On another note, has Peter Herbert and his Society of Black Lawyers commented on Nicholas Anelka's "salute" yet? I'd have thought we'd have had a forthright condemnation and a demand for a long ban by now. Maybe I've missed it.
Imagine my surprise when I consulted the website of the Wizz Airlines quoted by the Mail to find it runs just one daily flight from Bucharest, and that the higher than usual rates cover a period which is a bank holiday weekend in Romania. If you wait until a weekday you can save a packet. Whoever would have thought it?
Or that there is availability for the one flight on New Years Day, or on both of the flights on the two following days? Indeed, Wednesday's & Thursday's fares seem cheap by comparison.......
On topic, smart positioning by Clegg - no, there are not hordes of Euro enthusiasts itching to vote for a pro-EU party (no more than there are hordes of Euro phobes) - but it provides good, clear differentiation and highlights the mess the two major parties are in. Any one who thinks only the Tories only do civil wars over the EU hasn't got a long memory.....
Was thinking of commenting how brave it was of Pro EU immigration people to be mocking the lack of Romanians and Bulgarians they think are coming... Until I realised if there are many more than they predicted they will simply shift the argument to how good they are for GDP.... Mind you it seems as though the most affected group is going to be the poles if there are a lot
"In the protected spaces, the electrical circuits that are required to trigger the system shall be conducted in fireproof cables, in accordance with the I.E.C. standards. The pipe systems necessary for hydraulic or pneumatic use shall be made of steel or other heat-resistant material approved by the national authority."
The necessary regulations are already in place. It's an example of the EU wasting money.
The Greens ... seem to have supporters who are entirely, ostentatiously indifferent to tactical voting appeals.
That's completely contrary to my experience, NP. In elections where we have a chance of winning (eg target wards, PR elections) Green supporters vote Green. In elections where there is no hope only those very committed or determined to make a protest stay with us. You see this in spades in split voting between Westminster / local elections when held in the same place on the same day.
"Christopher Thompson, a senior diplomat at the British embassy in Warsaw, said: "Everything suggests that it has been more of a trickle than a flood. All the information of the UK ports authorities backs this up. There has been wild exaggeration.""
That "trickle" turned out to be half a million people, from Poland alone.
The British left, and pb lefties: lying about immigration since 1997.
Where are the lies in that Guardian article? I liked the final paragraph best.
And those above are presumably the well off. I can see long lines of Transilvanian hoi polloi trecking to the UK by all and any means.
But why:
As any fule knows the Kingdom of Wee-Fr'Eck is the honey-pot! All that oil; all that progressiveness; all those wonderful banks! Someone is selling the Western Eastern * Macaedonian and Dacian tribes a pap....
* Hoare-Laval moment.... :oops:
Fluffy your crap is bad enough without posting it twice to torture us even more
Panelbase/Scottish National Party Sample size: 1,012 adults in Scotland Fieldwork: 13-20 December (+/- change from 30 Aug - 5 Sep Panelbase/Sunday Times)
Out of interest, what do you think would happen if those were the results in 2016? (I don't think they will be - IMO, the referendum next year will act as a major boost / drag for the SNP depending on how the result goes: it could easily be 50%+ if Yes, or sub-35 if No).
The figures as they stand would make the SNP largest but some way short of an overall majority. The Lib Dems could arrive in a taxi and the Greens too would be struggling, so a government would need the support or at least the tolerance of two of the three substantial groups. There don't look to be any particularly natural alliances there but srange as it sounds, an SNP supply-and-confidence agreement with the Tories seems least unlikely. Would the SNP members / MSPs wear that? I have no idea, but the other possibilities - a grand SNP-Lab coalition or some form of Con-Lab arrangement - seem even more unlikely, and an SNP-minority government would be unstable without some form of support if there's not a third, reasonably-sized, opposition group with which to negotiate.
On another note, has Peter Herbert and his Society of Black Lawyers commented on Nicholas Anelka's "salute" yet? I'd have thought we'd have had a forthright condemnation and a demand for a long ban by now. Maybe I've missed it.
Well spotted...
I was going to say looks like PiaraPowar hadn't noticed it either... Then looked at his twitter...
All I can say is i am astounded its not a spoof... Sickening hypocrisy, this guy is a complete idiot
Piara Powar (@PiaraPowar) 29/12/2013 12:01 Looks like Anelka been fooled by his friend Dieudonne. No place for anti- semitism/ far-right politics wherever it comes from. The but (1/2)
Piara Powar (@PiaraPowar) 29/12/2013 12:01 (2/2) is that it reflects the mess of French race politics. Too many minorities in the suburbs losing out, 'integration' policies failing.
I think Mike's being a bit pessimistic in suggesting that the LDs could struggle to win a single MEP. That's not outside the realms of possibility but it really will be a shocking night if they don't keep at one in at least one of the three southern constituencies outside London. Finishing fifth, on the other hand, is a good deal more likely given that the Greens have a strong record in these elections.
Are the LDs so certain to have a bad night?
Their post 2010 performance at local elections ~15%, is much the same as their past EU election numbers. A PR election.
1999: 12.7% 2004: 14.9% 2009: 13.7%
(numbers all taken from Wikipedia.)
Well, they're not certain to have such a bad night but as the figures you quote suggest, the Lib Dems consistently underperform their Westminster VI by some way (and conversely, they usually out-perform their national standing in local polls).
I don't really see much reason to expect any difference this time other than perhaps they are so far down to their core vote that what's left may be more motivated to turn out in a low-poll election. Against that has to be set the fact that the simultaneous local elections - where turnout will be higher - are in areas that are poor for the Yellows.
@DavidL - if you want to sell fire extinguishers, having to comply with one set of standards covering a market of 500 million plus is surely better than having to comply with 28 sets of standards, isn't it? As a small internet business, it's certainly easier for us to have to comply with one set of data protection laws, rather than a couple of dozen plus.
But it doesn't Southam. You still need to look to local standards as the brief extract Nick has provided shows. And you have to have regard to the IEC standards (maybe a regulation should simply have said that you had to comply with IEC standards, full stop). And there will be other relevant EU regulations no doubt partially but not wholly repealed by this new set.
And you have to look at what gold plating has been added in different jurisdictions because most of the EU legislation these days is framework imposing minimum standards which EU states are entitled to improve upon undermining the concept of a single market. If the UK, for example, wanted to provide the casing had to be of a material which did not conduct electricity as a safety measure it could provide that.
By now you are needing an expert in EU law, local experts in each country you are wanting to sell into and someone who actually knows about the IECs. If you are a large corporation with branches in the markets you want to sell into and a compliance department this is doable but if you are a small manufacturer in Sheffield you just give up. You really do.
On another note, has Peter Herbert and his Society of Black Lawyers commented on Nicholas Anelka's "salute" yet? I'd have thought we'd have had a forthright condemnation and a demand for a long ban by now. Maybe I've missed it.
Well spotted...
I was going to say looks like PiaraPowar hadn't noticed it either... Then looked at his twitter...
All I can say is i am astounded its not a spoof... Sickening hypocrisy, this guy is a complete idiot
Piara Powar (@PiaraPowar) 29/12/2013 12:01 Looks like Anelka been fooled by his friend Dieudonne. No place for anti- semitism/ far-right politics wherever it comes from. The but (1/2)
Piara Powar (@PiaraPowar) 29/12/2013 12:01 (2/2) is that it reflects the mess of French race politics. Too many minorities in the suburbs losing out, 'integration' policies failing.
Is it too much to ask at least some of the sports writers who give these one man bands so much publicity to make a few enquiries?
@DavidL - if you want to sell fire extinguishers, having to comply with one set of standards covering a market of 500 million plus is surely better than having to comply with 28 sets of standards, isn't it? As a small internet business, it's certainly easier for us to have to comply with one set of data protection laws, rather than a couple of dozen plus.
Yes, and that is why EU regulations are a good thing.
Although this does tend to favour the big players, whether German, Chinese or American, who can use economies of scale to squeeze out smaller competitors, who might otherwise exploit a local monopoly supplying Latvian or Scottish fire extinguishers. So on balance, who knows?
The figures as they stand would make the SNP largest but some way short of an overall majority. The Lib Dems could arrive in a taxi and the Greens too would be struggling, so a government would need the support or at least the tolerance of two of the three substantial groups. There don't look to be any particularly natural alliances there but srange as it sounds, an SNP supply-and-confidence agreement with the Tories seems least unlikely. Would the SNP members / MSPs wear that? I have no idea, but the other possibilities - a grand SNP-Lab coalition or some form of Con-Lab arrangement - seem even more unlikely, and an SNP-minority government would be unstable without some form of support if there's not a third, reasonably-sized, opposition group with which to negotiate.
