While I'm on the subject, my definition of "an activist* as produced by the BBC …
"An unemployed and unemployable know-it-all, impervious to logic, who knows someone at the BBC who's easily impressed by rants rather than facts."
Tommy Robinson and/or his disciples?
He seemed to know more about the grooming gangs before it was exposed.more than some on here who are in the legal trade who just shouted Racist.
Rants and facts and all that.
Do you think Tommy Robinson, or that other great hero of exposing grooming by brown skinned chaps Nick Griffin, are racists? If so, do you think that shouldn't be mentioned?
Nick Griffin was the first person talking openly about what was going on in places like Rotherham. It was easier for everyone else to simply dismiss him as a racist than to look closer at the truth of what he was actually saying.
Modern politics has a big problem with dismissing an argument as unarguable because it comes from a bad person - for the record I think Nick Griffin is a racist and a bad person - rather than engaging with what someone actually has to say.
See Jordan Peterson for a more recent example of someone demonised and “othered” rather than engaged with.
Do you think 'this person is a racist and has expounded dozens of lies and false conspiracy theories based on racism, but on this occasion we should forget about all that' is a realistic expectation of attitude towards the likes of Robinson & Griffin? On that basis I'll try and approach the effusions of loonball antisemites (which includes Griffin) with a more open mind.
If there’s a serious allegation it should be investigated with an open mind. You may place less weight on an individual’s evidence based on track record however
compare
Griffin - no investigation Tom Watson - investigation
Yet despite those problems, and as RCS has pointed out, Italy was a tiger economy, up till the early nineties.
Regular devaluations of the lira, combined with good quality products, made them a champion exporter.
The world has got a lot more competitive since then. Eastern Europe has joined the global economy, and China looms ever larger. Unless the Italians want their standard of living to converge with those other nations that manufacture shoes, clothes and their other staples, they need to change how they operate, in or out of the single currency.
The main problem is self-inflicted; they won’t elect a reformist government. They compare very unfavourably with Spain, which is now running a trade surplus and has a shrinking deficit. Even France under Macron is knuckling down.
While I'm on the subject, my definition of "an activist* as produced by the BBC …
"An unemployed and unemployable know-it-all, impervious to logic, who knows someone at the BBC who's easily impressed by rants rather than facts."
Tommy Robinson and/or his disciples?
He seemed to know more about the grooming gangs before it was exposed.more than some on here who are in the legal trade who just shouted Racist.
Rants and facts and all that.
Do you think Tommy Robinson, or that other great hero of exposing grooming by brown skinned chaps Nick Griffin, are racists? If so, do you think that shouldn't be mentioned?
Nick Griffin was the first person talking openly about what was going on in places like Rotherham. It was easier for everyone else to simply dismiss him as a racist than to look closer at the truth of what he was actually saying.
Modern politics has a big problem with dismissing an argument as unarguable because it comes from a bad person - for the record I think Nick Griffin is a racist and a bad person - rather than engaging with what someone actually has to say.
See Jordan Peterson for a more recent example of someone demonised and “othered” rather than engaged with.
Do you think 'this person is a racist and has expounded dozens of lies and false conspiracy theories based on racism, but on this occasion we should forget about all that' is a realistic expectation of attitude towards the likes of Robinson & Griffin? On that basis I'll try and approach the effusions of loonball antisemites (which includes Griffin) with a more open mind.
If there’s a serious allegation it should be investigated with an open mind. You may place less weight on an individual’s evidence based on track record however
compare
Griffin - no investigation Tom Watson - investigation
it's who you are that counts
It's almost as if Griffin's supporters have never heard of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Very good thread header from Cyclefree even if I don't entirely agree with the conclusions. I think it is a mistake to equate free movement and unlimited migration with an inability to control crime.
Firstly I am not sure that the evidence shows that immigrants are more likely to commit crime than those already living in a country. Are Poles in Britain notably more criminal than English or Scots?
Secondly free movement does not have to equal no border controls. It is entirely possible to have a basic principle and practice of freedom of movement but still have controls to stop those with criminal records or who are considered a risk to the country. The important point being this should be on an individual basis not by country of origin, skin colour or religion.
I think Schengen is a dumb idea because it removes important controls on the movement of terrorists and criminals and is unnecessary in a situation where there is already the principle of freedom of movement.
I don't think I am saying that immigrants commit more crimes. I certainly don't think that. I do think that migrants who come here illegally should be dealt with and not get the benefit of their illegal actions.
I am not clear in practice how you have freedom of movement and stop those with criminal records or who are considered a risk. How do you do this?
Also I would widen the categories of those you might refuse to those who are not desirable to the country i.e. those whom the country thinks would on balance be more of a burden than an asset - however that is defined.
Apologies, I wasn't necessarily saying you thought that, just that it seemed somewhat implicit in the thread. But that is just my reading of it.
Freedom of movement and border controls are two different things. Schengen has nothing to do with freedom of movement but is about removing border controls. It is perfectly possible to have freedom of movement but still have border controls to ensure criminals and other undesirables cannot enter. Indeed it is exactly what we are supposed to have had for the last few decades inside the EU.
As for people being a drain on the country that is simple (in theory at least if not in practice or politics). Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
While I'm on the subject, my definition of "an activist* as produced by the BBC …
"An unemployed and unemployable know-it-all, impervious to logic, who knows someone at the BBC who's easily impressed by rants rather than facts."
Tommy Robinson and/or his disciples?
He seemed to know more about the grooming gangs before it was exposed.more than some on here who are in the legal trade who just shouted Racist.
Rants and facts and all that.
Do you think Tommy Robinson, or that other great hero of exposing grooming by brown skinned chaps Nick Griffin, are racists? If so, do you think that shouldn't be mentioned?
Nick Griffin was the first person talking openly about what was going on in places like Rotherham. It was easier for everyone else to simply dismiss him as a racist than to look closer at the truth of what he was actually saying.
Modern politics has a big problem with dismissing an argument as unarguable because it comes from a bad person - for the record I think Nick Griffin is a racist and a bad person - rather than engaging with what someone actually has to say.
See Jordan Peterson for a more recent example of someone demonised and “othered” rather than engaged with.
Do you think 'this person is a racist and has expounded dozens of lies and false conspiracy theories based on racism, but on this occasion we should forget about all that' is a realistic expectation of attitude towards the likes of Robinson & Griffin? On that basis I'll try and approach the effusions of loonball antisemites (which includes Griffin) with a more open mind.
If there’s a serious allegation it should be investigated with an open mind. You may place less weight on an individual’s evidence based on track record however
Griffin made allegations about a very serious issue. But that is not the same as making a serious allegation. Essentially he made a series of unsubstantiated claims. The shame was not ignoring him, it was ignoring all the other, non-race-baiters who made detailed allegations.
Mr. kle4, that being so, what's the choice for Italy and Greece? Perpetual decline?
Italy used to devalue its currency a lot. Now it finds itself in the opposite position to Germany, which benefits from having a weaker currency than it would with the Deutschmark. Of course, Germany's happy with that. But the Italians are not, and can't devalue.
The current model is unsustainable but the varying paths (leave the euro or integrate the eurozone more, including things like common taxation/fiscal transfers) also seem politically impossible.
At the time lots of people pointed out that the Eurozone wasn’t an Optimal Currency Area
While I'm on the subject, my definition of "an activist* as produced by the BBC …
"An unemployed and unemployable know-it-all, impervious to logic, who knows someone at the BBC who's easily impressed by rants rather than facts."
Tommy Robinson and/or his disciples?
He seemed to know more about the grooming gangs before it was exposed.more than some on here who are in the legal trade who just shouted Racist.
Rants and facts and all that.
Do you think Tommy Robinson, or that other great hero of exposing grooming by brown skinned chaps Nick Griffin, are racists? If so, do you think that shouldn't be mentioned?
Nick Griffin was the first person talking openly about what was going on in places like Rotherham. It was easier for everyone else to simply dismiss him as a racist than to look closer at the truth of what he was actually saying.
Modern politics has a big problem with dismissing an argument as unarguable because it comes from a bad person - for the record I think Nick Griffin is a racist and a bad person - rather than engaging with what someone actually has to say.
See Jordan Peterson for a more recent example of someone demonised and “othered” rather than engaged with.
Do you think 'this person is a racist and has expounded dozens of lies and false conspiracy theories based on racism, but on this occasion we should forget about all that' is a realistic expectation of attitude towards the likes of Robinson & Griffin? On that basis I'll try and approach the effusions of loonball antisemites (which includes Griffin) with a more open mind.
If there’s a serious allegation it should be investigated with an open mind. You may place less weight on an individual’s evidence based on track record however
compare
Griffin - no investigation Tom Watson - investigation
it's who you are that counts
It's almost as if Griffin's supporters have never heard of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
While I'm on the subject, my definition of "an activist* as produced by the BBC …
"An unemployed and unemployable know-it-all, impervious to logic, who knows someone at the BBC who's easily impressed by rants rather than facts."
Tommy Robinson and/or his disciples?
He seemed to know more about the grooming gangs before it was exposed.more than some on here who are in the legal trade who just shouted Racist.
Rants and facts and all that.
Do you think Tommy Robinson, or that other great hero of exposing grooming by brown skinned chaps Nick Griffin, are racists? If so, do you think that shouldn't be mentioned?
Nick Griffin was the first person talking openly about what was going on in places like Rotherham. It was easier for everyone else to simply dismiss him as a racist than to look closer at the truth of what he was actually saying.
Modern politics has a big problem with dismissing an argument as unarguable because it comes from a bad person - for the record I think Nick Griffin is a racist and a bad person - rather than engaging with what someone actually has to say.
See Jordan Peterson for a more recent example of someone demonised and “othered” rather than engaged with.
Do you think 'this person is a racist and has expounded dozens of lies and false conspiracy theories based on racism, but on this occasion we should forget about all that' is a realistic expectation of attitude towards the likes of Robinson & Griffin? On that basis I'll try and approach the effusions of loonball antisemites (which includes Griffin) with a more open mind.
If there’s a serious allegation it should be investigated with an open mind. You may place less weight on an individual’s evidence based on track record however
compare
Griffin - no investigation Tom Watson - investigation
it's who you are that counts
Yep, if you’re a racebaiting holocaust denier most people will tend to see you and what you say in that light.
Didn't the journalist who eventually broke the story say that he turned away from it initially because he couldn't face it and was concerned about the possible implications? It did take a lot of work to make it stand up but there was a delay before he even started because of his own misgivings about the use that might be made of it by those with a sinister agenda. It was a commendably honest statement for him to make and shows how hard it is to whistleblow or speak up about bad stuff when you know or suspect that what you are saying might be misused.
It might have been better if people had listened to those MPs who were raising these concerns. The diaries of Chris Mullin from that time show that there were plenty of people within the Labour Party in these areas who knew enough to know that there was a problem but who, for various reasons, were unwilling to go public and/or were criticised or shunned when they did so.
I think you might be right about the history.
As for your last paragraph: look at the way the left responded to the Stafford scandal. They utterly denied what was going on, and hounded the whistleblower out of town.
Indeed. None so deaf as those that don't want to hear. Ann Cryer was treated abysmally by her colleagues. So was Sarah Champion and the social worker who raised concerns. Ditto the policewoman who raised similar issues. The problems they were raising were in Labour fiefdoms and raised questions about the wisdom of having large-scale migration of people from very different cultures without any effective integration, issues which most on the Left then (and some now) did not want to talk about. Remember what happened to Ray Honeyford in 1984.
