Damnit. My reply got eaten. So I'll be very brief.
All treaties contain dispute resolution mechanisms. The EU likes to use the ECJ, and many of the FTAs it has signed include the ECJ as an arbiter. The ECJ, in this case, has no ability to overrule a national government, merely to judge that a country is not in adherence with its treaty obligations. The greatest sanction the court could - theoretically - wield in these circumstances would be to suspend the agreement*.
So, saying "ECJ jurisdiction" can mean very different things, and people need to be more precise in their language.
I don't think that's enough for the EU in this case. In effect that's how the Swiss EU bilaterals are governed. It creates imbalances as Swiss individuals and companies can sue EU entities and governments under EU law but EU individuals and companies can't do the same in Switzerland. Unless the EU tells the Swiss government what laws to enact and Swiss courts how to interpret those laws, which is judicial overreach. It's a genuinely tricky issue, but one the EU is not going to be flexible on. They (correctly) believe EU membership is there to deal with that issue.
I don't think you're correct. If you look at the description of the EU-Swiss bilaterals, it is made clear that the ECJ has no say.
Page 4, bottom right hand corner says explicitly that no rights are passed to the ECJ as part of the EU-Switzerland bilaterals.
Correct. The EU now reckon they made a mistake for the reasons I gave. They won't repeat it with us. Also because the problem is addressed by EU membership and they want to promote EU membership.
Didn't we discuss on pb the viability of blocking phone calls to drivers given both the phone and the network can detect driving?
Technically, the phone can detect travelling in a vehicle. I'm not sure what this feature is supposed to provide that just turning the phone off doesn't.
Damnit. My reply got eaten. So I'll be very brief.
All treaties contain dispute resolution mechanisms. The EU likes to use the ECJ, and many of the FTAs it has signed include the ECJ as an arbiter. The ECJ, in this case, has no ability to overrule a national government, merely to judge that a country is not in adherence with its treaty obligations. The greatest sanction the court could - theoretically - wield in these circumstances would be to suspend the agreement*.
So, saying "ECJ jurisdiction" can mean very different things, and people need to be more precise in their language.
I don't think that's enough for the EU in this case. In effect that's how the Swiss EU bilaterals are governed. It creates imbalances as Swiss individuals and companies can sue EU entities and governments under EU law but EU individuals and companies can't do the same in Switzerland. Unless the EU tells the Swiss government what laws to enact and Swiss courts how to interpret those laws, which is judicial overreach. It's a genuinely tricky issue, but one the EU is not going to be flexible on. They (correctly) believe EU membership is there to deal with that issue.
I don't think you're correct. If you look at the description of the EU-Swiss bilaterals, it is made clear that the ECJ has no say.
Page 4, bottom right hand corner says explicitly that no rights are passed to the ECJ as part of the EU-Switzerland bilaterals.
Correct. The EU now reckon they made a mistake for the reasons I gave. They won't repeat it with us. Also because the problem is addressed by EU membership and they want to promote EU membership.
I'm confused.
I said that allowing the ECJ to act as an arbiter on whether a country was in line with treaty obligation wrt to trade was not the same as them being able to overrule a country's laws. (Which is the case in a number of the EU's FTAs.)
You said this was like Switzerland. And the EU wasn't happy about it.
I then pointed out that the ECJ doesn't arbitrate on the Switzerland deal.
So I don't really understand your point.
Truth be told, there are many different dispute resolution mechanisms for the EU with FTA parties: bilateral committees with Switzerland, through independent tribunals (Canada), to bodies staffed with a majority of EU members (Israel), though to the ECJ (Norway). But even when the ECJ is the arbiter, the greatest punishment it can inflict for non-compliance is to suspend the agreement. (Which, as far I understand it, has never happened.)
Didn't we discuss on pb the viability of blocking phone calls to drivers given both the phone and the network can detect driving?
"With the automatic setting, Do Not Disturb While Driving will turn on whenever your iPhone detects the acceleration of a vehicle,"
It doesn't detect if you're a passenger though. You have to remember to tell it that.