@DavidL - if you want to sell fire extinguishers, having to comply with one set of standards covering a market of 500 million plus is surely better than having to comply with 28 sets of standards, isn't it? As a small internet business, it's certainly easier for us to have to comply with one set of data protection laws, rather than a couple of dozen plus.
But it doesn't Southam. You still need to look to local standards as the brief extract Nick has provided shows. And you have to have regard to the IEC standards (maybe a regulation should simply have said that you had to comply with IEC standards, full stop). And there will be other relevant EU regulations no doubt partially but not wholly repealed by this new set.
And you have to look at what gold plating has been added in different jurisdictions because most of the EU legislation these days is framework imposing minimum standards which EU states are entitled to improve upon undermining the concept of a single market. If the UK, for example, wanted to provide the casing had to be of a material which did not conduct electricity as a safety measure it could provide that.
By now you are needing an expert in EU law, local experts in each country you are wanting to sell into and someone who actually knows about the IECs. If you are a large corporation with branches in the markets you want to sell into and a compliance department this is doable but if you are a small manufacturer in Sheffield you just give up. You really do.
Fair enough. It seems to work for us OK, but that could well be more accident than design. Gold-plating is definitely an issue.
The Danish and German press give a fair amount of coverage to EU Parliament debates - obviously most where they affect the country - and MEPs in Denmark are quite well-known (one has just been transferred back to a senior Government post). Turnout overall is shown here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/000cdcd9d4/Turnout-(1979-2009).html
- it's drifted down from 62 to 43 over 30 years, though it varies wildly by country, with e.g. Latvia nearly 3 times as interested as Lithuania.
My evening job is translation, mostly EU documents, and it has to be said that most of the legislation is clearly useful to business (e.g. I've just done 4000 words on standards for marine fire-fighting equipment, which will mean the same on-board fire extinguishers can be sold everywhere) but profoundly unexciting, and it's often not obvious how e.g. Labour and Tories could stake out different positions on the subject.
As EiT has said, the main source of information for many people is NGOs, who identify an issue that is being decided at EU level and mobilise support for their position. When the EU was deciding to ban testing of cosmetics on animals (forcing shampoo into rabbits' eyes over 3 days etc.), there was intense lobbying by both industry and animal welfare groups of every MEP on the key committee, and our regular supporters got stuck in with emails to all the key people. (We won.) Party lines are less sharp than in Westminster - much of the EPP (Christian Democrats) is reliably pro-industry, but the other MEPs generally look at issues from case to case and don't always vote as a bloc.
Oh yes, standard marine fire fighting equipment. Another good idea wrecked by the EU.
Ships and rigs used to have a very good system for fire extinguishers which meant that different extinguishers were different colours and you could tell from a distance what type of extinguisher you were looking at.
Then they decided to standardise everything and made all extinguishers red but with a small bar at the top showing the colour code for the type of extinguisher. Now it is impossible to tell from a distance what kind of extinguisher is sat at the end of the corridor and you can end up going for an extinguisher only to find it is a type you can't use.
There is nothing wrong with standardisation but the end result turned out to be far worse than what we had before.
"Christopher Thompson, a senior diplomat at the British embassy in Warsaw, said: "Everything suggests that it has been more of a trickle than a flood. All the information of the UK ports authorities backs this up. There has been wild exaggeration.""
That "trickle" turned out to be half a million people, from Poland alone.
The British left, and pb lefties: lying about immigration since 1997.
Where are the lies in that Guardian article? I liked the final paragraph best.
The f*cking thing STARTS with a lie, by putting "flood of migrants" in quotation marks, to deride the Daily Mail view that there would be a vast inundation. It continues thereon. And it reassures us that the migrants are already going home, what few are coming constitute a trickle... on and on.
But, really, shut up. The moral authority of the left on this issue is precisely zero. Your thoughts are worthless, and their public expression is offensive.
Yaaaawwwwwnnnnn.
The article, written in 2004, states that based on official figures there was no flood at that time, explains that many Poles were already in the country and forecasts more will arrive. If you want to see this as proof of evil lefties lying then so be it. There's not much point arguing about it.
@DavidL - if you want to sell fire extinguishers, having to comply with one set of standards covering a market of 500 million plus is surely better than having to comply with 28 sets of standards, isn't it? As a small internet business, it's certainly easier for us to have to comply with one set of data protection laws, rather than a couple of dozen plus.
But it doesn't Southam. You still need to look to local standards as the brief extract Nick has provided shows. And you have to have regard to the IEC standards (maybe a regulation should simply have said that you had to comply with IEC standards, full stop). And there will be other relevant EU regulations no doubt partially but not wholly repealed by this new set.
And you have to look at what gold plating has been added in different jurisdictions because most of the EU legislation these days is framework imposing minimum standards which EU states are entitled to improve upon undermining the concept of a single market. If the UK, for example, wanted to provide the casing had to be of a material which did not conduct electricity as a safety measure it could provide that.
By now you are needing an expert in EU law, local experts in each country you are wanting to sell into and someone who actually knows about the IECs. If you are a large corporation with branches in the markets you want to sell into and a compliance department this is doable but if you are a small manufacturer in Sheffield you just give up. You really do.
Fair enough. It seems to work for us OK, but that could well be more accident than design. Gold-plating is definitely an issue.
I think that the Single market works much better in some areas than others. It works particularly well in the recognition of property rights which is why you may find it useful.
The single market is a brilliant idea and the best justification for the existence of the EU. I am very much in favour of it. It's just that these ridiculous regulations from the European Parliament do not help and in many cases positively hinder its operation.
the other possibilities - a grand SNP-Lab coalition or some form of Con-Lab arrangement - seem even more unlikely, and an SNP-minority government would be unstable without some form of support if there's not a third, reasonably-sized, opposition group with which to negotiate.
No more unstable than 2007-2011 SNP minority government, which did indeed have Con support in some issues. Perhaps a Lab-Con arrangement might work after their heartwarming and constructive co-operation in Bettertogether.
The figures as they stand would make the SNP largest but some way short of an overall majority. The Lib Dems could arrive in a taxi and the Greens too would be struggling, so a government would need the support or at least the tolerance of two of the three substantial groups. There don't look to be any particularly natural alliances there but srange as it sounds, an SNP supply-and-confidence agreement with the Tories seems least unlikely. Would the SNP members / MSPs wear that? I have no idea, but the other possibilities - a grand SNP-Lab coalition or some form of Con-Lab arrangement - seem even more unlikely, and an SNP-minority government would be unstable without some form of support if there's not a third, reasonably-sized, opposition group with which to negotiate.
LOL
Unspoofable as always.
Kind of you, as always. Go on then - how do you think a 40/30/15/5/5/5 kind of split would pan out?
"Christopher Thompson, a senior diplomat at the British embassy in Warsaw, said: "Everything suggests that it has been more of a trickle than a flood. All the information of the UK ports authorities backs this up. There has been wild exaggeration.""
That "trickle" turned out to be half a million people, from Poland alone.
The British left, and pb lefties: lying about immigration since 1997.
Where are the lies in that Guardian article? I liked the final paragraph best.
The f*cking thing STARTS with a lie, by putting "flood of migrants" in quotation marks, to deride the Daily Mail view that there would be a vast inundation. It continues thereon. And it reassures us that the migrants are already going home, what few are coming constitute a trickle... on and on.
But, really, shut up. The moral authority of the left on this issue is precisely zero. Your thoughts are worthless, and their public expression is offensive.
Yaaaawwwwwnnnnn.
The article, written in 2004, states that based on official figures there was no flood at that time, explains that many Poles were already in the country and forecasts more will arrive. If you want to see this as proof of evil lefties lying then so be it. There's not much point arguing about it.
No there is no point in arguing, because on this subject, like so many lefties, you are a bare-faced liar.
No, you are a liar. No, you are. No, you are. No, you are.
the other possibilities - a grand SNP-Lab coalition or some form of Con-Lab arrangement - seem even more unlikely, and an SNP-minority government would be unstable without some form of support if there's not a third, reasonably-sized, opposition group with which to negotiate.