Look at the way that whistleblowers are treated in other sectors. Much has been said this weekend about the change in attitudes in Ireland. John McGahern, a writer, wrote about the violence and misogyny of rural Irish life back in the 1960's - attitudes which underpinned much of the approach to family life, womens' rights etc for so long - and was hounded out of his job as a teacher and left to live elsewhere. Much of what we learnt later about Tuam and the Magdalene laundries and the deadening hand of the Catholic Church and a violent underbelly in Irish life was all there in his writing, for those willing to see.
Mr. kle4, that being so, what's the choice for Italy and Greece? Perpetual decline?
Italy used to devalue its currency a lot. Now it finds itself in the opposite position to Germany, which benefits from having a weaker currency than it would with the Deutschmark. Of course, Germany's happy with that. But the Italians are not, and can't devalue.
The current model is unsustainable but the varying paths (leave the euro or integrate the eurozone more, including things like common taxation/fiscal transfers) also seem politically impossible.
At the time lots of people pointed out that the Eurozone wasn’t an Optimal Currency Area
The main argument they used was that there wasn't sufficient free movement of labour!
While I'm on the subject, my definition of "an activist* as produced by the BBC …
"An unemployed and unemployable know-it-all, impervious to logic, who knows someone at the BBC who's easily impressed by rants rather than facts."
Tommy Robinson and/or his disciples?
He seemed to know more about the grooming gangs before it was exposed.more than some on here who are in the legal trade who just shouted Racist.
Rants and facts and all that.
Do you think Tommy Robinson, or that other great hero of exposing grooming by brown skinned chaps Nick Griffin, are racists? If so, do you think that shouldn't be mentioned?
Nick Griffin was the first person talking openly about what was going on in places like Rotherham. It was easier for everyone else to simply dismiss him as a racist than to look closer at the truth of what he was actually saying.
Modern politics has a big problem with dismissing an argument as unarguable because it comes from a bad person - for the record I think Nick Griffin is a racist and a bad person - rather than engaging with what someone actually has to say.
See Jordan Peterson for a more recent example of someone demonised and “othered” rather than engaged with.
Do you think 'this person is a racist and has expounded dozens of lies and false conspiracy theories based on racism, but on this occasion we should forget about all that' is a realistic expectation of attitude towards the likes of Robinson & Griffin? On that basis I'll try and approach the effusions of loonball antisemites (which includes Griffin) with a more open mind.
If there’s a serious allegation it should be investigated with an open mind. You may place less weight on an individual’s evidence based on track record however
compare
Griffin - no investigation Tom Watson - investigation
it's who you are that counts
Yep, if you’re a racebaiting holocaust denier most people will tend to see you and what you say in that light.
Yet despite those problems, and as RCS has pointed out, Italy was a tiger economy, up till the early nineties.
Regular devaluations of the lira, combined with good quality products, made them a champion exporter.
The world has got a lot more competitive since then. Eastern Europe has joined the global economy, and China looms ever larger. Unless the Italians want their standard of living to converge with those other nations that manufacture shoes, clothes and their other staples, they need to change how they operate, in or out of the single currency.
The main problem is self-inflicted; they won’t elect a reformist government. They compare very unfavourably with Spain, which is now running a trade surplus and has a shrinking deficit. Even France under Macron is knuckling down.
Italy is running a trade surplus and has done so consistently. Indeed, going back to RCS's video, there is an argument that they have an excessive tendency to save which is holding their economy back. It certainly makes the deficit bigger than it might otherwise have been. Last year it was 2.3%, fractionally under ours.
Excellent article Cyclefree, it really does sum up what needs to be done, although I do not have too much faith in our politicians!
One thing that strikes me as curious is that the whole debate about immigration seems to take place in complete isolation from that about how many jobs are at risk from automation. If we are truly going to see many jobs disappear because of automation, then the arguments about importing labour to fill jobs seems incredibly short-sighted and building up problems for the future - you "import" people now to fill jobs which may be gone in a few years time but, when these jobs disappear, society is then left to deal with the longer-term issues such as people needing to be supported, housed, schooled etc. An example of that is the Lancashire and Yorkshire mill towns in the 1950s and 1960s.
It is why one has to be careful about accepting the arguments of businesses at face value. Their first priority is their business and profits, with everything else coming afterwards nor do businesses have to pick up the costs. An example is in farming. In "Rise of the Robots", one of the examples given about automate jobs was how machines could pick crops successfully. Yet we hear about how farms will not be able to cope if the supply of cheap labour is cut. Why? Because those businesses would rather employ cheap flexible labour than invest. The same goes for places such as supermarkets (go to France, price displays are automated, in the UK we still use paper cards because, in France, labour is expensive).
Didn't the journalist who eventually broke the story say that he turned away from it initially because he couldn't face it and was concerned about the possible implications? It did take a lot of work to make it stand up but there was a delay before he even started because of his own misgivings about the use that might be made of it by those with a sinister agenda. It was a commendably honest statement for him to make and shows how hard it is to whistleblow or speak up about bad stuff when you know or suspect that what you are saying might be misused.
It might have been problem but who, for various reasons, were unwilling to go public and/or were criticised or shunned when they did so.
I think you might be right about the history.
As for your last paragraph: look at the way the left responded to the Stafford scandal. They utterly denied what was going on, and hounded the whistleblower out of town.
Indeed. None so deaf as those that don't want to hear. Ann Cryer was treated abysmally by her colleagues. So was Sarah Champion and the social worker who raised concerns. Ditto the policewoman who raised similar issues. The problems they were raising were in Labour fiefdoms and raised questions about the wisdom of having large-scale migration of people from very different cultures without any effective integration, issues which most on the Left then (and some now) did not want to talk about. Remember what happened to Ray Honeyford in 1984.
Look at the way that whistleblowers are treated in other sectors. Much has been said this weekend about the change in attitudes in Ireland. John McGahern, a writer, wrote about the violence and misogyny of rural Irish life back in the 1960's - attitudes which underpinned much of the approach to family life, womens' rights etc for so long - and was hounded out of his job as a teacher and left to live elsewhere. Much of what we learnt later about Tuam and the Magdalene laundries and the deadening hand of the Catholic Church and a violent underbelly in Irish life was all there in his writing, for those willing to see.
Everything you say about Labour fiefdoms is correct, but let’s not forget that similar things have happened elsewhere in the country - Telford, for example.
The bottom line is that people in authority have always dismissed claims made by vulnerable young people and children about sex predators and traffikers. It’s not a recent phenomonen. The activities of Catholic priests were not only an issue in Ireland.
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? Oh yes Sweden and Denmark and they rejected it. People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity. Odd that.
When ever the people are asked directly via referendum the EU side invariably loses - but they generally get ignored because the elites know best.
Mr. kle4, that being so, what's the choice for Italy and Greece? Perpetual decline?
Italy used to devalue its currency a lot. Now it finds itself in the opposite position to Germany, which benefits from having a weaker currency than it would with the Deutschmark. Of course, Germany's happy with that. But the Italians are not, and can't devalue.
The current model is unsustainable but the varying paths (leave the euro or integrate the eurozone more, including things like common taxation/fiscal transfers) also seem politically impossible.
At the time lots of people pointed out that the Eurozone wasn’t an Optimal Currency Area
The main argument they used was that there wasn't sufficient free movement of labour!
Everything you say about Labour fiefdoms is correct, but let’s not forget that similar things have happened elsewhere in the country - Telford, for example.
The bottom line is that people in authority have always dismissed claims made by vulnerable young people and children about sex predators and traffikers. It’s not a recent phenomonen. The activities of Catholic priests were not only an issue in Ireland.
You're absolutely correct, excessive PC culture has lead to thousands of children all over the country being abused, raped and trafficked by Muslim men for over a decade.
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity.
Ireland did have a referendum on joining the Euro as part of the Maastricht treaty. Only the UK and Denmark had opt-outs.
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity.
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
Your loyalty to indissoluble unions is unsurprising. This sense of exceptionalism for their brand of flag waving, collective nationalist identity is very familiar.
'Spanish nationalism
Although the party defines itself as postnationalist, it has been accused by critics of professing a populist Spanish nationalism ideology. In a party conference held on May 20 2018 to present its platform España Ciudadana, Albert Rivera said in a hall filled with flags of Spain: "I do not see reds and blues, I see Spaniards. I do not see, as they say, urban people and rural people, I see Spaniards. I do not see young or old, I see Spaniards. I do not see workers and entrepreneurs, I see Spaniards. I do not see believers or agnostics, I see Spaniards. (...) So, compatriots, with Citizens, let's go for that Spain, let's feel proud of being Spaniards again."'
Mr. Charles, that's what happens when blind ideology trumps economic reality, I suppose.
Mr. Cabinet, is that the one where you tipped the Republicans to win the House at 5/4? Nice article, if so.
Mr. Max, cheers for that answer. Presumably, if those numbers appear as raw votes, then that means the Liga (Lega?) is all but guaranteed to be 2nd behind 5 Star? Or does weird constituency lines mean it'll be closer.
I seem to remember it was Major took us in to the ERM, I cant think of why he would have done so except ultimately to move to currency union.
The ERM was considered useful in its own right: The pound had been all over the place, which is horrible for businesses trying to sell things across borders because they make sensible investment decisions then the forex markets make some random move and they turn into terrible investment decisions. Hence all the "shadowing the deutschmark" stuff in the 80s.
Everything you say about Labour fiefdoms is correct, but let’s not forget that similar things have happened elsewhere in the country - Telford, for example.
The bottom line is that people in authority have always dismissed claims made by vulnerable young people and children about sex predators and traffikers. It’s not a recent phenomonen. The activities of Catholic priests were not only an issue in Ireland.
Telford and Wrekin has mostly been controlled by Labour. I see that the police investigation began when the Tories had control of the council, though I'm sure those two things aren't connected.
Everything you say about Labour fiefdoms is correct, but let’s not forget that similar things have happened elsewhere in the country - Telford, for example.
The bottom line is that people in authority have always dismissed claims made by vulnerable young people and children about sex predators and traffikers. It’s not a recent phenomonen. The activities of Catholic priests were not only an issue in Ireland.
Telford and Wrekin has mostly been controlled by Labour. I see that the police investigation began when the Tories had control of the council, though I'm sure those two things aren't connected.
Quite.
Controlled by Labour 1997 - 2006 and then NOC for a couple of years.
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
I'd be a little wary of Spanish opinion polls. i'd be delighted to see Ciudadanos take over as a centrist government in Spain - but of the last 2 polls on wikipedia one still gives PP a national lead. Also at the last GE the polls overstated Ciudadanos significantly. The country needs a clearout of both PP and PSOE for that matter but nothing is certain.
Suppose we get another Italian election. Does 5 Star or La Liga benefit most?
Both will, but there is a lot more scope for Lega to eat into Forza Italia.
I think 5* on 32-34 points and LN on 23-25 points is what we're looking at in a possible election.
A Forza Italia collapse has to be a real possibility.
Yes definitely, if that happens a Lega could beat 5* and go into coalition with the Brotherhood who should end up on about 5%.
I think this move by the Italian president takes that chance of Italy leaving the Euro from about 25% to about 50%. The election dynamic will now favour the sceptics and nationalists.