I use my phone as a GPS when I'm driving and you'd think that app would automatically prevent calls coming through. But it doesn't. That'd be a simple improvement ... "Do Not Disturb When Using Me To Navigate"
Didn't we discuss on pb the viability of blocking phone calls to drivers given both the phone and the network can detect driving?
Technically, the phone can detect travelling in a vehicle. I'm not sure what this feature is supposed to provide that just turning the phone off doesn't.
Damnit. My reply got eaten. So I'll be very brief.
All treaties contain dispute resolution mechanisms. The EU likes to use the ECJ, and many of the FTAs it has signed include the ECJ as an arbiter. The ECJ, in this case, has no ability to overrule a national government, merely to judge that a country is not in adherence with its treaty obligations. The greatest sanction the court could - theoretically - wield in these circumstances would be to suspend the agreement*.
So, saying "ECJ jurisdiction" can mean very different things, and people need to be more precise in their language.
I don't think that's enough for the EU in this case. In effect that's how the Swiss EU bilaterals are governed. It creates imbalances as Swiss individuals and companies can sue EU entities and governments under EU law but EU individuals and companies can't do the same in Switzerland. Unless the EU tells the Swiss government what laws to enact and Swiss courts how to interpret those laws, which is judicial overreach. It's a genuinely tricky issue, but one the EU is not going to be flexible on. They (correctly) believe EU membership is there to deal with that issue.
I don't think you're correct. If you look at the description of the EU-Swiss bilaterals, it is made clear that the ECJ has no say.
Page 4, bottom right hand corner says explicitly that no rights are passed to the ECJ as part of the EU-Switzerland bilaterals.
Correct. The EU now reckon they made a mistake for the reasons I gave. They won't repeat it with us. Also because the problem is addressed by EU membership and they want to promote EU membership.
More on this. With EU membership decisions are made collectively and applied collectively. We have rejected collective decision making and the EU will carry on making the decisions. So now the decision making will be unilateral (not by us) and not applied consistently (Swiss arrangement); applied on a do what you are told basis (EEA); or the relationship is abandoned. The Swiss arrangement is detrimental to the EU and won't be offered to us. The last two are our choice.
I don't think that's enough for the EU in this case. In effect that's how the Swiss EU bilaterals are governed. It creates imbalances as Swiss individuals and companies can sue EU entities and governments under EU law but EU individuals and companies can't do the same in Switzerland. Unless the EU tells the Swiss government what laws to enact and Swiss courts how to interpret those laws, which is judicial overreach. It's a genuinely tricky issue, but one the EU is not going to be flexible on. They (correctly) believe EU membership is there to deal with that issue.
I don't think you're correct. If you look at the description of the EU-Swiss bilaterals, it is made clear that the ECJ has no say.
Page 4, bottom right hand corner says explicitly that no rights are passed to the ECJ as part of the EU-Switzerland bilaterals.
Correct. The EU now reckon they made a mistake for the reasons I gave. They won't repeat it with us. Also because the problem is addressed by EU membership and they want to promote EU membership.
I'm confused.
I said that allowing the ECJ to act as an arbiter on whether a country was in line with treaty obligation wrt to trade was not the same as them being able to overrule a country's laws. (Which is the case in a number of the EU's FTAs.)
You said this was like Switzerland. And the EU wasn't happy about it.
I then pointed out that the ECJ doesn't arbitrate on the Switzerland deal.
So I don't really understand your point.
Truth be told, there are many different dispute resolution mechanisms for the EU with FTA parties: bilateral committees with Switzerland, through independent tribunals (Canada), to bodies staffed with a majority of EU members (Israel), though to the ECJ (Norway). But even when the ECJ is the arbiter, the greatest punishment it can inflict for non-compliance is to suspend the agreement. (Which, as far I understand it, has never happened.)