No more unstable than 2007-2011 SNP minority government, which did indeed have Con support in some issues. Perhaps a Lab-Con arrangement might work after their heartwarming and constructive co-operation in Bettertogether.
I disagree about the stability of another SNP minority government for two reasons. Firstly, a first-term government tends to get more leeway than a third-term one, both so that other parties can legitimately say that their opponents have been given a chance, and because the main opposition party has just been kicked out and has clearly forfeited some form of public mandate. While the kind of lead in the current polls translated to an election would still give the SNP a clear mandate of their own, a loss of seats and majority would still produce a counterbalancing dynamic.
Secondly, two main opposition groups is harder to manage for a minority government than three, for the simple reason that there are fewer options to work deals and it's harder to divide them amongst themselves.
The Danish and German press give a fair amount of coverage to EU Parliament debates - obviously most where they affect the country - and MEPs in Denmark are quite well-known (one has just been transferred back to a senior Government post). Turnout overall is shown here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/000cdcd9d4/Turnout-(1979-2009).html
- it's drifted down from 62 to 43 over 30 years, though it varies wildly by country, with e.g. Latvia nearly 3 times as interested as Lithuania.
My evening job is translation, mostly EU documents, and it has to be said that most of the legislation is clearly useful to business (e.g. I've just done 4000 words on standards for marine fire-fighting equipment, which will mean the same on-board fire extinguishers can be sold everywhere) but profoundly unexciting, and it's often not obvious how e.g. Labour and Tories could stake out different positions on the subject.
As EiT has said, the main source of information for many people is NGOs, who identify an issue that is being decided at EU level and mobilise support for their position. When the EU was deciding to ban testing of cosmetics on animals (forcing shampoo into rabbits' eyes over 3 days etc.), there was intense lobbying by both industry and animal welfare groups of every MEP on the key committee, and our regular supporters got stuck in with emails to all the key people. (We won.) Party lines are less sharp than in Westminster - much of the EPP (Christian Democrats) is reliably pro-industry, but the other MEPs generally look at issues from case to case and don't always vote as a bloc.
Oh yes, standard marine fire fighting equipment. Another good idea wrecked by the EU.
Ships and rigs used to have a very good system for fire extinguishers which meant that different extinguishers were different colours and you could tell from a distance what type of extinguisher you were looking at.
Then they decided to standardise everything and made all extinguishers red but with a small bar at the top showing the colour code for the type of extinguisher. Now it is impossible to tell from a distance what kind of extinguisher is sat at the end of the corridor and you can end up going for an extinguisher only to find it is a type you can't use.
There is nothing wrong with standardisation but the end result turned out to be far worse than what we had before.
That's long been a gripe of ours. We had a system that was fit for purpose, easy to teach, everyone knew what colour extinguisher did what job. Now, I think 90% of the ext has to be red, which is a pain in the arse. Its a small thing, but something that helps the impression of EU meddling.
Interesting; a revival of The East-India ethos perchance? After Tetley's no doubt that Tata will try to undermine our global franchise in curries; bar-stewards...!
On another note, has Peter Herbert and his Society of Black Lawyers commented on Nicholas Anelka's "salute" yet? I'd have thought we'd have had a forthright condemnation and a demand for a long ban by now. Maybe I've missed it.
Well spotted...
I was going to say looks like PiaraPowar hadn't noticed it either... Then looked at his twitter...
All I can say is i am astounded its not a spoof... Sickening hypocrisy, this guy is a complete idiot
Piara Powar (@PiaraPowar) 29/12/2013 12:01 Looks like Anelka been fooled by his friend Dieudonne. No place for anti- semitism/ far-right politics wherever it comes from. The but (1/2)
Piara Powar (@PiaraPowar) 29/12/2013 12:01 (2/2) is that it reflects the mess of French race politics. Too many minorities in the suburbs losing out, 'integration' policies failing.
Is it too much to ask at least some of the sports writers who give these one man bands so much publicity to make a few enquiries?
Compare and contrast his reaction to Roy Hodgsons monkey joke
Piara Powar @PiaraPowar Follow Hodgson used very silly term within a diverse team environment. He should know better. Assume it wasn't a Freudian slip, no evidence 10:19 AM - 17 Oct 2013
Piara Powar @PiaraPowar Follow to suggest it was. Some players will see it as reflection of the crude language still used by some coaches and attitudes that still prevail. 10:20 AM - 17 Oct 2013
Smart positioning ahead of Euros from Clegg.He needs a clear message as to why voters should support the LD's in the European elections.By making the Lib Dems clearly the "in " party he should gain some support from the large Pro -European segment-and hopefully finish ahead of the greens.
@DavidL - From the perspective of IP owners the EU has done plenty of positive things, though DG Competition is a bit of a nightmare and users probably (and justly) feel that the copyright industries have too much influence. That said, keep an eye on the proposed EU patent and court. They look set to be extremely sub-optimal, to say the least.
This is an understandable piece of positioning by Clegg. It gives some clarity to the Lib Dems and as everyone points out, there is a gap in the market. However a few things worry me. Firstly, the decision to to to the Telegraph/Torygraph(UKIPgraph?). Secondly the way he talks about the concerns of 'business'. Interesting to remember that New Labour always talked about the threat to 'jobs' of being anti-EU (and they were of course very onside with business). It's a subtle difference, but who does Clegg want to appeal to? Is he trying to say to the likes of Branson and Sorrell 'You can't trust the Tories, the Lib Dems are the true voice of big business?'
Whether it boosts the Lib Dems in the Euros it feels like another small move in the Lib Dems gradual transformation into an entirely boring, elitist party. I suspect Nigel Farage will be pleased about this. If Clegg is leading the Europhile charge, the sceptics are almost shooting at an open goal.
That's long been a gripe of ours. We had a system that was fit for purpose, easy to teach, everyone knew what colour extinguisher did what job. Now, I think 90% of the ext has to be red, which is a pain in the arse. Its a small thing, but something that helps the impression of EU meddling.
In the marine environment it is also a pretty pointless exercise. By their very nature marine operations tend to be international. We use rigs from all over the world in the North Sea and are visited by ships from all over the world. Given that the regulations Nick is quoting refer to fixed as well as portable FF equipment, there is simply no way a vessel can rip out and change its equipment every time it comes to operate in 'EU' waters. So the idea of a standardisation under those circumstances is simply ridiculous.
The figures as they stand would make the SNP largest but some way short of an overall majority. The Lib Dems could arrive in a taxi and the Greens too would be struggling, so a government would need the support or at least the tolerance of two of the three substantial groups. There don't look to be any particularly natural alliances there but srange as it sounds, an SNP supply-and-confidence agreement with the Tories seems least unlikely. Would the SNP members / MSPs wear that? I have no idea, but the other possibilities - a grand SNP-Lab coalition or some form of Con-Lab arrangement - seem even more unlikely, and an SNP-minority government would be unstable without some form of support if there's not a third, reasonably-sized, opposition group with which to negotiate.
LOL
Unspoofable as always.
Kind of you, as always. Go on then - how do you think a 40/30/15/5/5/5 kind of split would pan out?
Uniondivvie already pointed the obvious to anyone remotely familiar with scottish politics.
On another note, has Peter Herbert and his Society of Black Lawyers commented on Nicholas Anelka's "salute" yet? I'd have thought we'd have had a forthright condemnation and a demand for a long ban by now. Maybe I've missed it.
Well spotted...
I was going to say looks like PiaraPowar hadn't noticed it either... Then looked at his twitter...
All I can say is i am astounded its not a spoof... Sickening hypocrisy, this guy is a complete idiot
Piara Powar (@PiaraPowar) 29/12/2013 12:01 Looks like Anelka been fooled by his friend Dieudonne. No place for anti- semitism/ far-right politics wherever it comes from. The but (1/2)
Piara Powar (@PiaraPowar) 29/12/2013 12:01 (2/2) is that it reflects the mess of French race politics. Too many minorities in the suburbs losing out, 'integration' policies failing.
Is it too much to ask at least some of the sports writers who give these one man bands so much publicity to make a few enquiries?
Compare and contrast his reaction to Roy Hodgsons monkey joke
Piara Powar @PiaraPowar Follow Hodgson used very silly term within a diverse team environment. He should know better. Assume it wasn't a Freudian slip, no evidence 10:19 AM - 17 Oct 2013
Piara Powar @PiaraPowar Follow to suggest it was. Some players will see it as reflection of the crude language still used by some coaches and attitudes that still prevail. 10:20 AM - 17 Oct 2013
I'd put Herbert in a different league to Powar. I got to read this excellent piece on Anelka by Henry Winter via a Powar tweet:
Reading Christopher Clark's excellent 'the Sleepwalkers' about the causes of WW1, there's clearly a huge gaping hole where an umbrella, supranational arbitration body should be. One which all nations in the group have a stake.
