of their depth here - they have never had to negotiate a position where they weren't holding the whip hand and it was obvious to all how that lay. Now they are facing a determined opponent. They are probably looking for a safe space.'
Problem is people don't know whether the contradictory statements from Junker are made when he's pissed or sober.
The most incredible - and stupid - comment was David Davis assertion that as we would be out of the ECJ nothing we committed to would be enforceable.
Sorry, once we are out of the EU the rule of the ECJ will cease. That is one of the things May has been consistent on. So if we have EU citizens here, their rights will be guaranteed by our laws and our courts. It isn't complicated.
Formally that might* be correct. But think of the implication of Davis' remark: we don't intend to negotiate in good faith. How can we get a good deal or be trusted on anything on that basis?
* That's Mrs May's intention, but it might not be immediate or total. We'll see.
I didn't see the "agreement couldn't be enforced" in any translation. What is clear is that the ECJ can't have jurisdiction, and if we break a treaty commitment so can they (and vice versa)
'FWIW I think the EU are out of their depth here - they have never had to negotiate a position where they weren't holding the whip hand and it was obvious to all how that lay. Now they are facing a determined opponent. They are probably looking for a safe space.'
Problem is people don't know whether the contradictory statements from Junker are made when he's pissed or sober.
Ukip's 'rampant rabbi': Candidate in sex role-play scandal with woman he met on bondage site won't even shake female rivals' hands 'on religious grounds'
The most incredible - and stupid - comment was David Davis assertion that as we would be out of the ECJ nothing we committed to would be enforceable.
Sorry, once we are out of the EU the rule of the ECJ will cease. That is one of the things May has been consistent on. So if we have EU citizens here, their rights will be guaranteed by our laws and our courts. It isn't complicated.
Formally that might* be correct. But think of the implication of Davis' remark: we don't intend to negotiate in good faith. How can we get a good deal or be trusted on anything on that basis?
* That's Mrs May's intention, but it might not be immediate or total. We'll see.
I didn't see the "agreement couldn't be enforced" in any translation. What is clear is that the ECJ can't have jurisdiction, and if we break a treaty commitment so can they (and vice versa)
It's there in the FAZ text. Davis says that the EU couldn't enforce its demands once we were no longer under ECJ jurisdiction:
Brexit-Minister Davis wandte ein, dass die EU ihre Forderungen ja gar nicht durchsetzen koenne, wenn London ausgeschieden sei und nicht mehr dem Europaeischen Gerichtshof unterliege.
Ukip's 'rampant rabbi': Candidate in sex role-play scandal with woman he met on bondage site won't even shake female rivals' hands 'on religious grounds'
I had lunch with a Scotsman, he believes that independent Scotland will have no trouble in joining the EU, as the EU will compell England to continue the Barnett payments... I just nodded.
The most incredible - and stupid - comment was David Davis assertion that as we would be out of the ECJ nothing we committed to would be enforceable.
Sorry, once we are out of the EU the rule of the ECJ will cease. That is one of the things May has been consistent on. So if we have EU citizens here, their rights will be guaranteed by our laws and our courts. It isn't complicated.
Formally that might* be correct. But think of the implication of Davis' remark: we don't intend to negotiate in good faith. How can we get a good deal or be trusted on anything on that basis?
* That's Mrs May's intention, but it might not be immediate or total. We'll see.
I didn't see the "agreement couldn't be enforced" in any translation. What is clear is that the ECJ can't have jurisdiction, and if we break a treaty commitment so can they (and vice versa)
It's there in the FAZ text. Davis says that the EU couldn't enforce its demands once we were no longer under ECJ jurisdiction:
Brexit-Minister Davis wandte ein, dass die EU ihre Forderungen ja gar nicht durchsetzen koenne, wenn London ausgeschieden sei und nicht mehr dem Europaeischen Gerichtshof unterliege.
Google says:
Brexit minister Davis argued that the EU could not enforce its demands when London had left and was no longer subject to the European Court of Justice
Which is perfectly correct. It can't. EU citizens in the UK will be subject to UK law and UK courts and no other. The reverse is also the case.
The writ of the EU and ECJ will stop at the Southern Irish border and the channel. It isn't either complicated or controversial.