The point is Switzerland is not obliged to implement treaty provisions into Swiss law in the same way as they are actually implemented in the EU. Nor are Swiss courts required to interpret the law in the same way. That creates an uneven playing field where a Swiss company, say, can sue a German company under German domestic law, which is obliged to implement EU law and follow ECJ case law, but where the German company has no similar redress under Swiss law. It's a big, big issue.
Page 4, bottom right hand corner says explicitly that no rights are passed to the ECJ as part of the EU-Switzerland bilaterals.
Correct. The EU now reckon they made a mistake for the reasons I gave. They won't repeat it with us. Also because the problem is addressed by EU membership and they want to promote EU membership.
More on this. With EU membership decisions are made collectively and applied collectively. We have rejected collective decision making and the EU will carry on making the decisions. So now the decision making will be unilateral (not by us) and not applied consistently (Swiss arrangement); applied on a do what you are told basis (EEA); or the relationship is abandoned. The Swiss arrangement is detrimental to the EU and won't be offered to us. The last two are our choice.
I think you are taking a relatively complicated topic and simplifying too much. The EU and Swiss relationship has been built up over about 40 years, with increasing levels of integration over the period, but all within the context of the Swiss population's concerns about sovereignty.
Any bespoke relationship between the UK and the EU would also take a considerable period to evolve. Really, the question we have is what is the starting point from which we negotiate. Do we go for WTO, a simple FTA* or EEA.
I have always favoured time limited EEA (say five years), as it would solve the money problem for the EU, and allow us to work with the EU (and other countries around the world). It would be a gradual disentanglement from the bloc, and that would work to both our advantage.
* The truth is that FTAs tend not to be simple, because there will be wrangling over dispute mechanisms, about the extent to which subsidised French farmers can undercut British ones, about how to prevent countries from erecting NTBs, etc. To put in context, the world's simplest FTA - between the Maldives and China - is into its fifth year of discussions.
The data provided in the table needs to be viewed in the context of Labour having increased its vote share across Scotland by circa 3% in 2017 compared with 2015. On that basis Labour significantly underperformed in 6 of the 13 seats listed.In Aberdeen South the Labour vote fell by over 6% which effectively represented underperformance there of 9%. East Renfrew saw Labour underperform by over 10% and the figure for Ochil & S Perthshire was over 11%. It raises the interesting question as to why this happened. Did Labour voters misdirect themselves on the basis that their own candidate appeared to be out of the race and on that basis voted Tory as the most effective anti-SNP option? Had such voters been aware that Labour was actually modestly strengthening its position in Scotland and about to increase its representation from 1 to 7 MPs would they have voted differently and been more inclined to stick with Labour? I suspect that many of them would have done so - and indeed are likely to switch back next time. The potential for a very sharp Labour recovery in Scotland is particularly marked in those seats where Labour fell back this year, and I would not be surpised to see Labour jump in vote share from the 20% - 25% range to 35% to 40% in several of them to win from third place at Tory expense.Up to 5 of those Tory seats could be vulnerable to a Labour recovery next time. I already fully expect Labour to pick up up 15 to 20 seats from the SNP and there is a realistic possibility they will end up with over 30 seats and once again comfortably the largest party in Scotland.
Page 4, bottom right hand corner says explicitly that no rights are passed to the ECJ as part of the EU-Switzerland bilaterals.
Correct. The EU now reckon they made a mistake for the reasons I gave. They won't repeat it with us. Also because the problem is addressed by EU membership and they want to promote EU membership.
More on this. With EU membership decisions are made collectively and applied collectively. We have rejected collective decision making and the EU will carry on making the decisions. So now the decision making will be unilateral (not by us) and not applied consistently (Swiss arrangement); applied on a do what you are told basis (EEA); or the relationship is abandoned. The Swiss arrangement is detrimental to the EU and won't be offered to us. The last two are our choice.
I think you are taking a relatively complicated topic and simplifying too much. The EU and Swiss relationship has been built up over about 40 years, with increasing levels of integration over the period, but all within the context of the Swiss population's concerns about sovereignty.