There is no way the EU is going away, in one form or another it is here to stay. And 2014, with the centenary of the outbreak of hostilities, will probably remind us graphically why we have it.
the other possibilities - a grand SNP-Lab coalition or some form of Con-Lab arrangement - seem even more unlikely, and an SNP-minority government would be unstable without some form of support if there's not a third, reasonably-sized, opposition group with which to negotiate.
No more unstable than 2007-2011 SNP minority government, which did indeed have Con support in some issues. Perhaps a Lab-Con arrangement might work after their heartwarming and constructive co-operation in Bettertogether.
I disagree about the stability of another SNP minority government for two reasons. Firstly, a first-term government tends to get more leeway than a third-term one, both so that other parties can legitimately say that their opponents have been given a chance, and because the main opposition party has just been kicked out and has clearly forfeited some form of public mandate. While the kind of lead in the current polls translated to an election would still give the SNP a clear mandate of their own, a loss of seats and majority would still produce a counterbalancing dynamic.
Secondly, two main opposition groups is harder to manage for a minority government than three, for the simple reason that there are fewer options to work deals and it's harder to divide them amongst themselves.
Maybe so; there are so many variables caused by the referendum it's difficult to pick out even a couple of likely hypotheses. I would still suggest that the overarching element of Holyrood is the poor quality of candidates proffered by Lab/Lib/Con. Even if there's a No vote in the referendum, I doubt any of the Unionist parties will come out of it with reputations much enhanced, and come 2016 I foresee yet another 'can I really vote for Iain Gray as FM' moment.
The Lib Dems are probably through the worst, and a poor performance in the Euros and local elections this year won't make any difference. The fact is Clegg is probably the best of the 3 leaders (I think he always come across very well in interviews) and will help the party keep most of its seats in 2015. He outpolls his party to an even greater extent then Cameron.
Let's put Nick Clegg's outburst in perspective. Not one person in this country will have the opportunity of voting for the dominant grouping in the EU at the next Euro elections. None of our party's are members of the EPP (thanks to Cameron's posturing pre 2010). Not one British vote will be in support of the 'governing' EU grouping.
The electorate's only option is to choose to vote for members of a gaggle of rag tag oppositions (all of whom have some distinctly dubious members). How perversely absurd is that. Not only that our total representation makes up less than 10% of the total and our largest grouping less than 5%. We have as much chance of influencing European policy as the SNP have of influencing UK Military Policy in Westminster.
And Clegg thinks prostrating ourselves at the alter of Ever Closer Union is the route to the Land of Milk and Honey.
Nick Clegg is the Clown Prince Of Idiots! The EU and its Parliament are an insult to democracy and an insult to the British people.
@taffys Agreed, it is a very good book - young impressionable students, cynically manipulated by extreme nationalists from a 'terrorist state'. He did imply that states were ready to discuss 'problem' areas - use of Concert of Europe approach, but unlike other incidents - Bosnia, Balkan Wars, Moroccan incidents- leaders during the July Crisis did not put themselves forward for discussions.
Am about 1/3 way through it.
Have also been reading Margaret MacMillan's book on the outbreak of war. Complements her book on the Peace Treaties.
the other possibilities - a grand SNP-Lab coalition or some form of Con-Lab arrangement - seem even more unlikely, and an SNP-minority government would be unstable without some form of support if there's not a third, reasonably-sized, opposition group with which to negotiate.
No more unstable than 2007-2011 SNP minority government, which did indeed have Con support in some issues. Perhaps a Lab-Con arrangement might work after their heartwarming and constructive co-operation in Bettertogether.
I disagree about the stability of another SNP minority government for two reasons. Firstly, a first-term government tends to get more leeway than a third-term one, both so that other parties can legitimately say that their opponents have been given a chance, and because the main opposition party has just been kicked out and has clearly forfeited some form of public mandate. While the kind of lead in the current polls translated to an election would still give the SNP a clear mandate of their own, a loss of seats and majority would still produce a counterbalancing dynamic.
Secondly, two main opposition groups is harder to manage for a minority government than three, for the simple reason that there are fewer options to work deals and it's harder to divide them amongst themselves.
We will have to wait (and as noted the indy referendum result will swamp the issue) - but I wonder if Labour will be allowed any leeway. For instance, any moral right to appoint the presiding officer (there is no specific right) in 2011 was kyboshed by public crowing in advance about how they would use it to block SNP legislation they didn't like, especially enabling the referendum (remember, that was a SNP majority gmt). And as for allying with the Conservatives, there is Stirling (I have not checked other local authorities). The cooncil website has 9 SNP councillors, 8 Labour, 4 Con and 1 Green. Before the election Labour was the largest party with 8 and the SNP had 7 seats. On the logic here (edit: with which I don't differ per se), Labour should have let the SNP be part of the majority coalition - or a minority admin. But they didn't.
I wonder about long term benefit to Labour in particular , eg with one of its councillors allying with a Tory in trying to abolishing the council's own flag in favour of the Union Flag just because it has a saltire on it (Stirling: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24463256) . They really risk ending up as the penal battalions for the Tory chateau generals (and even if, as someone rightly corrected me, the chateau generals' own subsequent careers are at risk, that is no consolation to the PBI who have already collected their nice CWGC headstones). What's the point of winning the union (of 1707) if you lose your heart?
Scottish independence would be worth a very sizeable amount of earnings for me too.
You werent convinced by the Scottish Government's paper on cross border schemes post independence?
Lawyers working on the divorce settlement for either side will have a wonderfully lucrative and long-lasting brief. It will take years to finalise. I bet there are firms already working on their pitches.
Reading Christopher Clark's excellent 'the Sleepwalkers' about the causes of WW1, there's clearly a huge gaping hole where an umbrella, supranational arbitration body should be. One which all nations in the group have a stake.
There is no way the EU is going away, in one form or another it is here to stay. And 2014, with the centenary of the outbreak of hostilities, will probably remind us graphically why we have it.
The idea that the EU has in any significant way prevented war is one of the most pernicious and false myths of its whole existence.
Scottish independence would be worth a very sizeable amount of earnings for me too.
You werent convinced by the Scottish Government's paper on cross border schemes post independence?
Lawyers working on the divorce settlement for either side will have a wonderfully lucrative and long-lasting brief. It will take years to finalise. I bet there are firms already working on their pitches.
All those organisations that have operations on both sides of the border will need careful advice on every aspect of their operation. There must surely be a major opportunity for law firms with substantial offices in both Scotland and England.
Devomax would be OK, but it would be ginger beer rather than champagne.
I wonder about long term benefit to Labour in particular , eg with one of its councillors allying with a Tory in trying to abolishing the council's own flag in favour of the Union Flag just because it has a saltire on it (Stirling: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24463256) . They really risk ending up as the penal battalions for the Tory chateau generals (and even if, as someone rightly corrected me, the chateau generals' own subsequent careers are at risk, that is no consolation to the PBI who have already collected their nice CWGC headstones). What's the point of winning the union (of 1707) if you lose your heart?
CORRECTION - the row was about replacing the plain saltire not the council flag with the Union flag. My memory, and not rechecking the link at the time. Sorry.
For instance, any moral right to appoint the presiding officer (there is no specific right) in 2011 was kyboshed by public crowing in advance about how they would use it to block SNP legislation they didn't like, especially enabling the referendum (remember, that was a SNP majority gmt).
Specifically by "no-brainer" McTernan the SLAB/Labour PR guru/idiot. He who went on to even greater hilarity in Australia and is now back. Not just back writing the usual tosh for papers because if the rumours are correct he may be currently advising (in an informal capacity) better together and little Ed.
They really risk ending up as the penal battalions for the Tory chateau generals.
Some in SLAB and Labour do seem to know that danger and it's not just Brown's own breakaway faction of better together (the amusingly named "united with labour") that fear it. A good many in SLAB will also remember the bucket of sh** that was poured over them by little Ed and his chums for following HIS orders and strategy for 2011. SLAB are if anything even more prone to fracturing than they were a few years ago because it's not just the fear of being seen as Cameron's little helpers in better together that divides them, but also a fundamental disagreement over whether to repeat the same type of strategy and campaign from 2011 for the referendum. Quite a few in SLAB did actually notice how catastrophic that relentless negativity was for them and they also do not relish being forced to expend resources and what activists they have on a referendum while the lib dems and tories shout from the sidelines and save all their resources for 2016.