Look at the way that whistleblowers are treated in other sectors. Much has been said this weekend about the change in attitudes in Ireland. John McGahern, a writer, wrote about the violence and misogyny of rural Irish life back in the 1960's - attitudes which underpinned much of the approach to family life, womens' rights etc for so long - and was hounded out of his job as a teacher and left to live elsewhere. Much of what we learnt later about Tuam and the Magdalene laundries and the deadening hand of the Catholic Church and a violent underbelly in Irish life was all there in his writing, for those willing to see.
Everything you say about Labour fiefdoms is correct, but let’s not forget that similar things have happened elsewhere in the country - Telford, for example.
The bottom line is that people in authority have always dismissed claims made by vulnerable young people and children about sex predators and traffikers. It’s not a recent phenomonen. The activities of Catholic priests were not only an issue in Ireland.
I quite agree. I think there are common factors in why people don't listen to those who speak up - as well as ones specific to the issue in question. In the case of Rotherham etc there was a fear of upsetting their own voters and particular Labour shibboleths.
But the common factor is that those without a voice - the weak, the young - are not taken seriously and that the interests of the institution are seen as paramount, even if that means going against the principles you claim to believe in.
For all the talk now about speaking up, I am not at all convinced that we have really learnt any lessons. The instinct to attack the messenger and protect the institution is very hard-wired in people: see your beloved Labour Party and anti-semitism, for instance. And the Catholic church, for all its recent efforts in some parts of it, still has not really come to terms with the utterly shameful - and sinful - behaviour (not just of individual priests) but of its hierarchy over many years. And what this means for its claim to be a moral voice.
John McGahern is a writer well worth reading BTW. I mention him because it was interesting to hear the commentary on Ireland this weekend by people who seemed so unaware that one of their greatest writers had accurately pointed out the gross hypocrisies in Irish life so long ago. His Memoir is superb: a love letter to his mother who put up, as so many Irish women did, with a violent husband. It sounds miserable but is well worth reading.
"We fundamentally believe diversity is good for the country. Only a small number of your children will be raped, and they're white working class anyway so its a good chance for them to get to know their new neighbours"
Am I right that talk of the government being in danger on the NI abortion issue is idle chatter?
If there's a bill at Westminster to liberalise, the DUP will vote against, the main three parties will be divided, and a large majority of MPs will vote in favour, none of which will endanger the supply and confidence agreement, which provides that the DUP votes for the government on money bills and confidence motions so long as extra dosh keeps flowing to NI - £1bn if I recall. This is how minority government with a SaCA works: the junior partner can vote against the government on matters other than SaCA if it chooses. So...yawn?
Then there's the bigger Ireland issue of course, which connects with everyone's favourite issue...
If (Spartan) there were to be a referendum on abortion in NI, what would the result be likely to be?
It's strange how the impasse at Stormont is apparently over a slew of issues that seem very minor as justification for going to the mattresses: language, gay marriage, and investigations into killings during the troubles in the now distant past. What's it really about? I mean it must be about money, but what money?
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
Your loyalty to indissoluble unions is unsurprising. This sense of exceptionalism for their brand of flag waving, collective nationalist identity is very familiar.
'Spanish nationalism
Although the party defines itself as postnationalist, it has been accused by critics of professing a populist Spanish nationalism ideology. In a party conference held on May 20 2018 to present its platform España Ciudadana, Albert Rivera said in a hall filled with flags of Spain: "I do not see reds and blues, I see Spaniards. I do not see, as they say, urban people and rural people, I see Spaniards. I do not see young or old, I see Spaniards. I do not see workers and entrepreneurs, I see Spaniards. I do not see believers or agnostics, I see Spaniards. (...) So, compatriots, with Citizens, let's go for that Spain, let's feel proud of being Spaniards again."'
So what's the issue, that he plagiarised Obama's red states/blue states speech? I don't recall Obama being called a nationalist.
I guess the lack of 'the' or 'a' in front of 'Customs Union' is deliberate in the headline.
Replying to myself, she says 'remain within a customs union', which means staying in something which doesn't exist yet. Or does she mean 'the' rather than 'a'?
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity.
That was on ratifying Maastricht and joining the EU in 1992 - none of the articles of amendment reference scrapping the punt and replacing it with the Euro and ceasing Irish sovereignty over monetary policy to a foreign bank.
ratifying Maastricht and Euro membership are not exactly the same thing - as some nations who ratified it are still outside the Eurozone. The Euro came into being 7 years after Maastricht was ratified.
Only two nations had specific votes on joining the Euro - Denmark and Sweden - and they both rejected it.
I guess the lack of 'the' or 'a' in front of 'Customs Union' is deliberate in the headline.
Replying to myself, she says 'remain within a customs union', which means staying in something which doesn't exist yet. Or does she mean 'the' rather than 'a'?
Am I right that talk of the government being in danger on the NI abortion issue is idle chatter?
If there's a bill at Westminster to liberalise, the DUP will vote against, the main three parties will be divided, and a large majority of MPs will vote in favour, none of which will endanger the supply and confidence agreement, which provides that the DUP votes for the government on money bills and confidence motions so long as extra dosh keeps flowing to NI - £1bn if I recall. This is how minority government with a SaCA works: the junior partner can vote against the government on matters other than SaCA if it chooses. So...yawn?
Then there's the bigger Ireland issue of course, which connects with everyone's favourite issue...
If (Spartan) there were to be a referendum on abortion in NI, what would the result be likely to be?
It's strange how the impasse at Stormont is apparently over a slew of issues that seem very minor as justification for going to the mattresses: language, gay marriage, and investigations into killings during the troubles in the now distant past. What's it really about? I mean it must be about money, but what money?
I see it as Westminster potentially undermining the devolution settlement. Devolution, until we disagree with you.
At that level, rather than on the specifics of the abortion issue, the bowler hats would have grounds to pull out of their deal with the Tories.
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
Your loyalty to indissoluble unions is unsurprising. This sense of exceptionalism for their brand of flag waving, collective nationalist identity is very familiar.
'Spanish nationalism
Although the party defines itself as postnationalist, it has been accused by critics of professing a populist Spanish nationalism ideology. In a party conference held on May 20 2018 to present its platform España Ciudadana, Albert Rivera said in a hall filled with flags of Spain: "I do not see reds and blues, I see Spaniards. I do not see, as they say, urban people and rural people, I see Spaniards. I do not see young or old, I see Spaniards. I do not see workers and entrepreneurs, I see Spaniards. I do not see believers or agnostics, I see Spaniards. (...) So, compatriots, with Citizens, let's go for that Spain, let's feel proud of being Spaniards again."'
Ha, ha.
That looks very like post-nationalism to me. There is no seeking to blame or scapegoat others for the perceived ills of a society, merely an observation that despite differences more unites than divides people across the whole of Spain. I make no apologies for rather liking that way of seeing the world. It seems to me a lot healthier than railing against Madrid, Westminster, Brussels, etc.
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
Your loyalty to indissoluble unions is unsurprising. This sense of exceptionalism for their brand of flag waving, collective nationalist identity is very familiar.
'Spanish nationalism
Although the party defines itself as postnationalist, it has been accused by critics of professing a populist Spanish nationalism ideology. In a party conference held on May 20 2018 to present its platform España Ciudadana, Albert Rivera said in a hall filled with flags of Spain: "I do not see reds and blues, I see Spaniards. I do not see, as they say, urban people and rural people, I see Spaniards. I do not see young or old, I see Spaniards. I do not see workers and entrepreneurs, I see Spaniards. I do not see believers or agnostics, I see Spaniards. (...) So, compatriots, with Citizens, let's go for that Spain, let's feel proud of being Spaniards again."'
So what's the issue, that he plagiarised Obama's red states/blue states speech? I don't recall Obama being called a nationalist.
Flag waving and speaking about a single national identity doesn't make you a nationalist? Ok. Every US president is a nationalist (and since 1865 a Unionist for that matter).
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity.
That was on ratifying Maastricht and joining the EU - none of the articles of amendment reference scrapping the punt and replacing it with the Euro. I wasn't aware ratifying Maastricht and Euro membership were the same thing - as some nations who ratified it are still outside the Eurozone.
They were the same thing, if you weren't aware of that then sorry but it was explicit and the debates happened at the time. Maastricht explicitly meant joining the Euro - only the UK and Denmark had opt-outs.
Am I right that talk of the government being in danger on the NI abortion issue is idle chatter?
If there's a bill at Westminster to liberalise, the DUP will vote against, the main three parties will be divided, and a large majority of MPs will vote in favour, none of which will endanger the supply and confidence agreement, which provides that the DUP votes for the government on money bills and confidence motions so long as extra dosh keeps flowing to NI - £1bn if I recall. This is how minority government with a SaCA works: the junior partner can vote against the government on matters other than SaCA if it chooses. So...yawn?
Then there's the bigger Ireland issue of course, which connects with everyone's favourite issue...
If (Spartan) there were to be a referendum on abortion in NI, what would the result be likely to be?
It's strange how the impasse at Stormont is apparently over a slew of issues that seem very minor as justification for going to the mattresses: language, gay marriage, and investigations into killings during the troubles in the now distant past. What's it really about? I mean it must be about money, but what money?
I see it as Westminster potentially undermining the devolution settlement. Devolution, until we disagree with you.
At that level, rather than on the specifics of the abortion issue, the bowler hats would have grounds to pull out of their deal with the Tories.
Which is why the Tories won't do it. They will maintain the line that this is a matter for the NI Assembly and those that want change should work a bit harder to get it up and running again.
Everything you say about Labour fiefdoms is correct, but let’s not forget that similar things have happened elsewhere in the country - Telford, for example.
The bottom line is that people in authority have always dismissed claims made by vulnerable young people and children about sex predators and traffikers. It’s not a recent phenomonen. The activities of Catholic priests were not only an issue in Ireland.
I quite agree. I think there are common factors in why people don't listen to those who speak up - as well as ones specific to the issue in question. In the case of Rotherham etc there was a fear of upsetting their own voters and particular Labour shibboleths.
But the common factor is that those without a voice - the weak, the young - are not taken seriously and that the interests of the institution are seen as paramount, even if that means going against the principles you claim to believe in.
For all the talk now about speaking up, I am not at all convinced that we have really learnt any lessons. The instinct to attack the messenger and protect the institution is very hard-wired in people: see your beloved Labour Party and anti-semitism, for instance. And the Catholic church, for all its recent efforts in some parts of it, still has not really come to terms with the utterly shameful - and sinful - behaviour (not just of individual priests) but of its hierarchy over many years. And what this means for its claim to be a moral voice.
John McGahern is a writer well worth reading BTW. I mention him because it was interesting to hear the commentary on Ireland this weekend by people who seemed so unaware that one of their greatest writers had accurately pointed out the gross hypocrisies in Irish life so long ago. His Memoir is superb: a love letter to his mother who put up, as so many Irish women did, with a violent husband. It sounds miserable but is well worth reading.
I don't love the Labour party. I merely see it as the only viable vehicle for opposing the Tories for as long as we have first past the post. If you are on the centre left and do not want a future written by the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson then Labour is your only option. And the only way you make Labour electable is to do all you can to stand against the far left. You can't do that from the sidelines.
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity.
That was on ratifying Maastricht and joining the EU - none of the articles of amendment reference scrapping the punt and replacing it with the Euro. I wasn't aware ratifying Maastricht and Euro membership were the same thing - as some nations who ratified it are still outside the Eurozone.