Any bespoke relationship between the UK and the EU would also take a considerable period to evolve. Really, the question we have is what is the starting point from which we negotiate. Do we go for WTO, a simple FTA* or EEA.
I have always favoured time limited EEA (say five years), as it would solve the money problem for the EU, and allow us to work with the EU (and other countries around the world). It would be a gradual disentanglement from the bloc, and that would work to both our advantage.
* The truth is that FTAs tend not to be simple, because there will be wrangling over dispute mechanisms, about the extent to which subsidised French farmers can undercut British ones, about how to prevent countries from erecting NTBs, etc. To put in context, the world's simplest FTA - between the Maldives and China - is into its fifth year of discussions.
So the Chinese negotiators enjoy regular all expenses paid trips to the Maldives?
I think the real key to cutting phone usage at the wheel is trying to make it as socially unacceptable as drink driving. Yes people still do it, but thankfully gone are the days when people used to drink several pints and then proclaim proudly to their mates that they can handle their drink and so not a problem.
At the moment, it seems that it is still perfectly ok to people to fiddle with their phone even when other people are in the car with them.
There would be far less of a problem with this if it were investors building new, decent quality holiday lets.
But that doesn't seem to be what is happening.
I believe a not insignificant factor is the likes of AirBnB. Its a great service, but when you look on the site these days it isn't just somebody letting out their spare room, it is clearly investors buying up flats / houses specifically to rent out via AirBnB. They can get more than a standard rent even if they only rent it for 6-7 days of the month.
Page 4, bottom right hand corner says explicitly that no rights are passed to the ECJ as part of the EU-Switzerland bilaterals.
Correct. The EU now reckon they made a mistake for the reasons I gave. They won't repeat it with us. Also because the problem is addressed by EU membership and they want to promote EU membership.
More on this. With EU membership decisions are made collectively and applied collectively. We have rejected collective decision making and the EU will carry on making the decisions. So now the decision making will be unilateral (not by us) and not applied consistently (Swiss arrangement); applied on a do what you are told basis (EEA); or the relationship is abandoned. The Swiss arrangement is detrimental to the EU and won't be offered to us. The last two are our choice.
I think you are taking a relatively complicated topic and simplifying too much. The EU and Swiss relationship has been built up over about 40 years, with increasing levels of integration over the period, but all within the context of the Swiss population's concerns about sovereignty.
Any bespoke relationship between the UK and the EU would also take a considerable period to evolve. Really, the question we have is what is the starting point from which we negotiate. Do we go for WTO, a simple FTA* or EEA.
I have always favoured time limited EEA (say five years), as it would solve the money problem for the EU, and allow us to work with the EU (and other countries around the world). It would be a gradual disentanglement from the bloc, and that would work to both our advantage.
* The truth is that FTAs tend not to be simple, because there will be wrangling over dispute mechanisms, about the extent to which subsidised French farmers can undercut British ones, about how to prevent countries from erecting NTBs, etc. To put in context, the world's simplest FTA - between the Maldives and China - is into its fifth year of discussions.
Fair enough. I am just pointing out that the EU reckons the Swiss arrangement was a mistake, si they are not likely to replicate something similar for us. Also these are issues that EU membership is designed to deal with. The Swiss bilaterals were drawn up in the context of Switzerland moving towards EU membership while we are unilaterally moving away, so they want to stress the benefits of membership.
Tactical voting certainly did do it for the Tories in Aberdeen South. A relative of mine who I have just visited voted Tory for the first time in her life and indeed campaigned with other like minded Labour supporters who were anti nationalist to do the same.
The Tories won Aberdeen South in 1992 though so again it was also blues returning home
That was a very different seat though - far smaller and compact that the constituency which now bears the same label.
Protesters are gathering outside BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place where speakers include Owen Jones and the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Diane Abbott. They will head to Parliament Square where union leaders Len McCluskey and Frances O’Grady will join Corbyn and others.
Demonstrators are using the hashtag #notonedaymore on Twitter to publicise the event.
[snip] To put in context, the world's simplest FTA - between the Maldives and China - is into its fifth year of discussions.