Reading Christopher Clark's excellent 'the Sleepwalkers' about the causes of WW1, there's clearly a huge gaping hole where an umbrella, supranational arbitration body should be. One which all nations in the group have a stake.
There is no way the EU is going away, in one form or another it is here to stay. And 2014, with the centenary of the outbreak of hostilities, will probably remind us graphically why we have it.
The idea that the EU has in any significant way prevented war is one of the most pernicious and false myths of its whole existence.
Agreed. It is failing to recognise this is a totally different world. After WW2 Europe was divided willingly or unwillingly into 2 super blocs dominated by 2 external superpowers. No one got to do anything their dominant super power did not want them to do and if they tried they were punished (Suez, Hungary etc). The idea that the EU had anything to do with Germany and France not going for round 4 is really absurd.
Only as these blocs collapsed (particularly in the Balkans) did war become even a possibility.
Clegg's pro-EU strategy surely has the same problem OGH perenially identifies, which is most voters do not care very much either way about the EU. Even Ukip supporters are often really NOTA, according to polls. Rather like Clegg's disastrous AV campaign, this is an issue that riles up a few activists but goes over most voters' heads.
I think Mike's being a bit pessimistic in suggesting that the LDs could struggle to win a single MEP. That's not outside the realms of possibility but it really will be a shocking night if they don't keep at one in at least one of the three southern constituencies outside London. Finishing fifth, on the other hand, is a good deal more likely given that the Greens have a strong record in these elections.
Are the LDs so certain to have a bad night?
Their post 2010 performance at local elections ~15%, is much the same as their past EU election numbers. A PR election.
1999: 12.7% 2004: 14.9% 2009: 13.7%
(numbers all taken from Wikipedia.)
Well, they're not certain to have such a bad night but as the figures you quote suggest, the Lib Dems consistently underperform their Westminster VI by some way (and conversely, they usually out-perform their national standing in local polls).
I don't really see much reason to expect any difference this time other than perhaps they are so far down to their core vote that what's left may be more motivated to turn out in a low-poll election. Against that has to be set the fact that the simultaneous local elections - where turnout will be higher - are in areas that are poor for the Yellows.
My point was that past EU elections being PR elections revealed the LDs core vote, which tallies with the support they have been reduced to since late 2010.
The idea that the EU had anything to do with Germany and France not going for round 4 is really absurd.
Well of course this is difficult to dispute because we can;t turn the clock back and re-run post '45 without the EU.
But here's the thing. Why have so many people endured so much privation on the continent of Europe since 2008?? Particularly in the south??
It is surely because they see the EU as a way of avoiding the past - where one army or another from somewhere or other trampled across the continent for centuries.
Scottish independence would be worth a very sizeable amount of earnings for me too.
You werent convinced by the Scottish Government's paper on cross border schemes post independence?
Lawyers working on the divorce settlement for either side will have a wonderfully lucrative and long-lasting brief. It will take years to finalise. I bet there are firms already working on their pitches.
All those organisations that have operations on both sides of the border will need careful advice on every aspect of their operation. There must surely be a major opportunity for law firms with substantial offices in both Scotland and England.
Devomax would be OK, but it would be ginger beer rather than champagne.
I could be wrong but I don't think that many of the City firms have big offices in Scotland, they tend to advise from London. They will have expertise in various issues relating to constitutional, international and frontiers law though, as well as all the nuts and bolts stuff, litigation and arbitration. I am not sure that there are any Scottish firms that will be able to offer the same depth of expertise to the Scottish government. It may be that Edinburgh will have to appoint a few firms, many of them non-Scottish (most likely American).
Oh yes, standard marine fire fighting equipment. Another good idea wrecked by the EU.
Ships and rigs used to have a very good system for fire extinguishers which meant that different extinguishers were different colours and you could tell from a distance what type of extinguisher you were looking at.
Then they decided to standardise everything and made all extinguishers red but with a small bar at the top showing the colour code for the type of extinguisher. Now it is impossible to tell from a distance what kind of extinguisher is sat at the end of the corridor and you can end up going for an extinguisher only to find it is a type you can't use.
There is nothing wrong with standardisation but the end result turned out to be far worse than what we had before.
I'll take your word for it, and Twisted's too. But as you say this is not a failure of standardisation; nor is it an argument against the EU. It's a failure of the industry to make a persuasive case to MEPs who passed the regulations, who can't be expected to be experts on the issue and are EXTREMELY unlikely to have a personal preference for the colour of fire extinguishers.
Reading Christopher Clark's excellent 'the Sleepwalkers' about the causes of WW1, there's clearly a huge gaping hole where an umbrella, supranational arbitration body should be. One which all nations in the group have a stake.
There is no way the EU is going away, in one form or another it is here to stay. And 2014, with the centenary of the outbreak of hostilities, will probably remind us graphically why we have it.
I think that's a misread. In fact, having read the book recently (and halfway through an Amazon review), it's clear that the pre-1914 diplomatic system was set up to be able to handle medium-scale crises, of which there were plenty in the 1911-14 period.
It's a fundamental misunderstanding to believe that institutions cause or prevent wars. They can help by providing a framework; they can hinder by getting in the way of effective diplomacy. However, a question on the scale of war or peace is almost always more significant than the niceties of process. WWII did not break out because the League of Nations failed to prevent it; it broke out because revisionist politicians willed it and saw no use for the League's processes.
That said, it would be equally wrong to claim that the ECSC and its successors, the EEC, EC and EU had nothing to do with preventing another war. The destruction of the first half of the 20th century produced a profound change in mindset of both (West) German and French politicians after 1945. It was not that the EEC itself prevented another war; it was that the changed minset and outlook - of which the EEC was the prime realisation - prevented further war.
The idea that the EU had anything to do with Germany and France not going for round 4 is really absurd.
Well of course this is difficult to dispute because we can;t turn the clock back and re-run post '45 without the EU.
But here's the thing. Why have so many people endured so much privation on the continent of Europe since 2008?? Particularly in the south??
It is surely because they see the EU as a way of avoiding the past - where one army or another from somewhere or other trampled across the continent for centuries.
No. Its because they still believe the myth that the EU will make them wealthy. They see the totally unsustainable boom they enjoyed for a decade or more as being the result of EU membership and the subsequent inevitable crash as being the fault of their local politicians.
In fact the boom and bust are both the fault of the EU. Unfortunately people still think the EU will save them in the end. And they are still wrong.
The idea that the EU had anything to do with Germany and France not going for round 4 is really absurd.
Well of course this is difficult to dispute because we can;t turn the clock back and re-run post '45 without the EU.
But here's the thing. Why have so many people endured so much privation on the continent of Europe since 2008?? Particularly in the south??
It is surely because they see the EU as a way of avoiding the past - where one army or another from somewhere or other trampled across the continent for centuries.
Well since 2008 we have had a different situation again. The Soviet Union collapsed allowing disorderly behaviour and the Americans lost interest and largely departed.
Now those countries in the south need a new dominant force to make everyone play nice. The EU can fulfil that role although there will be problems if any of the EU countries under strain collapses or ceases to be a democracy because the EU army is a theoretical concept. Can you see an EU force taking on Greek generals?
the other possibilities - a grand SNP-Lab coalition or some form of Con-Lab arrangement - seem even more unlikely, and an SNP-minority government would be unstable without some form of support if there's not a third, reasonably-sized, opposition group with which to negotiate.
No more unstable than 2007-2011 SNP minority government, which did indeed have Con support in some issues. Perhaps a Lab-Con arrangement might work after their heartwarming and constructive co-operation in Bettertogether.
I disagree about the stability of another SNP minority government for two reasons. Firstly, a first-term government tends to get more leeway than a third-term one, both so that other parties can legitimately say that their opponents have been given a chance, and because the main opposition party has just been kicked out and has clearly forfeited some form of public mandate. While the kind of lead in the current polls translated to an election would still give the SNP a clear mandate of their own, a loss of seats and majority would still produce a counterbalancing dynamic.
Secondly, two main opposition groups is harder to manage for a minority government than three, for the simple reason that there are fewer options to work deals and it's harder to divide them amongst themselves.