They were the same thing, if you weren't aware of that then sorry but it was explicit and the debates happened at the time. Maastricht explicitly meant joining the Euro - only the UK and Denmark had opt-outs.
Sweden got no opt out when it in effect ratified Maastricht on joining the EU in 1994 - and still hasn't joined. They have just refused to do so - so it was a separate choice if you wanted to as Sweden proves.
As I said Ireland specifically voted to ratify Maastricht - there was no specific separate referendum on Euro membership.
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity.
That was on ratifying Maastricht and joining the EU - none of the articles of amendment reference scrapping the punt and replacing it with the Euro. I wasn't aware ratifying Maastricht and Euro membership were the same thing - as some nations who ratified it are still outside the Eurozone.
They were the same thing, if you weren't aware of that then sorry but it was explicit and the debates happened at the time. Maastricht explicitly meant joining the Euro - only the UK and Denmark had opt-outs.
Sweden got no opt out - and still hasn't joined. They have just refused to do so - so it was a separate choice if you wanted to as Sweden proves.
As I said Ireland specifically voted to ratify Maastricht - there was no specific separate referendum on Euro membership.
Sweden wasn't a member of the EU at the time of Maastricht. Every member who ratified the treaty at the time other than Denmark and the UK is in the Euro and the linkage was explicit.
Am I right that talk of the government being in danger on the NI abortion issue is idle chatter?
If there's a bill at Westminster to liberalise, the DUP will vote against, the main three parties will be divided, and a large majority of MPs will vote in favour, none of which will endanger the supply and confidence agreement, which provides that the DUP votes for the government on money bills and confidence motions so long as extra dosh keeps flowing to NI - £1bn if I recall. This is how minority government with a SaCA works: the junior partner can vote against the government on matters other than SaCA if it chooses. So...yawn?
Then there's the bigger Ireland issue of course, which connects with everyone's favourite issue...
If (Spartan) there were to be a referendum on abortion in NI, what would the result be likely to be?
It's strange how the impasse at Stormont is apparently over a slew of issues that seem very minor as justification for going to the mattresses: language, gay marriage, and investigations into killings during the troubles in the now distant past. What's it really about? I mean it must be about money, but what money?
I see it as Westminster potentially undermining the devolution settlement. Devolution, until we disagree with you.
At that level, rather than on the specifics of the abortion issue, the bowler hats would have grounds to pull out of their deal with the Tories.
NI has its own politicians, they get paid, make the buggers earn their money or face their constituents
It would also make selling independence easier - "rUK and IScotland will still be in a/the/some Customs Union and the Single Market".....just the 70 years of superior economic growth to get back to the status-quo ante on the removal of Barnett to make up then....and having a finance sector without a central bank...oh, and currency.....
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity.
That was on ratifying Maastricht and joining the EU - none of the articles of amendment reference scrapping the punt and replacing it with the Euro. I wasn't aware ratifying Maastricht and Euro membership were the same thing - as some nations who ratified it are still outside the Eurozone.
They were the same thing, if you weren't aware of that then sorry but it was explicit and the debates happened at the time. Maastricht explicitly meant joining the Euro - only the UK and Denmark had opt-outs.
Sweden got no opt out - and still hasn't joined. They have just refused to do so - so it was a separate choice if you wanted to as Sweden proves.
As I said Ireland specifically voted to ratify Maastricht - there was no specific separate referendum on Euro membership.
Sweden wasn't a member of the EU at the time.
But it accepted the Maastricht terms as part of its treaty of accession in 1994. It was obliged to Join the Euro - and 24 years on still hasn't. It of course asked its people in a specific euro referendum and they said no.
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
I'd be a little wary of Spanish opinion polls. i'd be delighted to see Ciudadanos take over as a centrist government in Spain - but of the last 2 polls on wikipedia one still gives PP a national lead. Also at the last GE the polls overstated Ciudadanos significantly. The country needs a clearout of both PP and PSOE for that matter but nothing is certain.
Agree that the polls are not perfect, but they are are all picking up a sharp fall in PP support. The latest I have seen even puts PP behind Podemos. Can't see that actually panning out in an election, but the relentless corruption and the countless wrong-calls on Catalonia are clearly taking their toll.
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity.
That was on ratifying Maastricht and joining the EU - none of the articles of amendment reference scrapping the punt and replacing it with the Euro. I wasn't aware ratifying Maastricht and Euro membership were the same thing - as some nations who ratified it are still outside the Eurozone.
They were the same thing, if you weren't aware of that then sorry but it was explicit and the debates happened at the time. Maastricht explicitly meant joining the Euro - only the UK and Denmark had opt-outs.
Sweden got no opt out - and still hasn't joined. They have just refused to do so - so it was a separate choice if you wanted to as Sweden proves.
As I said Ireland specifically voted to ratify Maastricht - there was no specific separate referendum on Euro membership.
Sweden wasn't a member of the EU at the time.
But it accepted the Maastricht terms as part of its treaty of accession in 1994. It was obliged to Join the Euro - and 24 years on still hasn't. It of course asked its people in a specific euro referendum and they said no.
True, but as they weren't involved in the Maastricht negotiations their position on that is more tenable than it would otherwise be. In practice new members to the EU post-Maastricht have complete control of the timing of Euro adoption and can delay it indefinitely.
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity.
That was on ratifying Maastricht and joining the EU - none of the articles of amendment reference scrapping the punt and replacing it with the Euro. I wasn't aware ratifying Maastricht and Euro membership were the same thing - as some nations who ratified it are still outside the Eurozone.
They were the same thing, if you weren't aware of that then sorry but it was explicit and the debates happened at the time. Maastricht explicitly meant joining the Euro - only the UK and Denmark had opt-outs.
Sweden got no opt out when it in effect ratified Maastricht on joining the EU in 1994 - and still hasn't joined. They have just refused to do so - so it was a separate choice if you wanted to as Sweden proves.
As I said Ireland specifically voted to ratify Maastricht - there was no specific separate referendum on Euro membership.
Because Euro membership was an explicit obligation of Maastricht for all nations except Denmark and the UK.
Sweden has reneged on its obligations but that doesn't mean that Ireland wasn't obligated to join. You don't have a referendum on every single obligation that follows an agreement you have a referendum on the overall agreement and then implement it all. That is what Ireland did. If it didn't want to join the Euro it could have rejected Maastricht but be under no illusions that Ireland voted for the Euro in Maastricht.
Am I right that talk of the government being in danger on the NI abortion issue is idle chatter?
If there's a bill at Westminster to liberalise, the DUP will vote against, the main three parties will be divided, and a large majority of MPs will vote in favour, none of which will endanger the supply and confidence agreement, which provides that the DUP votes for the government on money bills and confidence motions so long as extra dosh keeps flowing to NI - £1bn if I recall. This is how minority government with a SaCA works: the junior partner can vote against the government on matters other than SaCA if it chooses. So...yawn?
Then there's the bigger Ireland issue of course, which connects with everyone's favourite issue...
If (Spartan) there were to be a referendum on abortion in NI, what would the result be likely to be?
It's strange how the impasse at Stormont is apparently over a slew of issues that seem very minor as justification for going to the mattresses: language, gay marriage, and investigations into killings during the troubles in the now distant past. What's it really about? I mean it must be about money, but what money?
I see it as Westminster potentially undermining the devolution settlement. Devolution, until we disagree with you.
At that level, rather than on the specifics of the abortion issue, the bowler hats would have grounds to pull out of their deal with the Tories.
I’d assumed it was going to be used purely as a political device by Labour to upset the DUP. Certainly the government have no interest in persuing the matter.
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity.
That was on ratifying Maastricht and joining the EU - none of the articles of amendment reference scrapping the punt and replacing it with the Euro. I wasn't aware ratifying Maastricht and Euro membership were the same thing - as some nations who ratified it are still outside the Eurozone.
They were the same thing, if you weren't aware of that then sorry but it was explicit and the debates happened at the time. Maastricht explicitly meant joining the Euro - only the UK and Denmark had opt-outs.
Sweden got no opt out - and still hasn't joined. They have just refused to do so - so it was a separate choice if you wanted to as Sweden proves.
As I said Ireland specifically voted to ratify Maastricht - there was no specific separate referendum on Euro membership.
Sweden wasn't a member of the EU at the time.
But it accepted the Maastricht terms as part of its treaty of accession in 1994. It was obliged to Join the Euro - and 24 years on still hasn't. It of course asked its people in a specific euro referendum and they said no.
They had no right to do that but nobody is willing or able to call them out on it or force them on it.
Just because someone hasn't followed through on their terms of agreement doesn't mean the agreement wasn't made and approved.
I quite agree. I think there are common factors in why people don't listen to those who speak up - as well as ones specific to the issue in question. In the case of Rotherham etc there was a fear of upsetting their own voters and particular Labour shibboleths.
But the common factor is that those without a voice - the weak, the young - are not taken seriously and that the interests of the institution are seen as paramount, even if that means going against the principles you claim to believe in.
For all the talk now about speaking up, I am not at all convinced that we have really learnt any lessons. The instinct to attack the messenger and protect the institution is very hard-wired in people: see your beloved Labour Party and anti-semitism, for instance. And the Catholic church, for all its recent efforts in some parts of it, still has not really come to terms with the utterly shameful - and sinful - behaviour (not just of individual priests) but of its hierarchy over many years. And what this means for its claim to be a moral voice.
John McGahern is a writer well worth reading BTW. I mention him because it was interesting to hear the commentary on Ireland this weekend by people who seemed so unaware that one of their greatest writers had accurately pointed out the gross hypocrisies in Irish life so long ago. His Memoir is superb: a love letter to his mother who put up, as so many Irish women did, with a violent husband. It sounds miserable but is well worth reading.
I don't love the Labour party. I merely see it as the only viable vehicle for opposing the Tories for as long as we have first past the post. If you are on the centre left and do not want a future written by the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson then Labour is your only option. And the only way you make Labour electable is to do all you can to stand against the far left. You can't do that from the sidelines.
I did not mean it as a criticism!
Anyway thanks for clarifying. We will have to agree to disagree. I am going nowhere near today's Labour Party until it turns into something more akin to a decent social democratic party. I think that those who think they can change it from within are at risk of being played. But fair play to you for trying.
Everything you say about Labour fiefdoms is correct, but let’s not forget that similar things have happened elsewhere in the country - Telford, for example.
The bottom line is that people in authority have always dismissed claims made by vulnerable young people and children about sex predators and traffikers. It’s not a recent phenomonen. The activities of Catholic priests were not only an issue in Ireland.
Telford and Wrekin has mostly been controlled by Labour. I see that the police investigation began when the Tories had control of the council, though I'm sure those two things aren't connected.
Quite.
Controlled by Labour 1997 - 2006 and then NOC for a couple of years.
Everything you say about Labour fiefdoms is correct, but let’s not forget that similar things have happened elsewhere in the country - Telford, for example.
The bottom line is that people in authority have always dismissed claims made by vulnerable young people and children about sex predators and traffikers. It’s not a recent phenomonen. The activities of Catholic priests were not only an issue in Ireland.
You're absolutely correct, excessive PC culture has lead to thousands of children all over the country being abused, raped and trafficked by Muslim men for over a decade.
"Led".