Yeah, I'd hate to be stuck on that project. Travelling to the Maldives for years must be hell.
If I were in Govt. I'd have more important FTA goals. The West Indies. By an utter coincidence the discussions would happen on islands hosting Test matches at the time.
But don't worry. I'll have the whole FTA sewn up in, hmmm, I reckon 20 years should do it.
Protesters are gathering outside BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place where speakers include Owen Jones and the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Diane Abbott. They will head to Parliament Square where union leaders Len McCluskey and Frances O’Grady will join Corbyn and others.
Demonstrators are using the hashtag #notonedaymore on Twitter to publicise the event.
Protesters are gathering outside BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place where speakers include Owen Jones and the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Diane Abbott. They will head to Parliament Square where union leaders Len McCluskey and Frances O’Grady will join Corbyn and others.
Demonstrators are using the hashtag #notonedaymore on Twitter to publicise the event.
Protesters are gathering outside BBC Broadcasting House in Portland Place where speakers include Owen Jones and the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Diane Abbott. They will head to Parliament Square where union leaders Len McCluskey and Frances O’Grady will join Corbyn and others.
Demonstrators are using the hashtag #notonedaymore on Twitter to publicise the event.
The data provided in the table needs to be viewed in the context of Labour having increased its vote share across Scotland by circa 3% in 2017 compared with 2015. On that basis Labour significantly underperformed in 6 of the 13 seats listed.In Aberdeen South the Labour vote fell by over 6% which effectively represented underperformance there of 9%. East Renfrew saw Labour underperform by over 10% and the figure for Ochil & S Perthshire was over 11%. It raises the interesting question as to why this happened. Did Labour voters misdirect themselves on the basis that their own candidate appeared to be out of the race and on that basis voted Tory as the most effective anti-SNP option? Had such voters been aware that Labour was actually modestly strengthening its position in Scotland and about to increase its representation from 1 to 7 MPs would they have voted differently and been more inclined to stick with Labour? I suspect that many of them would have done so - and indeed are likely to switch back next time. The potential for a very sharp Labour recovery in Scotland is particularly marked in those seats where Labour fell back this year, and I would not be surpised to see Labour jump in vote share from the 20% - 25% range to 35% to 40% in several of them to win from third place at Tory expense.Up to 5 of those Tory seats could be vulnerable to a Labour recovery next time. I already fully expect Labour to pick up up 15 to 20 seats from the SNP and there is a realistic possibility they will end up with over 30 seats and once again comfortably the largest party in Scotland.
Labour could easily win 20-25 seats in Scotland on a very modest swing next time.
I think the real key to cutting phone usage at the wheel is trying to make it as socially unacceptable as drink driving. Yes people still do it, but thankfully gone are the days when people used to drink several pints and then proclaim proudly to their mates that they can handle their drink and so not a problem.
At the moment, it seems that it is still perfectly ok to people to fiddle with their phone even when other people are in the car with them.
OK, as a former user let me try to explain the thought process to illustrate why it's tolerated. I don't break the law but I don't like the blanket ban. That's partly because it's less clear-cut that all uses of the phone are as dangerous as driving while drunk. Some seem comparable with generally legal things like taking a swig of Red Bull or changing the radio channel. Use of phones varies, from incredibly dangerous things like writing text messages while moving, to not very dangerous things like checking for a text while stationary (which is illegal if the engine is still running, even if you've pulled in).
Holding a phone with one hand to talk "feels" somewhere in the middle, because it's legal to talk to passengers (thus not considered as very distracting per se) and I believe it's legal to drive with only one hand on the steering wheel so long as you seem in full control of the vehicle. So the combination doesn't intuitively feel very dangerous. I used to do a lot of work on the phone before it was illegal and still feel a bit frustrated that I can't e.g. answer a call while driving slowly on an empty road looking for the house of the person who's perhaps calling me to say "you just drove past!"
A deplorable attitude, maybe, but perhaps helps to explain the difficulty in getting all use to be socially unacceptable. I guess the problem will gradually go away as hands-free options become standard in all cars.