Maybe so; there are so many variables caused by the referendum it's difficult to pick out even a couple of likely hypotheses. I would still suggest that the overarching element of Holyrood is the poor quality of candidates proffered by Lab/Lib/Con. Even if there's a No vote in the referendum, I doubt any of the Unionist parties will come out of it with reputations much enhanced, and come 2016 I foresee yet another 'can I really vote for Iain Gray as FM' moment.
Fair enough, and as others have said, there's a very great deal of water to flow under the bridge between now and 2016. Even so, I do think that if the SNP end up as the largest party but without a majority in what amounts to a three-way parliament - as the most recent poll would have it - I don't think a minority SNP government would last the parliament without some kind of deal with one of the two other parties. (I'm not sure of the precise constitutional processes but I doubt Labour could try to form a minority administration as the second party even if they wanted to unless they had a deal with the Tories first - which is surely something both parties would have great difficulty with, local exceptions notwithstanding).
Oh yes, standard marine fire fighting equipment. Another good idea wrecked by the EU.
Ships and rigs used to have a very good system for fire extinguishers which meant that different extinguishers were different colours and you could tell from a distance what type of extinguisher you were looking at.
Then they decided to standardise everything and made all extinguishers red but with a small bar at the top showing the colour code for the type of extinguisher. Now it is impossible to tell from a distance what kind of extinguisher is sat at the end of the corridor and you can end up going for an extinguisher only to find it is a type you can't use.
There is nothing wrong with standardisation but the end result turned out to be far worse than what we had before.
I'll take your word for it, and Twisted's too. But as you say this is not a failure of standardisation; nor is it an argument against the EU. It's a failure of the industry to make a persuasive case to MEPs who passed the regulations, who can't be expected to be experts on the issue and are EXTREMELY unlikely to have a personal preference for the colour of fire extinguishers.
Neil's comment on this discussion - LOL!
Having seen how these things work in the past I would suggest it is far more likely to be the case of one particular vested interest making a very VERY persuasive case. Another problem with the whole EU edifice where lobbyists now have a far easier job because they only have to lobby a few key people in one location rather than lots of officials in different capitals.
And yes it is very much an argument against EU meddling in stuff which rarely ends well.
I think Mike's being a bit pessimistic in suggesting that the LDs could struggle to win a single MEP. That's not outside the realms of possibility but it really will be a shocking night if they don't keep at one in at least one of the three southern constituencies outside London. Finishing fifth, on the other hand, is a good deal more likely given that the Greens have a strong record in these elections.
Are the LDs so certain to have a bad night?
Their post 2010 performance at local elections ~15%, is much the same as their past EU election numbers. A PR election.
1999: 12.7% 2004: 14.9% 2009: 13.7%
(numbers all taken from Wikipedia.)
Well, they're not certain to have such a bad night but as the figures you quote suggest, the Lib Dems consistently underperform their Westminster VI by some way (and conversely, they usually out-perform their national standing in local polls).
I don't really see much reason to expect any difference this time other than perhaps they are so far down to their core vote that what's left may be more motivated to turn out in a low-poll election. Against that has to be set the fact that the simultaneous local elections - where turnout will be higher - are in areas that are poor for the Yellows.
My point was that past EU elections being PR elections revealed the LDs core vote, which tallies with the support they have been reduced to since late 2010.
I wouldn't agree that 12% is the core Lib Dem vote; I think that they can and will go lower. Single figures is not just possible but probable and it may be some way down into them.
it's clear that the pre-1914 diplomatic system was set up to be able to handle medium-scale crises, of which there were plenty in the 1911-14 period.
The central drive in Clark's narrative for me is that the 'system' was completely dysfunctional. There were far too many voices and far too many cross purposes. The notion of any nation having a coherent foreign 'policy' was a completely false one.
The result of this total failure in the system was rivalry, paranoia, hatred, ignorance, fear, misunderstanding, rampant self interest and an obsession with the fate of small, insignificant and often faraway tracts of territory.
This in turn led to an arms race and a priming of readiness for war.
it's clear that the pre-1914 diplomatic system was set up to be able to handle medium-scale crises, of which there were plenty in the 1911-14 period.
The central drive in Clark's narrative for me is that the 'system' was completely dysfunctional. There were far too many voices and far too many cross purposes. The notion of any nation having a coherent foreign 'policy' was a completely false one.
The result of this total failure in the system was rivalry, paranoia, hatred, ignorance, fear, misunderstanding, rampant self interest and an obsession with the fate of small, insignificant and often faraway tracts of territory.
This in turn led to an arms race and a priming of readiness for war.
Nah. It was all railway timetables. At least that's what AJP Taylor always used to say :-)
Scottish independence would be worth a very sizeable amount of earnings for me too.
You werent convinced by the Scottish Government's paper on cross border schemes post independence?
Lawyers working on the divorce settlement for either side will have a wonderfully lucrative and long-lasting brief. It will take years to finalise. I bet there are firms already working on their pitches.
All those organisations that have operations on both sides of the border will need careful advice on every aspect of their operation. There must surely be a major opportunity for law firms with substantial offices in both Scotland and England.
Devomax would be OK, but it would be ginger beer rather than champagne.
I could be wrong but I don't think that many of the City firms have big offices in Scotland, they tend to advise from London. They will have expertise in various issues relating to constitutional, international and frontiers law though, as well as all the nuts and bolts stuff, litigation and arbitration. I am not sure that there are any Scottish firms that will be able to offer the same depth of expertise to the Scottish government. It may be that Edinburgh will have to appoint a few firms, many of them non-Scottish (most likely American).
My comment was slightly mischievous.
The larger Scottish law firms have been stampeding to merge with English law firms in recent years. Here's a summary from a year ago:
Most recently Dundas & Wilson have agreed to merge with CMS Cameron McKenna. At the same time Scotland is considering independence, its law firms are being bought and sold for English gold.
I think Mike's being a bit pessimistic in suggesting that the LDs could struggle to win a single MEP. That's not outside the realms of possibility but it really will be a shocking night if they don't keep at one in at least one of the three southern constituencies outside London. Finishing fifth, on the other hand, is a good deal more likely given that the Greens have a strong record in these elections.
Are the LDs so certain to have a bad night?
Their post 2010 performance at local elections ~15%, is much the same as their past EU election numbers. A PR election.
1999: 12.7% 2004: 14.9% 2009: 13.7%
(numbers all taken from Wikipedia.)
Well, they're not certain to have such a bad night but as the figures you quote suggest, the Lib Dems consistently underperform their Westminster VI by some way (and conversely, they usually out-perform their national standing in local polls).
I don't really see much reason to expect any difference this time other than perhaps they are so far down to their core vote that what's left may be more motivated to turn out in a low-poll election. Against that has to be set the fact that the simultaneous local elections - where turnout will be higher - are in areas that are poor for the Yellows.
My point was that past EU elections being PR elections revealed the LDs core vote, which tallies with the support they have been reduced to since late 2010.
I wouldn't agree that 12% is the core Lib Dem vote; I think that they can and will go lower. Single figures is not just possible but probable and it may be some way down into them.
I predict there will be never ending reminders of the tuition fee u turn in the lead up to the next GE, and this will depress the LDvotemore than people seem to think
Scottish independence would be worth a very sizeable amount of earnings for me too.
You werent convinced by the Scottish Government's paper on cross border schemes post independence?
Lawyers working on the divorce settlement for either side will have a wonderfully lucrative and long-lasting brief. It will take years to finalise. I bet there are firms already working on their pitches.
All those organisations that have operations on both sides of the border will need careful advice on every aspect of their operation. There must surely be a major opportunity for law firms with substantial offices in both Scotland and England.
Devomax would be OK, but it would be ginger beer rather than champagne.
I could be wrong but I don't think that many of the City firms have big offices in Scotland, they tend to advise from London. They will have expertise in various issues relating to constitutional, international and frontiers law though, as well as all the nuts and bolts stuff, litigation and arbitration. I am not sure that there are any Scottish firms that will be able to offer the same depth of expertise to the Scottish government. It may be that Edinburgh will have to appoint a few firms, many of them non-Scottish (most likely American).
Quite a number of English firms have bought up (sorry merged with) Scottish firms in recent years. They are so much larger that even the largest Scottish firms (such as McGrigors who "amalgamated" with Pinsent Masons or Golds who were taken over by Irwin Mitchell) are relatively small bites. There are quite a number of financially straitened partners of Edinburgh firms that are hanging off retirement in the hope of being bought out.