The overarching problems are the acceptance by local authorities and the police that organised crime in an area can't be combated (not just child abuse and trafficking but also drug dealing and extortion), and yes, some kind of view that there should be a type of "multiculturalism" whereby "communities" live and develop separately in important respects (for which there is a Dutch word), because otherwise there would be race riots. There is a failure of central-to-local relations here. Local government should be given an almighty kick up the arse. More inattention to colour (and religion) would help. I've never liked people for whom the biggest thing about other people is their skin colour. That kind of attitude is widespread in local government, behind all the "PC" hypocrisy, and should be called out - including when it's "reverse", which is just as execrable as when it's not.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
I don't love the Labour party. I merely see it as the only viable vehicle for opposing the Tories for as long as we have first past the post. If you are on the centre left and do not want a future written by the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson then Labour is your only option. And the only way you make Labour electable is to do all you can to stand against the far left. You can't do that from the sidelines.
You have another option if you don't like the likes of Rees Mogg (I don't either) and that is to be a Tory yourself and ensure the likes of Rees Mogg are sidelined. In the same way as if you don't like Corbyn you have two options - the Tories, or to join Labour and vote against the Corbynistas.
Am I right that talk of the government being in danger on the NI abortion issue is idle chatter?
If there's a bill at Westminster to liberalise, the DUP will vote against, the main three parties will be divided, and a large majority of MPs will vote in favour, none of which will endanger the supply and confidence agreement, which provides that the DUP votes for the government on money bills and confidence motions so long as extra dosh keeps flowing to NI - £1bn if I recall. This is how minority government with a SaCA works: the junior partner can vote against the government on matters other than SaCA if it chooses. So...yawn?
Then there's the bigger Ireland issue of course, which connects with everyone's favourite issue...
If (Spartan) there were to be a referendum on abortion in NI, what would the result be likely to be?
It's strange how the impasse at Stormont is apparently over a slew of issues that seem very minor as justification for going to the mattresses: language, gay marriage, and investigations into killings during the troubles in the now distant past. What's it really about? I mean it must be about money, but what money?
I see it as Westminster potentially undermining the devolution settlement. Devolution, until we disagree with you.
At that level, rather than on the specifics of the abortion issue, the bowler hats would have grounds to pull out of their deal with the Tories.
Which is why the Tories won't do it. They will maintain the line that this is a matter for the NI Assembly and those that want change should work a bit harder to get it up and running again.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
Why would the EU let us have our money back either? The next step is to say that only by paying vast sums can we be in the Single Market and Currency Union - and we can kiss the rebate goodbye.
Everything you say about Labour fiefdoms is correct, but let’s not forget that similar things have happened elsewhere in the country - Telford, for example.
The bottom line is that people in authority have always dismissed claims made by vulnerable young people and children about sex predators and traffikers. It’s not a recent phenomonen. The activities of Catholic priests were not only an issue in Ireland.
I quite agree. I think there are common factors in why people don't listen to those who speak up - as well as ones specific to the issue in question. In the case of Rotherham etc there was a fear of upsetting their own voters and particular Labour shibboleths.
But the common factor is that those without a voice - the weak, the young - are not taken seriously and that the interests of the institution are seen as paramount, even if that means going against the principles you claim to believe in.
For all the talk now about speaking up, I am not at all convinced that we have really learnt any lessons. The instinct to attack the messenger and protect the institution is very hard-wired in people: see your beloved Labour Party and anti-semitism, for instance. And the Catholic church, for all its recent efforts in some parts of it, still has not really come to terms with the utterly shameful - and sinful - behaviour (not just of individual priests) but of its hierarchy over many years. And what this means for its claim to be a moral voice.
John McGahern is a writer well worth reading BTW. I mention him because it was interesting to hear the commentary on Ireland this weekend by people who seemed so unaware that one of their greatest writers had accurately pointed out the gross hypocrisies in Irish life so long ago. His Memoir is superb: a love letter to his mother who put up, as so many Irish women did, with a violent husband. It sounds miserable but is well worth reading.
I don't love the Labour party. I merely see it as the only viable vehicle for opposing the Tories for as long as we have first past the post. If you are on the centre left and do not want a future written by the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson then Labour is your only option. And the only way you make Labour electable is to do all you can to stand against the far left. You can't do that from the sidelines.
Rees Mogg is a backbencher. Johnson has limited influence in the Cabinet.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
War game the alternative where the Commons doesn't vote for a customs union (i.e. they vote to give May a free hand in negotiations). How does that lead to a different outcome? Arguably it puts her in a more tricky position because then she's still left with trying to get the backstop past the DUP, or find a viable alternative.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
War game the alternative where the Commons doesn't vote for a customs union (i.e. they vote to give May a free hand in negotiations). How does that lead to a different outcome? Arguably it puts her in a more tricky position because then she's still left with trying to get the backstop past the DUP, or find a viable alternative.
There is a viable alternative, a free trade deal with MaxFac.
I quite agree. I think there are common factors in why people don't listen to those who speak up - as well as ones specific to the issue in question. In the case of Rotherham etc there was a fear of upsetting their own voters and particular Labour shibboleths.
But the common factor is that those without a voice - the weak, the young - are not taken seriously and that the interests of the institution are seen as paramount, even if that means going against the principles you claim to
John McGahern is a writer well worth reading BTW. I mention him because it was interesting to hear the commentary on Ireland this weekend by people who seemed so unaware that one of their greatest writers had accurately pointed out the gross hypocrisies in Irish life so long ago. His Memoir is superb: a love letter to his mother who put up, as so many Irish women did, with a violent husband. It sounds miserable but is well worth reading.
I don't love the Labour party. I merely see it as the only viable vehicle for opposing the Tories for as long as we have first past the post. If you are on the centre left and do not want a future written by the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson then Labour is your only option. And the only way you make Labour electable is to do all you can to stand against the far left. You can't do that from the sidelines.
I did not mean it as a criticism!
Anyway thanks for clarifying. We will have to agree to disagree. I am going nowhere near today's Labour Party until it turns into something more akin to a decent social democratic party. I think that those who think they can change it from within are at risk of being played. But fair play to you for trying.
Here's the thing. The Labour Party is not a Social Democratic Party. It is a Democratic Socialist Party. As we all know, a past generation who wanted to be in a Social Democratic Party went off and set one up. The next generation tried to turn the Labour Party into something it is not, and were allowed to temporarily.
I think we are back to the stage where Labour is clearly a Socialist Party, and the internal debate is between Soft Left and more radical Left.
Those who want to be in or support a Social Democratic Party either need to set one up (plenty have claimed they were going to, but have all failed to deliver) or choose the closest thing - either Labour or LibDem.
Are there any stats on Italian savings? If I had significant savings in Italy, I'd be looking to get them out of the country pronto.
See the link I gave to the Bank of Italy about target2. That is exactly what is happening.
Thank you. It seems to me that Italy is no longer a sovereign nation.
No member of the Eurozone is an independent country. I think their inhabitants generally recognise that and accept it.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Did any country hold a referendum on joining the Euro? People accept it because they had no choice and weren't asked.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity.
That was on ratifying Maastricht and joining the EU - none of the articles of amendment reference scrapping the punt and replacing it with the Euro. I wasn't aware ratifying Maastricht and Euro membership were the same thing - as some nations who ratified it are still outside the Eurozone.
They were the same thing, if you weren't aware of that then sorry but it was explicit and the debates happened at the time. Maastricht explicitly meant joining the Euro - only the UK and Denmark had opt-outs.
Sweden got no opt out when it in effect ratified Maastricht on joining the EU in 1994 - and still hasn't joined. They have just refused to do so - so it was a separate choice if you wanted to as Sweden proves.
As I said Ireland specifically voted to ratify Maastricht - there was no specific separate referendum on Euro membership.
Sweden hasn’t made a choice - they’ve just ensured they do t meet the criteria (and from memory it is a criterion that is entirely under government control that they have failed).
At best they are playing fast and loose with their Treaty obligations. But they don’t seem to be a pariah state as some suggest the U.K. will be
I don't love the Labour party. I merely see it as the only viable vehicle for opposing the Tories for as long as we have first past the post. If you are on the centre left and do not want a future written by the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson then Labour is your only option. And the only way you make Labour electable is to do all you can to stand against the far left. You can't do that from the sidelines.
You have another option if you don't like the likes of Rees Mogg (I don't either) and that is to be a Tory yourself and ensure the likes of Rees Mogg are sidelined. In the same way as if you don't like Corbyn you have two options - the Tories, or to join Labour and vote against the Corbynistas.
I am ion the centre left. It would be wrong for me to join the Tories on so many levels.
On topic, this stuff all sounds very nice in the abstract:
It is the belief that to maintain a sense of society, the social cohesion and shared – if usually unexpressed – assumptions necessary to make democracy work, its citizens should be able to choose who is let in and on what terms. All the more so when that democracy is seeking to make a welfare state work.
But since nobody except me and rcs1000 is actually advocating a return to a Victorian immigration policy, and neither of us live there any more, it's presumably trying to say something non-abstract: That democracy is *now* under threat, and the welfare state is *now* somehow at risk, because of all the immigrants.
Stated like this, it's bollocks, and vicious bollocks at that.
I don't love the Labour party. I merely see it as the only viable vehicle for opposing the Tories for as long as we have first past the post. If you are on the centre left and do not want a future written by the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson then Labour is your only option. And the only way you make Labour electable is to do all you can to stand against the far left. You can't do that from the sidelines.
I did not mean it as a criticism!
Anyway thanks for clarifying. We will have to agree to disagree. I am going nowhere near today's Labour Party until it turns into something more akin to a decent social democratic party. I think that those who think they can change it from within are at risk of being played. But fair play to you for trying.
Here's the thing. The Labour Party is not a Social Democratic Party. It is a Democratic Socialist Party. As we all know, a past generation who wanted to be in a Social Democratic Party went off and set one up. The next generation tried to turn the Labour Party into something it is not, and were allowed to temporarily.
I think we are back to the stage where Labour is clearly a Socialist Party, and the internal debate is between Soft Left and more radical Left.
Those who want to be in or support a Social Democratic Party either need to set one up (plenty have claimed they were going to, but have all failed to deliver) or choose the closest thing - either Labour or LibDem.
"Temporarily"? For a decade and a half. Possibly the most successful decade and a half in Labour's history.
Old Labour was rather more social democratic than you make out, I think.
But, hey, it's your party so you know best. If what you say is correct, then I'm out and likely to stay out for the foreseeable.
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
War game the alternative where the Commons doesn't vote for a customs union (i.e. they vote to give May a free hand in negotiations). How does that lead to a different outcome? Arguably it puts her in a more tricky position because then she's still left with trying to get the backstop past the DUP, or find a viable alternative.
There is a viable alternative, a free trade deal with MaxFac.
It’s not viable by 31 Dec 2020, and if the EU don’t like it, there’d be no transition period anyway.
Failure to prepare for hard Brexit has ensured that either outcome I laid out will probably be politically disastrous for the government. You can’t negotiate if you can’t credibly exit.
It is an indictment of Theresa May and our supposedly impartial civil service.
"One strategy that helps us to close our eyes to our own hypocrisy is “moral licensing”, a kind of moral sale of indulgences. It refers to our increased tendency to act immorally if we have already displayed our moral righteousness. In essence, it means, that after you have done something nice, you think you have the license to do something not so nice, as if these things balance each other."
'They had no right to do that but nobody is willing or able to call them out on it or force them on it.