Ukip's 'rampant rabbi': Candidate in sex role-play scandal with woman he met on bondage site won't even shake female rivals' hands 'on religious grounds'
Comments
I think the three question format is somewhat leading and likely exaggerates support for independence overall. It would be better to break it into two questions. Do you support independence? If so, do you want to be in the EU or out of it?
[drum-roll]
..this week's Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week)!
Average of Nine polls with fieldwork ending 24th to 30th April (inc. ORB):
Con 46.33 (+0.83)
Lab 28.11 (+2.01)
LibDem 10.22 (-0.18)
UKIP 6.67 (-1.93)
Tory lead 18.22 (-1.18)
JICIPM?
(NB, last week's figures adjusted for a late, stray ORB from 20th Apr).
The Conservative Party has become more populist, even if lead by a dull, dutiful, serious middle-aged woman with little on her CV . Doing so, it takes the wind out of the UKIP's sails.
SHOCKED.
Populism is about simple solutions to complex problems, and tends to disintegrate in contact with reality. Trump is the most obvious example of this at the moment, with his 100 days of backtracking.
I shall keep a more careful eye on your postings from now on.
2) - Most people on ZHC like them
3) - Bang goes any pretence Labour have of being Pro EU _ British Jobs for British Workers.
4) - Cannot comment - except would need evidence for assertion.
5) - Guarantee Union Zealots can intimidate workers.
6) - Wouldn't make much difference - Employers would amend contracts.
7) - Great Idea - encourage more firms to leave for Eastern Europe. help the EU. Excellent!
8) - Thought wages were going up by 1% - other than high earners. Increased taxes.
9) - Do we still have TUPE?
10 - Laughable. What would happen is that a company would set up a subsidiary, with high earners being employed by the main company and 'on loan' or advisors to the subsidiary.
11- This affects very few - (What happened to Apprentiships by the way)
12 - Does this mean that all firms have to hire a trade union representative - to do SFA for 350 days a year?
13 - The problem is: if something is free then people try it on.
14 - Also on offer - hormone treatment so that male lactating occurs as well.
15 - Already protected
16 - I am sure I heard the word 'SCAB' a few times in the 1980s. Blaclisting goes both ways.
17 - WTF are these? Non productive layabouts.
18 - Will this extend to protection from secondary picketing????? - see 5.
19 - Non-sequitur
20 - Jobs for the boys - more beaurocracy - I am sure we have an Act of Parliament already.
I think the right for unions to approach workers, and the right of representation would end some of the exploitative practices that we see. Unions being allowed to get on with their day job is a good thing.
I suppose Tory Tribalism trumps everything.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/08/31/the-big-lab-leadership-news-is-the-sun-report-that-corbyn-described-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden-as-a-tragedy/
The conversation between you and @isam is quite amusing, looking back.
Rightwingers with a moral compass, I can respect. But not you, YOU'RE A TROLL.
See my previous post. Get someone to read it (and explain it ) to you
It's bollocks, of course. Most of the individuals would be on the first plane to New York or Geneva. The businesses that could move would run away, the ones that couldn't would go bankrupt.
Also, this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/u-k-s-top-1-of-earners-now-paying-a-quarter-of-all-income-tax
"The 1%" already pay 27.5% of the entire income tax take, whilst 44% of all adults pay none at all. And the income tax base has shrunk, and the proportion paid by the very wealthy has increased, under the current Government.
If you keep screwing money out of business and the rich then at some point your returns actually start to go down as they run away. Then you have to extort ever-increasing amounts of money out of a shrinking middle class to compensate. And then you get Venezuela.
God help us if this lot ever get a chance to implement their policies.
Thanks but no thanks.
May has no idea what she is doing
Good Industrial relations are usually more about co-operation and resolution than conflict.
Labour posted a 20 point plan with 18 points on their website, and I reported that. This was truthful, yet you accused me of lying.
Please retract.
https://medium.com/@stewartwood6887/theresa-mays-mistaken-precedent-for-a-brexit-based-on-cherry-picking-1e2e6a3b9985
I'm surprised he remembers anything after a dinner, though.
I was going to post somthng simmiler in reply, but you have done it, and worded better than I could.
it is worth noting that the amount and proportion of tax pain by the top 1% went up when the rate was cut from 50% to 45% and while it is impossible to calculate in advance it is most likely that an additional cut would boost the tax paid by the rich even more, with the optimal rate for revenues maximization probably about 37.5%
We are going to build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it
We will not pay an exit bill
We will repeal and replace Obamacare
We will get access to the single market without freedom of movement
And she is not going to be as successful...