I do, however, have a solution to the problem to delight Leavers. Inspire hundreds of thousands of students to enlist to pick fruit by renaming it the Glastonberry.
How you persuade them that it's relocated to North East Scotland may be more tricky.....
The North East will get its just desserts for voting Tory. We will soon hear the whinging as they get shafted, farmers will get peanuts as the money is moved south and fishermen will get shafted for sure. They will have plenty to whinge about as they look in the mirror and don't like what they see. We can only hope it is a real Tory shafting. The 13 donkeys are standing up for Scotland , Mundell and the hapless Davidson in hiding after their lamentable looking after Scotland fell at the very first hurdle when they got a skelping and told to stop talking up Scotland.
I think the real key to cutting phone usage at the wheel is trying to make it as socially unacceptable as drink driving. Yes people still do it, but thankfully gone are the days when people used to drink several pints and then proclaim proudly to their mates that they can handle their drink and so not a problem.
At the moment, it seems that it is still perfectly ok to people to fiddle with their phone even when other people are in the car with them.
OK, as a former user let me try to explain the thought process to illustrate why it's tolerated. I don't break the law but I don't like the blanket ban. That's partly because it's less clear-cut that all uses of the phone are as dangerous as driving while drunk. Some seem comparable with generally legal things like taking a swig of Red Bull or changing the radio channel. Use of phones varies, from incredibly dangerous things like writing text messages while moving, to not very dangerous things like checking for a text while stationary (which is illegal if the engine is still running, even if you've pulled in).
Holding a phone with one hand to talk "feels" somewhere in the middle, because it's legal to talk to passengers (thus not considered as very distracting per se) and I believe it's legal to drive with only one hand on the steering wheel so long as you seem in full control of the vehicle. So the combination doesn't intuitively feel very dangerous. I used to do a lot of work on the phone before it was illegal and still feel a bit frustrated that I can't e.g. answer a call while driving slowly on an empty road looking for the house of the person who's perhaps calling me to say "you just drove past!"
A deplorable attitude, maybe, but perhaps helps to explain the difficulty in getting all use to be socially unacceptable. I guess the problem will gradually go away as hands-free options become standard in all cars.
Not sure about some of these examples/analogies, but surely the main barrier to use of phones in cars becoming "socially unacceptable" is that it is an activity almost completely divorced from social situations. Whereas half the offence of drink driving actually occurs in the social situation, and offenders would be obvious to everyone.
I think the real key to cutting phone usage at the wheel is trying to make it as socially unacceptable as drink driving. Yes people still do it, but thankfully gone are the days when people used to drink several pints and then proclaim proudly to their mates that they can handle their drink and so not a problem.
At the moment, it seems that it is still perfectly ok to people to fiddle with their phone even when other people are in the car with them.
OK, as a former user let me try to explain the thought process to illustrate why it's tolerated. I don't break the law but I don't like the blanket ban. That's partly because it's less clear-cut that all uses of the phone are as dangerous as driving while drunk. Some seem comparable with generally legal things like taking a swig of Red Bull or changing the radio channel. Use of phones varies, from incredibly dangerous things like writing text messages while moving, to not very dangerous things like checking for a text while stationary (which is illegal if the engine is still running, even if you've pulled in).
Holding a phone with one hand to talk "feels" somewhere in the middle, because it's legal to talk to passengers (thus not considered as very distracting per se) and I believe it's legal to drive with only one hand on the steering wheel so long as you seem in full control of the vehicle. So the combination doesn't intuitively feel very dangerous. I used to do a lot of work on the phone before it was illegal and still feel a bit frustrated that I can't e.g. answer a call while driving slowly on an empty road looking for the house of the person who's perhaps calling me to say "you just drove past!"
A deplorable attitude, maybe, but perhaps helps to explain the difficulty in getting all use to be socially unacceptable. I guess the problem will gradually go away as hands-free options become standard in all cars.