Just because someone hasn't followed through on their terms of agreement doesn't mean the agreement wasn't made and approved.'
Pro EU membership parties got 95 per cent plus of the vote in almost every UK election from 1987 to 2010. And 87 per cent in 2015. As June 2016 showed that clearly didn't mean 95 per cent of voters wanted to stay in the EU. Voting for a package such as a treaty or manifesto does not imply you endorse every measure.
And in lreland there has been no vaguely Eurosceptic party to vote for for some time bar the odd independent in a few seats - since Sinn Fein changed their stance. While I accept the majority of the Irish people are pro EU if you aren't you have no way of expressing that opinion at the ballot box. Even then Ireland rejected Nice and Lisbon - before being told to vote again the second time with menaces.
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
On topic, this stuff all sounds very nice in the abstract:
It is the belief that to maintain a sense of society, the social cohesion and shared – if usually unexpressed – assumptions necessary to make democracy work, its citizens should be able to choose who is let in and on what terms. All the more so when that democracy is seeking to make a welfare state work.
But since nobody except me and rcs1000 is actually advocating a return to a Victorian immigration policy, and neither of us live there any more, it's presumably trying to say something non-abstract: That democracy is *now* under threat, and the welfare state is *now* somehow at risk, because of all the immigrants.
Stated like this, it's bollocks, and vicious bollocks at that.
I think that the problem is that a liberal immigration policy is not easily compatible with a liberal welfare system, with a redistributive emphasis.
One for pb's finest minds on Italy. Does anyone think any new Italian Govt could use the issue of German war reparations to walk away from a large chunk of Italy's debt?
Here is the scenario. The new Govt has made huge spending commitments, the debt pile is huge and it is hard to see how Italy can get out of any of this in the "normal" way.
We have a new election, La Liga gets an increased vote. Let's say it stays with 5 Star. The issue of German interference in blocking the previous government formation plays a strong part in the election.
A new Government then announces that, since the Germans didn't properly pay Italy for the damage caused during WW II, it is writing off debt to German state and quasi state banks such as Deutsche Bank quid pro quo for these war reparations. It claims this is not a default because it is "paying" its debt, just that it has offset unpaid war reparations to do so.
Italy already has form on this. It sued Germany for war reparations in 2008 but lost at the UN in 2012. However, that claim was by an individual who had been deported for slave labour and it was rejected because the argument stated that Germany could not be sued by an individual for claims. The argument here would be damages to the Italian state and that any previous agreements did not fully take into account the damage.
The obvious result would be pandemonium on the financial markets. But it has attractions to the Government. It states it is standing up for Germany and would presumably be popular. It could claim to the markets that this is a "one off" due to the uniqueness of the war damages question. It creates problems for Germany with other states such as Poland and Greece with similar issues but which do not have Italy's size. And it may take a long time to wind itself through the international legal system where another solution may come along.
One thing I'm not sure is how much the German banks do have in exposure in Italy. I could only see €120bn but that was back in 20111 and Italy's debt has mushroomed since then.
I don't love the Labour party. I merely see it as the only viable vehicle for opposing the Tories for as long as we have first past the post. If you are on the centre left and do not want a future written by the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson then Labour is your only option. And the only way you make Labour electable is to do all you can to stand against the far left. You can't do that from the sidelines.
I did not mean it as a criticism!
Anyway thanks for clarifying. We will have to agree to disagree. I am going nowhere near today's Labour Party until it turns into something more akin to a decent social democratic party. I think that those who think they can change it from within are at risk of being played. But fair play to you for trying.
Here's the thing. The Labour Party is not a Social Democratic Party. It is a Democratic Socialist Party. As we all know, a past generation who wanted to be in a Social Democratic Party went off and set one up. The next generation tried to turn the Labour Party into something it is not, and were allowed to temporarily.
I think we are back to the stage where Labour is clearly a Socialist Party, and the internal debate is between Soft Left and more radical Left.
Those who want to be in or support a Social Democratic Party either need to set one up (plenty have claimed they were going to, but have all failed to deliver) or choose the closest thing - either Labour or LibDem.
"Temporarily"? For a decade and a half. Possibly the most successful decade and a half in Labour's history.
Old Labour was rather more social democratic than you make out, I think.
But, hey, it's your party so you know best. If what you say is correct, then I'm out and likely to stay out for the foreseeable.
Depends how you measure success. Just keeping the Tories out isn't really enough. We had a chance to radically change this country for the better, and failed to do so.
'They had no right to do that but nobody is willing or able to call them out on it or force them on it.
Just because someone hasn't followed through on their terms of agreement doesn't mean the agreement wasn't made and approved.'
Pro EU membership parties got 95 per cent plus of the vote in almost every UK election from 1987 to 2010. And 87 per cent in 2015. As June 2016 showed that clearly didn't mean 95 per cent of voters wanted to stay in the EU. Voting for a package such as a treaty or manifesto does not imply you endorse every measure.
And in lreland there has been no vaguely Eurosceptic party to vote for for some time - since Sinn Fein changed their stance. While I accept the majority of the Irish people are pro EU if you aren't you have no way of expressing that opinion at the ballot box. Even then Ireland rejected Nice and Lisbon - before being told to vote again the second time with menaces.
Look at contemporaneous reports on the Irish Maastricht referendum or read Albert Reynolds' address where the single currency was the most prominent element of the treaty.
The Maastricht Treaty, signed in December in the Netherlands' town of the same name, was designed to establish throughout the EC a single currency, the European Currency Unit, and unify many aspects of member states' foreign policy, security, environmental and immigration arrangements.
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
I'd be a little wary of Spanish opinion polls. i'd be delighted to see Ciudadanos take over as a centrist government in Spain - but of the last 2 polls on wikipedia one still gives PP a national lead. Also at the last GE the polls overstated Ciudadanos significantly. The country needs a clearout of both PP and PSOE for that matter but nothing is certain.
Agree that the polls are not perfect, but they are are all picking up a sharp fall in PP support. The latest I have seen even puts PP behind Podemos. Can't see that actually panning out in an election, but the relentless corruption and the countless wrong-calls on Catalonia are clearly taking their toll.
Indeed - but NC Report on near identical field work gives PP a 1.8 point lead over C's. I agree PP are falling but the polls are both unclear and , based on last time, quite unreliable. Also the way the list system seems to work gives a bias in favour of both PP and PSOE in different zones. A new GE seems inevitable soon but it may produce another hung Parliamen most likely a C's/PP coalition cf the current PP/C's Coalition. Form the point of view osf stability and the economy that would be a good outcome - although might prove awkward in Catalonia.
Sweden got no opt out when it in effect ratified Maastricht on joining the EU in 1994 - and still hasn't joined. They have just refused to do so - so it was a separate choice if you wanted to as Sweden proves.
As I said Ireland specifically voted to ratify Maastricht - there was no specific separate referendum on Euro membership.
Sweden hasn’t made a choice - they’ve just ensured they do t meet the criteria (and from memory it is a criterion that is entirely under government control that they have failed).
At best they are playing fast and loose with their Treaty obligations. But they don’t seem to be a pariah state as some suggest the U.K. will be
The Swedes and the Czechs are 'legally required to join the Euro at some point in the future' but the trouble with the future is that it's very long time. Do join the Euro, they first have to join the ERM but there's no legal requirement to join that and as only around 20% of the public in those countries are in favour of the Euro, their governments see no rush.
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
Spot on at the end there but the fact he favours independence gives him a free pass for some on here.
I don't love the Labour party. I merely see it as the only viable vehicle for opposing the Tories for as long as we have first past the post. If you are on the centre left and do not want a future written by the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson then Labour is your only option. And the only way you make Labour electable is to do all you can to stand against the far left. You can't do that from the sidelines.
I did not mean it as a criticism!
Anyway thanks for clarifying. We will have to agree to disagree. I am going nowhere near today's Labour Party until it turns into something more akin to a decent social democratic party. I think that those who think they can change it from within are at risk of being played. But fair play to you for trying.
Here's the thing. The Labour Party is not a Social Democratic Party. It is a Democratic Socialist Party. As we all know, a past generation who wanted to be in a Social Democratic Party went off and set one up. The next generation tried to turn the Labour Party into something it is not, and were allowed to temporarily.
I think we are back to the stage where Labour is clearly a Socialist Party, and the internal debate is between Soft Left and more radical Left.
Those who want to be in or support a Social Democratic Party either need to set one up (plenty have claimed they were going to, but have all failed to deliver) or choose the closest thing - either Labour or LibDem.
"Temporarily"? For a decade and a half. Possibly the most successful decade and a half in Labour's history.
Old Labour was rather more social democratic than you make out, I think.
But, hey, it's your party so you know best. If what you say is correct, then I'm out and likely to stay out for the foreseeable.
Depends how you measure success. Just keeping the Tories out isn't really enough. We had a chance to radically change this country for the better, and failed to do so.
New Labour’s immigration policy has changed this country more profoundly than probably any other government action since 1945. Along with other reforms you might argue that you failed to change the country for the better, but you certainly transformed it.
Best guide to Spanish polls - PP and PSOE generally falling Podemos flatlined and C's taking over the top spot. Overall - likeliest outcome C's/PP coalition but not clear what the final outcome could be.
Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Sounds nice - but realistically? Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
ID cards - most other Europeans use them and here in Spain no contributions - no benefits.
New Labour’s immigration policy has changed this country more profoundly than probably any other government action since 1945. Along with other reforms you might argue that you failed to change the country for the better, but you certainly transformed it.
Counterintuitively, perhaps what they should have done was pre-emptively offer free movement (or close to it) to the A8 countries in 1997 instead of "sending out search parties looking for immigrants".
Sweden got no opt out when it in effect ratified Maastricht on joining the EU in 1994 - and still hasn't joined. They have just refused to do so - so it was a separate choice if you wanted to as Sweden proves.
As I said Ireland specifically voted to ratify Maastricht - there was no specific separate referendum on Euro membership.
Sweden hasn’t made a choice - they’ve just ensured they do t meet the criteria (and from memory it is a criterion that is entirely under government control that they have failed).
At best they are playing fast and loose with their Treaty obligations. But they don’t seem to be a pariah state as some suggest the U.K. will be
The Swedes and the Czechs are 'legally required to join the Euro at some point in the future' but the trouble with the future is that it's very long time. Do join the Euro, they first have to join the ERM but there's no legal requirement to join that and as only around 20% of the public in those countries are in favour of the Euro, their governments see no rush.
I’m not sure it is “at some point in the future” - it was meant to be quickly but haven’t checked precise wording
Thanks for confirming re ERM membership - thought it was that but couldn’t remember
I think that the problem is that a liberal immigration policy is not easily compatible with a liberal welfare system, with a redistributive emphasis.
That's true within some parameters - eg if Britain had open door, and no other developed country did, you could imagine that a lot of very poor, uneducated people might move there, and not pay much tax, so you'd have to cut benefits. But on the current scale it's entirely compatible with a liberal welfare system, because immigrants are young and get jobs.
You can do the same with politics: It's of course possible, in the abstract, for a lot of people to show up in a democracy who believe in some other system, like theocracy, and not be persuaded why democracy is better, which would endanger the democracy. But if you're trying to apply this to the current political spectrum, then the argument isn't that it's theoretically possible, it's that actually imminent, which is total and utter shite.