Whether this has been done in anticipation of Scottish independence I can't say but it seems unlikely. Just natural predation.
Some in SLAB and Labour do seem to know that danger and it's not just Brown's own breakaway faction of better together (the amusingly named "united with labour") that fear it. A good many in SLAB will also remember the bucket of sh** that was poured over them by little Ed and his chums for following HIS orders and strategy for 2011. SLAB are if anything even more prone to fracturing than they were a few years ago because it's not just the fear of being seen as Cameron's little helpers in better together that divides them, but also a fundamental disagreement over whether to repeat the same type of strategy and campaign from 2011 for the referendum. Quite a few in SLAB did actually notice how catastrophic that relentless negativity was for them and they also do not relish being forced to expend resources and what activists they have on a referendum while the lib dems and tories shout from the sidelines and save all their resources for 2016.
Thank you. Hmm, so the poilus are, for all we know, mutinying - despite the attempt to keep it secret, just as in 1917. I wonder whether Mr Miliband is the Nivelle or Petain in this little story ... and, may I ask you and/or Mr Herdman about something that's puzzling me - if it is not my imagination, why are we seeing so little of key labour figures as Jim Murphy, and for that matter, Ms Lamont(outside First Ministers' Questions), in the indy debates? Or re they sharpening their entrenching tools for the final battles? It may be partly the lack of No campaign events, if my local experiences are any guide, but Mr Murphy is not normally so quiet ...? Someone also raised the issue of why Mr Brown was still holding tight in Kirkcaldy - but wouldn't let on: surely not because he wants to be come a Prime or rather First Minister again?
it's clear that the pre-1914 diplomatic system was set up to be able to handle medium-scale crises, of which there were plenty in the 1911-14 period.
The central drive in Clark's narrative for me is that the 'system' was completely dysfunctional. There were far too many voices and far too many cross purposes. The notion of any nation having a coherent foreign 'policy' was a completely false one.
The result of this total failure in the system was rivalry, paranoia, hatred, ignorance, fear, misunderstanding, rampant self interest and an obsession with the fate of small, insignificant and often faraway tracts of territory.
This in turn led to an arms race and a priming of readiness for war.
I'm not sure I would agree that Clark's argument is that the system is dysfunctional (complex and multi-tiered certainly, but that's not the same thing). What he does clearly show is that there was a lack of fear of war among far too many, that the general level of bellicosity meant that a general war was always a risk and that the actors in the system routinely played with fire - but they did so because they believed that they were capable of doing so, and they did have some cause to believe that.
If anything, the excess of voices was a restraining factor as they tended to cancel each other out, revert policy to a status quo position or produce irresolution.
@DavidL - if you want to sell fire extinguishers, having to comply with one set of standards covering a market of 500 million plus is surely better than having to comply with 28 sets of standards, isn't it?
No, not at all.
First of all, most business sell only nationally. Therefore you are already selling what your customers want and what one existing local standard requires, not 28.
Second, you now have to retool to make fire extinguishers to a different standard, purely because some bureaucrat wants the same specs to apply in Liepaya as in Leicester.
Third, you still have to provide support and spare parts for all your obsolete models. So you have to run two production lines and tie up more capital in spares.
Fourth, depending on how your manufacturing works, you risk being stuck with unsellable obsolete stock. If you sell 15,000 units a year but you manufacture them in 30,000-lot production runs, what do you do if Nick Palmer's rules apply from Jan 2015? Take a huge unsellable stock writedown, I guess.
Fifth, you now have to liaise with any non-EU suppliers to ensure that they understand and implement the standard too.
Sixth, you have to waste time absorbing 4,000 words of guff on fire extinguishers. Cf the Declaration of Independence (one side of quarto), and the Gettysburg Address (271 words).
Seventh, this is all on the assumption that having a Euro-extinguisher is somehow beneficial at all. It might simply put marginal players out of business, diminish competition, and penalise consumers (who'll also presumably have to replace the old extinguishers at some point).
Eighth, any benefit is available only to those prepared to incur cost and risk in finding overseas sales outlets and managing the credit and exchange rate risks.
Ninth, this costs money. We have to pay Nick to do this.
Tenth, why the default assumptions that we need one standard, and that bureaucrats can identify it? Why not avoid 1 to 9 above altogether simply by mandating that all standards in place now are permissible across all EU states? This reminds me of those ecofascists who claim to know what the ideal global temperature is, and of those regulator loonies who claim to know what the right price for energy is.
This sort of wheeze, in particular the last, could only come from an institutionally leftist mindset. A noticeable characteristic of the left is that it is intolerant of any view but its own, and insists that there can be exactly one opinion on anything, whether that's climate change, prison policy, private education, race relations, or indeed Lithuanian fire extinguishers. This is why the left is splintered into lots of different parties who all hate each other, whereas the right, which is innately welcoming of individualism, is not.
@DavidL - if you want to sell fire extinguishers, having to comply with one set of standards covering a market of 500 million plus is surely better than having to comply with 28 sets of standards, isn't it?
No, not at all.
First of all, most business sell only nationally. Therefore you are already selling what your customers want and what one existing local standard requires, not 28.
Second, you now have to retool to make fire extinguishers to a different standard, purely because some bureaucrat wants the same specs to apply in Liepaya as in Leicester.
Third, you still have to provide support and spare parts for all your obsolete models. So you have to run two production lines and tie up more capital in spares.
Fourth, depending on how your manufacturing works, you risk being stuck with unsellable obsolete stock. If you sell 15,000 units a year but you manufacture them in 30,000-lot production runs, what do you do if Nick Palmer's rules apply from Jan 2015? Take a huge unsellable stock writedown, I guess.
Fifth, you now have to liaise with any non-EU suppliers to ensure that they understand and implement the standard too.
Sixth, you have to waste time absorbing 4,000 words of guff on fire extinguishers. Cf the Declaration of Independence (one side of quarto), and the Gettysburg Address (271 words).
Seventh, this is all on the assumption that having a Euro-extinguisher is somehow beneficial at all. It might simply put marginal players out of business, diminish competition, and penalise consumers (who'll also presumably have to replace the old extinguishers at some point).
Eighth, any benefit is available only to those prepared to incur cost and risk in finding overseas sales outlets and managing the credit and exchange rate risks.
Ninth, this costs money. We have to pay Nick to do this.
Tenth, why the default assumptions that we need one standard, and that bureaucrats can identify it? Why not avoid 1 to 9 above altogether simply by mandating that all standards in place now are permissible across all EU states? This reminds me of those ecofascists who claim to know what the ideal global temperature is, and of those regulator loonies who claim to know what the right price for energy is.
This sort of wheeze, in particular the last, could only come from an institutionally leftist mindset. A noticeable characteristic of the left is that it is intolerant of any view but its own, and insists that there can be exactly one opinion on anything, whether that's climate change, prison policy, private education, race relations, or indeed Lithuanian fire extinguishers. This is why the left is splintered into lots of different parties who all hate each other, whereas the right, which is innately welcoming of individualism, is not.
Nice to see that the "Big-Society" is working well on OGH's site:
Both [very honourable] antifrank and DavidL are trying to explain - in simple terms he might one day understand - why SoWo is wrong (c.f. Laywers and Independence). seanT's version of enlightenment is much funnier though....
@DavidL - if you want to sell fire extinguishers, having to comply with one set of standards covering a market of 500 million plus is surely better than having to comply with 28 sets of standards, isn't it?
No, not at all.
Most technical standards are simply arbitrary, or at least, within the range covered by the 28 systems the difference is minor. Therefore the costs associated with compliance are mostly at the beginning, including stock, gearing, machinery, etc. National standards are subject to change anyway. Both their domestic and most of their EU competition will face the same problem.
There are few businesses which would not like the opportunity to trade in Europe. They are just as able to compete as they always were on the domestic market, albeit they will face more competition - but those are the principles of ordinary free market trading. Indeed most businesses regularly change their designs to compete.
Feel free to rip it off as your own work. I have hugely enjoyed all your novels and I enjoy your blog too, so help yourself to "one on me" in return, as it were. Copyright hereby waived in perpetuity....
@DavidL - if you want to sell fire extinguishers, having to comply with one set of standards covering a market of 500 million plus is surely better than having to comply with 28 sets of standards, isn't it?
No, not at all.
First of all, most business sell only nationally. Therefore you are already selling what your customers want and what one existing local standard requires, not 28.