For once we are in agreement! We should trust the judgement of traffic police, not an inflexible rule.
The first part of the SNP's vast, rickety coalition of voters came on board in 2007 with the collapse of the Scottish Socialist Party. I'd expected them to defect to Labour as soon as Jeremy Corbyn was elected and was surprised when this didn't happen. That they went over as soon as Corbyn started to make headway during the campaign seems perfectly natural in hindsight.
Socialists defecting from the SNP to Labour almost certainly masked committed unionists who were abandoning Labour to vote tactically for the Conservatives in the figures above.
The Tories might pick up one or two more seats in Scotland next time, but I'd expect Labour to take the lion's share of the next tranche of SNP seats to fall as central belt voters' minds focus on getting the Tory government out.
Indeed Kezia Dugdale may well be First Minister by the end of 2021 which would be the final nail in the coffin for indyref2 for the foreseeable future
Has Corbyn got a full front bench yet? Or even a deputy for Diane Abbott should she fall ill again? In fact have the circumstances of Lyn Brown's resignation been expanded upon?
Personally, I'd like to see a 12 month ban for anyone caught using a handheld mobile phone whilst in control of a moving vehicle. It really is an epidemic, and being up in a fire engine I see literally tens of people every day writing texts, doing social media and even playing games. Draconian, I know, but it's be the only way to make it work.
I do, however, have a solution to the problem to delight Leavers. Inspire hundreds of thousands of students to enlist to pick fruit by renaming it the Glastonberry.
How you persuade them that it's relocated to North East Scotland may be more tricky.....
farmers will get peanuts
Which is more than they've had from the SNP Government. Oh, and the SNP government is only escaping an EU fine for late payments because Scotland is part of the UK which has been much better organised...
The data provided in the table needs to be viewed in the context of Labour having increased its vote share across Scotland by circa 3% in 2017 compared with 2015. On that basis Labour significantly underperformed in 6 of the 13 seats listed.In Aberdeen South the Labour vote fell by over 6% which effectively represented underperformance there of 9%. East Renfrew saw Labour underperform by over 10% and the figure for Ochil & S Perthshire was over 11%. It raises the interesting question as to why this happened. Did Labour voters misdirect themselves on the basis that their own candidate appeared to be out of the race and on that basis voted Tory as the most effective anti-SNP option? Had such voters been aware that Labour was actually modestly strengthening its position in Scotland and about to increase its representation from 1 to 7 MPs would they have voted differently and been more inclined to stick with Labour? I suspect that many of them would have done so - and indeed are likely to switch back next time. The potential for a very sharp Labour recovery in Scotland is particularly marked in those seats where Labour fell back this year, and I would not be surpised to see Labour jump in vote share from the 20% - 25% range to 35% to 40% in several of them to win from third place at Tory expense.Up to 5 of those Tory seats could be vulnerable to a Labour recovery next time. I already fully expect Labour to pick up up 15 to 20 seats from the SNP and there is a realistic possibility they will end up with over 30 seats and once again comfortably the largest party in Scotland.
God help us if the nutters on here are anywhere near right.
[snip] To put in context, the world's simplest FTA - between the Maldives and China - is into its fifth year of discussions.
Yeah, I'd hate to be stuck on that project. Travelling to the Maldives for years must be hell.
If I were in Govt. I'd have more important FTA goals. The West Indies. By an utter coincidence the discussions would happen on islands hosting Test matches at the time.
But don't worry. I'll have the whole FTA sewn up in, hmmm, I reckon 20 years should do it.
LOL. Very good point. Although you'd think the Maldivians would get suspicious after the sixth luxury resort the Chinese delegation had to visit.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-40461940
I said that allowing the ECJ to act as an arbiter on whether a country was in line with treaty obligation wrt to trade was not the same as them being able to overrule a country's laws. (Which is the case in a number of the EU's FTAs.)
You said this was like Switzerland. And the EU wasn't happy about it.
I then pointed out that the ECJ doesn't arbitrate on the Switzerland deal.
So I don't really understand your point.