I don't love the Labour party. I merely see it as the only viable vehicle for opposing the Tories for as long as we have first past the post. If you are on the centre left and do not want a future written by the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson then Labour is your only option. And the only way you make Labour electable is to do all you can to stand against the far left. You can't do that from the sidelines.
I did not mean it as a criticism!
Anyway thanks for clarifying. We will have to agree to disagree. I am going nowhere near today's Labour Party until it turns into something more akin to a decent social democratic party. I think that those who think they can change it from within are at risk of being played. But fair play to you for trying.
Here's the thing. The Labour Party is not a Social Democratic Party. It is a Democratic Socialist Party. As we all know, a past generation who wanted to be in a Social Democratic Party went off and set one up. The next generation tried to turn the Labour Party into something it is not, and were allowed to temporarily.
I think we are back to the stage where Labour is clearly a Socialist Party, and the internal debate is between Soft Left and more radical Left.
Those who want to be in or support a Social Democratic Party either need to set one up (plenty have claimed they were going to, but have all failed to deliver) or choose the closest thing - either Labour or LibDem.
"Temporarily"? For a decade and a half. Possibly the most successful decade and a half in Labour's history.
Old Labour was rather more social democratic than you make out, I think.
But, hey, it's your party so you know best. If what you say is correct, then I'm out and likely to stay out for the foreseeable.
Depends how you measure success. Just keeping Tories out isn't enough. We had a chance to radically change this country for the better, and failed to do so.
So all that investment in public services and increased public spending was not a success? Tax credits? Increased migration into the country? Signing of the Lisbon Treaty? Intervention in Kosovo to protect Muslims from Serbian persecution? None of these were successes?
What would you like to have done that wasn't done?
Let’s say the Commons votes for a customs union. Barnier will then reasonably state that only continued participation in the Single Market or total alignment with its standards will permit frictionless trade and an open Irish border.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
War game the alternative where the Commons doesn't vote for a customs union (i.e. they vote to give May a free hand in negotiations). How does that lead to a different outcome? Arguably it puts her in a more tricky position because then she's still left with trying to get the backstop past the DUP, or find a viable alternative.
There is a viable alternative, a free trade deal with MaxFac.
It’s not viable by 31 Dec 2020, and if the EU don’t like it, there’d be no transition period anyway.
Failure to prepare for hard Brexit has ensured that either outcome I laid out will probably be politically disastrous for the government. You can’t negotiate if you can’t credibly exit.
It is an indictment of Theresa May and our supposedly impartial civil service.
RoyalBlue - you are completely correct in both your posts. The idea that we can join the CU without accepting FOM is simply a nonsense - yesterday I challenged the remainers to point out how 'soft Brexit' can happen without FOM and there was deafening silence.
As a result, there is really no way out - May has to walk but she has not prepared for no deal because she was trying to appease people who never wanted to carry out the result of the referendum. The only option that the EU will accept is a longer transition, under full EU control, until such time as the UK agrees to join the EEA.
Personally, I think she has to walk. There will be disruption but it is manageable and it will only be for a limited period. But it probably needs someone with a brain to lead the UK through it.
O/T Support for the Popular Party in Spain is in free fall.
Who is picking up the support PP are losing?Ciudadanos?
Mainly. There's quite a few ex PP members in Ciudadanos, including its leader. Cs portrays itself as centre left or centrist but is strongly Spanish nationalist/anti Catalan indy (it began in Catalonia), and seems to attract quite a few extremists from the right. Interesting to compare with the (ir)resistible rise of Ruth Davidson..
Ciudadanos was founded in Catalonia as a party opposed to Catalan independence. That does not make it a Spanish nationalist party. It has picked up support from both the Socialists and PP. It also won most votes in the recent Catalan elections. If Rivera became Spanish PM he would be the first Catalan and Catalan speaker ever to get the job.
Of course, the current Catalan president is a right wing Catalan supremacist who has shown nothing but contempt for the Spanish speaking poor whose labours made Catalonia wealthy.
Your loyalty to indissoluble unions is unsurprising. This sense of exceptionalism for their brand of flag waving, collective nationalist identity is very familiar.
'Spanish nationalism
Although the party defines itself as postnationalist, it has been accused by critics of professing a populist Spanish nationalism ideology. In a party conference held on May 20 2018 to present its platform España Ciudadana, Albert Rivera said in a hall filled with flags of Spain: "I do not see reds and blues, I see Spaniards. I do not see, as they say, urban people and rural people, I see Spaniards. I do not see young or old, I see Spaniards. I do not see workers and entrepreneurs, I see Spaniards. I do not see believers or agnostics, I see Spaniards. (...) So, compatriots, with Citizens, let's go for that Spain, let's feel proud of being Spaniards again."'
Ha, ha.
That looks very like post-nationalism to me. There is no seeking to blame or scapegoat others for the perceived ills of a society, merely an observation that despite differences more unites than divides people across the whole of Spain. I make no apologies for rather liking that way of seeing the world. It seems to me a lot healthier than railing against Madrid, Westminster, Brussels, etc.
It's just railing against Barcelona, Holyrood etc that you're fine with (ok, very much in favour of).
Anyway thanks for clarifying. We will have to agree to disagree. I am going nowhere near today's Labour Party until it turns into something more akin to a decent social democratic party. I think that those who think they can change it from within are at risk of being played. But fair play to you for trying.
Here's the thing. The Labour Party is not a Social Democratic Party. It is a Democratic Socialist Party. As we all know, a past generation who wanted to be in a Social Democratic Party went off and set one up. The next generation tried to turn the Labour Party into something it is not, and were allowed to temporarily.
I think we are back to the stage where Labour is clearly a Socialist Party, and the internal debate is between Soft Left and more radical Left.
Those who want to be in or support a Social Democratic Party either need to set one up (plenty have claimed they were going to, but have all failed to deliver) or choose the closest thing - either Labour or LibDem.
"Temporarily"? For a decade and a half. Possibly the most successful decade and a half in Labour's history.
Old Labour was rather more social democratic than you make out, I think.
But, hey, it's your party so you know best. If what you say is correct, then I'm out and likely to stay out for the foreseeable.
Depends how you measure success. Just keeping Tories out isn't enough. We had a chance to radically change this country for the better, and failed to do so.
So all that investment in public services and increased public spending was not a success? Tax credits? Increased migration into the country? Signing of the Lisbon Treaty? Intervention in Kosovo to protect Muslims from Serbian persecution? None of these were successes?
What would you like to have done that wasn't done?
Smash the bourgeoisie. With McDonnell in Number 11 it might actuallly happen.
Best guide to Spanish polls - PP and PSOE generally falling Podemos flatlined and C's taking over the top spot. Overall - likeliest outcome C's/PP coalition but not clear what the final outcome could be.
The change has happened very quickly, in about 12 months. Citizens were on around 15% a year ago, now on about 28%.
As a result, there is really no way out - May has to walk but she has not prepared for no deal because she was trying to appease people who never wanted to carry out the result of the referendum. The only option that the EU will accept is a longer transition, under full EU control, until such time as the UK agrees to join the EEA.
Personally, I think she has to walk. There will be disruption but it is manageable and it will only be for a limited period. But it probably needs someone with a brain to lead the UK through it.
It simply can't be done with a population where the majority now believe the Brexit decision was wrong to begin with.
Your kind of Brexit could only be delivered by a Putin-style leader with full control of the state and a willingness to repress the opposition.
Comments
Griffin - no investigation
Tom Watson - investigation
it's who you are that counts
The main problem is self-inflicted; they won’t elect a reformist government. They compare very unfavourably with Spain, which is now running a trade surplus and has a shrinking deficit. Even France under Macron is knuckling down.
Freedom of movement and border controls are two different things. Schengen has nothing to do with freedom of movement but is about removing border controls. It is perfectly possible to have freedom of movement but still have border controls to ensure criminals and other undesirables cannot enter. Indeed it is exactly what we are supposed to have had for the last few decades inside the EU.
As for people being a drain on the country that is simple (in theory at least if not in practice or politics). Freedom to come to the UK should infer no access to public services or benefits unless one is a tax payer. So someone coming to work here should have access on the same basis as UK citizens but anyone who is not contributing does not benefit. The devil is of course in the detail but the basic principle is sound.
Italy is legally sovereign, but it’s clear that EU membership strips that of substantive meaning over time.
Look at the way that whistleblowers are treated in other sectors. Much has been said this weekend about the change in attitudes in Ireland. John McGahern, a writer, wrote about the violence and misogyny of rural Irish life back in the 1960's - attitudes which underpinned much of the approach to family life, womens' rights etc for so long - and was hounded out of his job as a teacher and left to live elsewhere. Much of what we learnt later about Tuam and the Magdalene laundries and the deadening hand of the Catholic Church and a violent underbelly in Irish life was all there in his writing, for those willing to see.
One thing that strikes me as curious is that the whole debate about immigration seems to take place in complete isolation from that about how many jobs are at risk from automation. If we are truly going to see many jobs disappear because of automation, then the arguments about importing labour to fill jobs seems incredibly short-sighted and building up problems for the future - you "import" people now to fill jobs which may be gone in a few years time but, when these jobs disappear, society is then left to deal with the longer-term issues such as people needing to be supported, housed, schooled etc. An example of that is the Lancashire and Yorkshire mill towns in the 1950s and 1960s.
It is why one has to be careful about accepting the arguments of businesses at face value. Their first priority is their business and profits, with everything else coming afterwards nor do businesses have to pick up the costs. An example is in farming. In "Rise of the Robots", one of the examples given about automate jobs was how machines could pick crops successfully. Yet we hear about how farms will not be able to cope if the supply of cheap labour is cut. Why? Because those businesses would rather employ cheap flexible labour than invest. The same goes for places such as supermarkets (go to France, price displays are automated, in the UK we still use paper cards because, in France, labour is expensive).
I think 5* on 32-34 points and LN on 23-25 points is what we're looking at in a possible election.
The bottom line is that people in authority have always dismissed claims made by vulnerable young people and children about sex predators and traffikers. It’s not a recent phenomonen. The activities of Catholic priests were not only an issue in Ireland.
Even Ireland didn't - a strange constitution that requires referendums on most things - but not ceasing to have your own currency and ceding control of monetary policy to a foreign entity. Odd that.
When ever the people are asked directly via referendum the EU side invariably loses - but they generally get ignored because the elites know best.
This sense of exceptionalism for their brand of flag waving, collective nationalist identity is very familiar.
'Spanish nationalism
Although the party defines itself as postnationalist, it has been accused by critics of professing a populist Spanish nationalism ideology. In a party conference held on May 20 2018 to present its platform España Ciudadana, Albert Rivera said in a hall filled with flags of Spain:
"I do not see reds and blues, I see Spaniards. I do not see, as they say, urban people and rural people, I see Spaniards. I do not see young or old, I see Spaniards. I do not see workers and entrepreneurs, I see Spaniards. I do not see believers or agnostics, I see Spaniards. (...) So, compatriots, with Citizens, let's go for that Spain, let's feel proud of being Spaniards again."'
Mr. Cabinet, is that the one where you tipped the Republicans to win the House at 5/4? Nice article, if so.
Mr. Max, cheers for that answer. Presumably, if those numbers appear as raw votes, then that means the Liga (Lega?) is all but guaranteed to be 2nd behind 5 Star? Or does weird constituency lines mean it'll be closer.
Controlled by Labour 1997 - 2006 and then NOC for a couple of years.