I'd rather lick piss off the ground that kowtow to that toerag.
I may have accused you of being a right winger - which - if you self identify as something else, well, then I withdraw that allegation.
I'M ACCUSING YOU OF TROLLING.
In any case, you seem to have got a bit over excited if you think that's me getting so shocked that I'm getting on my 'patronising high horse'. I can do a lot better than that.
Please withdraw the accusation of "posting fake news".
Jesus wept.
Bad deal is better than no deal - 22%
Todays you gov
(Hint: there are 18.)
Now this, apparently, is a translation of part of the German article on what supposedly happened in the May-Juncker meeting at Downing St.
The first thing that strikes me as odd is the suggestion that the Prime Minister said she didn't want to pay any money in respect of UK liabilities. Insofar as I am aware, she has never suggested that Britain owes the EU nothing. I've actually just been watching a clip of May on the Andrew Marr Show this morning; she said that she knows the EU wants to talk about money; what she didn't do is take the opportunity to say "but they're wrong." I fully expect that, if the EU and UK can come to a reasonable agreement, it will involve the UK agreeing to pay its fair share of accumulated obligations, and the EU agreeing to hand over its fair share of accumulated assets (or monetary compensation, in the case of fixed assets like buildings.) Next.
May apparently re-iterated the view that Brexit would be a success. Brussels, apparently, believes that this cannot be the case because the UK cannot be better off as a third party rather than an EU member. This doesn't suggest that May has asked for a relationship with the EU that is identical to the current one, but from which all the things we find objectionable have been removed - rather, it reflects a fundamental difference of opinion in terms of the value of the European Union itself. The UK Government believes it can do perfectly well without the EU; the EU believes this to be impossible. Next.
May wants a swift deal on the status of EU nationals, but the EU thinks that this is impossible because it wants its citizens in the UK to continue to have all sorts of (unspecified) additional rights after the UK has left the EU. I'm not completely sure what's going on here, but I'm taking it to assume that the European Union wants to guarantee the right of EU nationals to continue to live, in effect, under the jurisdiction of EU law (with respect, presumably, to issues such as employment rights) after the UK has left the EU itself. Whereas the UK Government most likely just wants to give everybody who was here up until a certain date (either the date of the referendum or the date we leave) the right to continue to stay for as long as they like. If this is anything like the case then it would be the EU not the UK that would be acting delusionally: no sovereign state can be expected to allow most of the people on its territory to be subject to its laws, but a substantial group to live under somebody else's. It would be rather like giving several million people a weird form of partial diplomatic immunity. It would be crackers.
Of course, its entirely possible that these reports are based on garbled information or are straightforwardly false. The truth will out in the weeks after the election, when the Government can get on with the start of negotiations. We don't have too long to wait to find out.
Just another example of the EU not thinking it through
@faisalislam: This thread is an English account of the German language takes on May-Juncker dinner...
Do you believe everything you read on twitter ?
* That's Mrs May's intention, but it might not be immediate or total. We'll see.
FWIW I think the EU are out of their depth here - they have never had to negotiate a position where they weren't holding the whip hand and it was obvious to all how that lay. Now they are facing a determined opponent. They are probably looking for a safe space.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4459182/Sex-role-play-shame-Ukip-s-rampant-rabbi.html
Problem is people don't know whether the contradictory statements from Junker are made when he's pissed or sober.
Brexit-Minister Davis wandte ein, dass die EU ihre Forderungen ja gar nicht durchsetzen koenne, wenn London ausgeschieden sei und nicht mehr dem Europaeischen Gerichtshof unterliege.
Brexit minister Davis argued that the EU could not enforce its demands when London had left and was no longer subject to the European Court of Justice
Which is perfectly correct. It can't. EU citizens in the UK will be subject to UK law and UK courts and no other. The reverse is also the case.
The writ of the EU and ECJ will stop at the Southern Irish border and the channel. It isn't either complicated or controversial.
Out of all the people in my contacts list, he was the last person I'd expect this from.
If you think I have probably have 30 or so gay friends on my contacts list, poor Tim Farron's going to be so confused.
Shneur's standing as UKIP's candidate in the Manchester Mayoral election.
I wasn't expecting him to do well in Remain friendly Manchester.
UKIP candidate spanked in the polls, that sort of stuff.