Truth be told, there are many different dispute resolution mechanisms for the EU with FTA parties: bilateral committees with Switzerland, through independent tribunals (Canada), to bodies staffed with a majority of EU members (Israel), though to the ECJ (Norway). But even when the ECJ is the arbiter, the greatest punishment it can inflict for non-compliance is to suspend the agreement. (Which, as far I understand it, has never happened.)
I use my phone as a GPS when I'm driving and you'd think that app would automatically prevent calls coming through. But it doesn't. That'd be a simple improvement ... "Do Not Disturb When Using Me To Navigate"
Any bespoke relationship between the UK and the EU would also take a considerable period to evolve. Really, the question we have is what is the starting point from which we negotiate. Do we go for WTO, a simple FTA* or EEA.
I have always favoured time limited EEA (say five years), as it would solve the money problem for the EU, and allow us to work with the EU (and other countries around the world). It would be a gradual disentanglement from the bloc, and that would work to both our advantage.
* The truth is that FTAs tend not to be simple, because there will be wrangling over dispute mechanisms, about the extent to which subsidised French farmers can undercut British ones, about how to prevent countries from erecting NTBs, etc. To put in context, the world's simplest FTA - between the Maldives and China - is into its fifth year of discussions.
It raises the interesting question as to why this happened. Did Labour voters misdirect themselves on the basis that their own candidate appeared to be out of the race and on that basis voted Tory as the most effective anti-SNP option? Had such voters been aware that Labour was actually modestly strengthening its position in Scotland and about to increase its representation from 1 to 7 MPs would they have voted differently and been more inclined to stick with Labour? I suspect that many of them would have done so - and indeed are likely to switch back next time. The potential for a very sharp Labour recovery in Scotland is particularly marked in those seats where Labour fell back this year, and I would not be surpised to see Labour jump in vote share from the 20% - 25% range to 35% to 40% in several of them to win from third place at Tory expense.Up to 5 of those Tory seats could be vulnerable to a Labour recovery next time. I already fully expect Labour to pick up up 15 to 20 seats from the SNP and there is a realistic possibility they will end up with over 30 seats and once again comfortably the largest party in Scotland.
I think the real key to cutting phone usage at the wheel is trying to make it as socially unacceptable as drink driving. Yes people still do it, but thankfully gone are the days when people used to drink several pints and then proclaim proudly to their mates that they can handle their drink and so not a problem.
At the moment, it seems that it is still perfectly ok to people to fiddle with their phone even when other people are in the car with them.
There would be far less of a problem with this if it were investors building new, decent quality holiday lets.
But that doesn't seem to be what is happening.
Demonstrators are using the hashtag #notonedaymore on Twitter to publicise the event.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/01/jeremy-corbyn-to-speak-at-london-anti-austerity-march
Tories out apparently....
If I were in Govt. I'd have more important FTA goals. The West Indies. By an utter coincidence the discussions would happen on islands hosting Test matches at the time.
But don't worry. I'll have the whole FTA sewn up in, hmmm, I reckon 20 years should do it.
After the comments about him below ... let's see what happens!
Holding a phone with one hand to talk "feels" somewhere in the middle, because it's legal to talk to passengers (thus not considered as very distracting per se) and I believe it's legal to drive with only one hand on the steering wheel so long as you seem in full control of the vehicle. So the combination doesn't intuitively feel very dangerous. I used to do a lot of work on the phone before it was illegal and still feel a bit frustrated that I can't e.g. answer a call while driving slowly on an empty road looking for the house of the person who's perhaps calling me to say "you just drove past!"
A deplorable attitude, maybe, but perhaps helps to explain the difficulty in getting all use to be socially unacceptable. I guess the problem will gradually go away as hands-free options become standard in all cars.
The 13 donkeys are standing up for Scotland , Mundell and the hapless Davidson in hiding after their lamentable looking after Scotland fell at the very first hurdle when they got a skelping and told to stop talking up Scotland.
Mr. G, anybody? Nazi? Communist?
NEW THREAD