I think this move by the Italian president takes that chance of Italy leaving the Euro from about 25% to about 50%. The election dynamic will now favour the sceptics and nationalists.
But the common factor is that those without a voice - the weak, the young - are not taken seriously and that the interests of the institution are seen as paramount, even if that means going against the principles you claim to believe in.
For all the talk now about speaking up, I am not at all convinced that we have really learnt any lessons. The instinct to attack the messenger and protect the institution is very hard-wired in people: see your beloved Labour Party and anti-semitism, for instance. And the Catholic church, for all its recent efforts in some parts of it, still has not really come to terms with the utterly shameful - and sinful - behaviour (not just of individual priests) but of its hierarchy over many years. And what this means for its claim to be a moral voice.
John McGahern is a writer well worth reading BTW. I mention him because it was interesting to hear the commentary on Ireland this weekend by people who seemed so unaware that one of their greatest writers had accurately pointed out the gross hypocrisies in Irish life so long ago. His Memoir is superb: a love letter to his mother who put up, as so many Irish women did, with a violent husband. It sounds miserable but is well worth reading.
"We fundamentally believe diversity is good for the country. Only a small number of your children will be raped, and they're white working class anyway so its a good chance for them to get to know their new neighbours"
If there's a bill at Westminster to liberalise, the DUP will vote against, the main three parties will be divided, and a large majority of MPs will vote in favour, none of which will endanger the supply and confidence agreement, which provides that the DUP votes for the government on money bills and confidence motions so long as extra dosh keeps flowing to NI - £1bn if I recall. This is how minority government with a SaCA works: the junior partner can vote against the government on matters other than SaCA if it chooses. So...yawn?
Then there's the bigger Ireland issue of course, which connects with everyone's favourite issue...
If (Spartan) there were to be a referendum on abortion in NI, what would the result be likely to be?
It's strange how the impasse at Stormont is apparently over a slew of issues that seem very minor as justification for going to the mattresses: language, gay marriage, and investigations into killings during the troubles in the now distant past. What's it really about? I mean it must be about money, but what money?
ratifying Maastricht and Euro membership are not exactly the same thing - as some nations who ratified it are still outside the Eurozone. The Euro came into being 7 years after Maastricht was ratified.
Only two nations had specific votes on joining the Euro - Denmark and Sweden - and they both rejected it.
At that level, rather than on the specifics of the abortion issue, the bowler hats would have grounds to pull out of their deal with the Tories.
That looks very like post-nationalism to me. There is no seeking to blame or scapegoat others for the perceived ills of a society, merely an observation that despite differences more unites than divides people across the whole of Spain. I make no apologies for rather liking that way of seeing the world. It seems to me a lot healthier than railing against Madrid, Westminster, Brussels, etc.
Every US president is a nationalist (and since 1865 a Unionist for that matter).
As I said Ireland specifically voted to ratify Maastricht - there was no specific separate referendum on Euro membership.
(I hope the law is changed in Northern Ireland, but the way to achieve that is through Northern Irish institutions, not through imposition).
Anyway, must be off.
NI has its own politicians, they get paid, make the buggers earn their money or face their constituents
https://twitter.com/Electograph/status/1000823419733204992
Sweden has reneged on its obligations but that doesn't mean that Ireland wasn't obligated to join. You don't have a referendum on every single obligation that follows an agreement you have a referendum on the overall agreement and then implement it all. That is what Ireland did. If it didn't want to join the Euro it could have rejected Maastricht but be under no illusions that Ireland voted for the Euro in Maastricht.
Just because someone hasn't followed through on their terms of agreement doesn't mean the agreement wasn't made and approved.
Anyway thanks for clarifying. We will have to agree to disagree. I am going nowhere near today's Labour Party until it turns into something more akin to a decent social democratic party. I think that those who think they can change it from within are at risk of being played. But fair play to you for trying.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-shropshire-43586131
The overarching problems are the acceptance by local authorities and the police that organised crime in an area can't be combated (not just child abuse and trafficking but also drug dealing and extortion), and yes, some kind of view that there should be a type of "multiculturalism" whereby "communities" live and develop separately in important respects (for which there is a Dutch word), because otherwise there would be race riots. There is a failure of central-to-local relations here. Local government should be given an almighty kick up the arse. More inattention to colour (and religion) would help. I've never liked people for whom the biggest thing about other people is their skin colour. That kind of attitude is widespread in local government, behind all the "PC" hypocrisy, and should be called out - including when it's "reverse", which is just as execrable as when it's not.
Why would the EU be prepared to grant us effective participation in the Single Market, without us also accepting free movement? There is not country that enjoys one without the other. Short answer: they won’t.
May will then be trapped in a corner. The EU deal will minimise short-term economic disruption, but at the cost of formal U.K. participation in swathes of economic policy for its own economy, and a figleaf at best in freedom of movement. Perhaps we’d get our money back. The alternative would be immigration control and the end of EU legal supremacy, at the cost of terrible short-term economic disruption and a collapse in the value of the pound.
Oh dear.
This is the thin end of the wedge.
I think we are back to the stage where Labour is clearly a Socialist Party, and the internal debate is between Soft Left and more radical Left.
Those who want to be in or support a Social Democratic Party either need to set one up (plenty have claimed they were going to, but have all failed to deliver) or choose the closest thing - either Labour or LibDem.
At best they are playing fast and loose with their Treaty obligations. But they don’t seem to be a pariah state as some suggest the U.K. will be
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/brian-monteith-was-this-nicola-sturgeon-s-worst-week-since-taking-power-1-4745687
Stated like this, it's bollocks, and vicious bollocks at that.
Old Labour was rather more social democratic than you make out, I think.
But, hey, it's your party so you know best. If what you say is correct, then I'm out and likely to stay out for the foreseeable.
Failure to prepare for hard Brexit has ensured that either outcome I laid out will probably be politically disastrous for the government. You can’t negotiate if you can’t credibly exit.
It is an indictment of Theresa May and our supposedly impartial civil service.
Rolf Degen:
twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1001008846482169856
"One strategy that helps us to close our eyes to our own hypocrisy is “moral licensing”, a kind of moral sale of indulgences. It refers to our increased tendency to act immorally if we have already displayed our moral righteousness. In essence, it means, that after you have done something nice, you think you have the license to do something not so nice, as if these things balance each other."
https://plus.google.com/101046916407340625977/posts/a4pfBQxeYgQ
Just because someone hasn't followed through on their terms of agreement doesn't mean the agreement wasn't made and approved.'
Pro EU membership parties got 95 per cent plus of the vote in almost every UK election from 1987 to 2010. And 87 per cent in 2015. As June 2016 showed that clearly didn't mean 95 per cent of voters wanted to stay in the EU. Voting for a package such as a treaty or manifesto does not imply you endorse every measure.
And in lreland there has been no vaguely Eurosceptic party to vote for for some time bar the odd independent in a few seats - since Sinn Fein changed their stance. While I accept the majority of the Irish people are pro EU if you aren't you have no way of expressing that opinion at the ballot box. Even then Ireland rejected Nice and Lisbon - before being told to vote again the second time with menaces.
Basically everyone is a taxpayer. VAT, council tax etc.
And access to public services? We're not going to investigate crimes against non-tax payers? Or put out fires in their houses? We're not going to let them use the roads? We'll let them die if they're in a car accident rather than treat them on the NHS?
In practice I don't think you can divide things so neatly.
Stated like this, it's bollocks, and vicious bollocks at that.
I think that the problem is that a liberal immigration policy is not easily compatible with a liberal welfare system, with a redistributive emphasis.
Here is the scenario. The new Govt has made huge spending commitments, the debt pile is huge and it is hard to see how Italy can get out of any of this in the "normal" way.
We have a new election, La Liga gets an increased vote. Let's say it stays with 5 Star. The issue of German interference in blocking the previous government formation plays a strong part in the election.
A new Government then announces that, since the Germans didn't properly pay Italy for the damage caused during WW II, it is writing off debt to German state and quasi state banks such as Deutsche Bank quid pro quo for these war reparations. It claims this is not a default because it is "paying" its debt, just that it has offset unpaid war reparations to do so.
Italy already has form on this. It sued Germany for war reparations in 2008 but lost at the UN in 2012. However, that claim was by an individual who had been deported for slave labour and it was rejected because the argument stated that Germany could not be sued by an individual for claims. The argument here would be damages to the Italian state and that any previous agreements did not fully take into account the damage.
The obvious result would be pandemonium on the financial markets. But it has attractions to the Government. It states it is standing up for Germany and would presumably be popular. It could claim to the markets that this is a "one off" due to the uniqueness of the war damages question. It creates problems for Germany with other states such as Poland and Greece with similar issues but which do not have Italy's size. And it may take a long time to wind itself through the international legal system where another solution may come along.
One thing I'm not sure is how much the German banks do have in exposure in Italy. I could only see €120bn but that was back in 20111 and Italy's debt has mushroomed since then.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/06/17/Irish-voters-prepare-for-referendum-on-EC-treaty/4455708753600/
The Maastricht Treaty, signed in December in the Netherlands' town of the same name, was designed to establish throughout the EC a single currency, the European Currency Unit, and unify many aspects of member states' foreign policy, security, environmental and immigration arrangements.
As I said Ireland specifically voted to ratify Maastricht - there was no specific separate referendum on Euro membership.
Sweden hasn’t made a choice - they’ve just ensured they do t meet the criteria (and from memory it is a criterion that is entirely under government control that they have failed).
At best they are playing fast and loose with their Treaty obligations. But they don’t seem to be a pariah state as some suggest the U.K. will be
The Swedes and the Czechs are 'legally required to join the Euro at some point in the future' but the trouble with the future is that it's very long time.
Do join the Euro, they first have to join the ERM but there's no legal requirement to join that and as only around 20% of the public in those countries are in favour of the Euro, their governments see no rush.
Best guide to Spanish polls - PP and PSOE generally falling Podemos flatlined and C's taking over the top spot. Overall - likeliest outcome C's/PP coalition but not clear what the final outcome could be.
At best they are playing fast and loose with their Treaty obligations. But they don’t seem to be a pariah state as some suggest the U.K. will be
The Swedes and the Czechs are 'legally required to join the Euro at some point in the future' but the trouble with the future is that it's very long time.
Do join the Euro, they first have to join the ERM but there's no legal requirement to join that and as only around 20% of the public in those countries are in favour of the Euro, their governments see no rush.
I’m not sure it is “at some point in the future” - it was meant to be quickly but haven’t checked precise wording
Thanks for confirming re ERM membership - thought it was that but couldn’t remember
You can do the same with politics: It's of course possible, in the abstract, for a lot of people to show up in a democracy who believe in some other system, like theocracy, and not be persuaded why democracy is better, which would endanger the democracy. But if you're trying to apply this to the current political spectrum, then the argument isn't that it's theoretically possible, it's that actually imminent, which is total and utter shite.
What would you like to have done that wasn't done?
As a result, there is really no way out - May has to walk but she has not prepared for no deal because she was trying to appease people who never wanted to carry out the result of the referendum. The only option that the EU will accept is a longer transition, under full EU control, until such time as the UK agrees to join the EEA.
Personally, I think she has to walk. There will be disruption but it is manageable and it will only be for a limited period. But it probably needs someone with a brain to lead the UK through it.
Your kind of Brexit could only be delivered by a Putin-style leader with full control of the state and a willingness to repress the opposition.