Second, you now have to retool to make fire extinguishers to a different standard, purely because some bureaucrat wants the same specs to apply in Liepaya as in Leicester.
....
This sort of wheeze, in particular the last, could only come from an institutionally leftist mindset. A noticeable characteristic of the left is that it is intolerant of any view but its own, and insists that there can be exactly one opinion on anything, whether that's climate change, prison policy, private education, race relations, or indeed Lithuanian fire extinguishers. This is why the left is splintered into lots of different parties who all hate each other, whereas the right, which is innately welcoming of individualism, is not.
That's a brilliantly cogent and lucid post. I might even cut and paste it and send it to my Telegraph editor, as a possible blog - under your name? Or you could use a pseudonym?
It says more about the madness of the EU than any number of UKIP rants.
As you say... Couldn't agree more
"A noticeable characteristic of the left is that it is intolerant of any view but its own, and insists that there can be exactly one opinion on anything, whether that's climate change, prison policy, private education, race relations, or indeed Lithuanian fire extinguishers. "
First of all, most business sell only nationally. Therefore you are already selling what your customers want and what one existing local standard requires, not 28.
->This is increasingly untrue and a formula for long-term disaster. There's a reason why Germany is much better at exports manufactured goods than we are, and this attitude is part of it.
Second, you now have to retool to make fire extinguishers to a different standard, purely because some bureaucrat wants the same specs to apply in Liepaya as in Leicester.
->No, unless you are lazily content to sell only to Leicester, you can now sell your single model to Liepaya as well, instead of having to make a different one which is essentially identical but happens to need some different colours or stickers.
Third, you still have to provide support and spare parts for all your obsolete models. So you have to run two production lines and tie up more capital in spares.
-> Sure, you need a transitional period - no standard is introduced overnight. Were you thinking of continuing your current model forever?
Fourth, depending on how your manufacturing works, you risk being stuck with unsellable obsolete stock. If you sell 15,000 units a year but you manufacture them in 30,000-lot production runs, what do you do if Nick Palmer's rules apply from Jan 2015? Take a huge unsellable stock writedown, I guess.
->Same issue.
Fifth, you now have to liaise with any non-EU suppliers to ensure that they understand and implement the standard too.
->Yes, but most countries don't really care whether the bottle is red or blue, so long as it's consistent. The EU is extremely influential in this sort of thing - for example, to take the area I've been working in, ASEAN has deliberately adopted the entire EU directive on cosmetics regulation, and China has just announced that it will accept all alternatives to animal tests for most cosmetics approved in the EU. You have at least a fair chance of persuading them. Before, you had to persuade them to accept your Leicester standard.
Sixth, you have to waste time absorbing 4,000 words of guff on fire extinguishers. Cf the Declaration of Independence (one side of quarto), and the Gettysburg Address (271 words).
->It's a specification, not a speech. I've done boith - specs always require more detail.
Seventh, this is all on the assumption that having a Euro-extinguisher is somehow beneficial at all. It might simply put marginal players out of business, diminish competition, and penalise consumers (who'll also presumably have to replace the old extinguishers at some point).
->There's the transitional issue, but apart from that it means a wider market for your stuff. If you choose not to sell to a wider market because you only like selling to Leicester, it's time you took up a different line of business.
Eighth, any benefit is available only to those prepared to incur cost and risk in finding overseas sales outlets and managing the credit and exchange rate risks.
->Urgh, exporting, it's dangerous and difficult. See point 1.
Ninth, this costs money. We have to pay Nick to do this.
->Not a lot! :-)
Tenth, why the default assumptions that we need one standard, and that bureaucrats can identify it? Why not avoid 1 to 9 above altogether simply by mandating that all standards in place now are permissible across all EU states? This reminds me of those ecofascists who claim to know what the ideal global temperature is, and of those regulator loonies who claim to know what the right price for energy is.
->No, because the price of energy is important, whereas the specs are often merely a matter of deciding on something. As a business, I don't care what format you want me to invoice in. But I'd prefer it if I can use the same format for all my customers.
This sort of wheeze, in particular the last, could only come from an institutionally leftist mindset. A noticeable characteristic of the left is that it is intolerant of any view but its own, and insists that there can be exactly one opinion on anything, whether that's climate change, prison policy, private education, race relations, or indeed Lithuanian fire extinguishers. This is why the left is splintered into lots of different parties who all hate each other, whereas the right, which is innately welcoming of individualism, is not.
->Nonsense. The demand for standardisation comes entirely from business - no leftist politician not involved in business gives a toss. But I do of course acknowledge that the right is perfectly united in Britain (Conservative, UKIP), France (Gaullists, right-liberals, right-greens), Italy...shall I go on?
I've worked in the private sector for most of my life and have set up and run two successful businesses. I've sometimes met businesses who disliked exports and standards. They mostly aren't there any more.
Feel free to rip it off as your own work. I have hugely enjoyed all your novels and I enjoy your blog too, so help yourself to "one on me" in return, as it were. Copyright hereby waived in perpetuity....
Well that's very generous of you, and very flattering - but if I do use it I will say "someone told me this" - and I will quote you at length, but won't name you (not that I know your real name, anyway).
A brief google would show you that BJB's knowledge of the fire extinguisher manufacturing industry is far from reality and that there are many manufacturers exporting to Europe and throughout the world . No surprise that the EU haters want to damage this part of British manufacturing .
Panelbase/Scottish National Party Sample size: 1,012 adults in Scotland Fieldwork: 13-20 December (+/- change from 30 Aug - 5 Sep Panelbase/Sunday Times)
Out of interest, what do you think would happen if those were the results in 2016? (I don't think they will be - IMO, the referendum next year will act as a major boost / drag for the SNP depending on how the result goes: it could easily be 50%+ if Yes, or sub-35 if No).
The figures as they stand would make the SNP largest but some way short of an overall majority. The Lib Dems could arrive in a taxi and the Greens too would be struggling, so a government would need the support or at least the tolerance of two of the three substantial groups. There don't look to be any particularly natural alliances there but srange as it sounds, an SNP supply-and-confidence agreement with the Tories seems least unlikely. Would the SNP members / MSPs wear that? I have no idea, but the other possibilities - a grand SNP-Lab coalition or some form of Con-Lab arrangement - seem even more unlikely, and an SNP-minority government would be unstable without some form of support if there's not a third, reasonably-sized, opposition group with which to negotiate.
David - "... an SNP supply-and-confidence agreement with the Tories seems least unlikely."
Strongly disagree there David.
If the SNP were the largest party within an NOC parliament then they would either form another Minority government (cf. 2007-11) or look towards the Greens, Inds, Lib Dems, Labour, probably in that order. I'm afraid that your own party would be the very, very last resort.
Same if LAB largest within NOC parliament. They would look to Grn, Inds, LD, SNP in that order. A Lab-Con coalition would be SLab's ultimate nightmare.
Good afternoon, my fellow fire extinguisher enthusiasts.
Just think how odd it'll be in nine months or so. We'll either have no more Scottish independence talk, or endless reams of it (if Yes wins). I do No wins, though. Not only for the significant maintenance of the union, but also, trivially, because Salmond's an arse. It's win-win.
" A noticeable characteristic of the left is that it is intolerant of any view but its own, and insists that there can be exactly one opinion on anything, whether that's climate change, prison policy, private education, race relations, or indeed Lithuanian fire extinguishers."
LOL
Undoubtedly the finest oblivious satire seen on here since Seth O Logue and Stuarttruth were plying their unwitting trade to huge laughter.
Scottish independence would be worth a very sizeable amount of earnings for me too.
You werent convinced by the Scottish Government's paper on cross border schemes post independence?
Lawyers working on the divorce settlement for either side will have a wonderfully lucrative and long-lasting brief. It will take years to finalise. I bet there are firms already working on their pitches.
All those organisations that have operations on both sides of the border will need careful advice on every aspect of their operation. There must surely be a major opportunity for law firms with substantial offices in both Scotland and England.
Devomax would be OK, but it would be ginger beer rather than champagne.
Given Devomax is not on offer it si hard to see how it could apply.
But as you say this is not a failure of standardisation; nor is it an argument against the EU. It's a failure of the industry to make a persuasive case to MEPs who passed the regulations, who can't be expected to be experts on the issue and are EXTREMELY unlikely to have a personal preference for the colour of fire extinguishers.
While I wouldn't want to get too involved in the standards debate (it seems to me rather remarkable we have government mandated standards at all)... it is worth remembering that almost all large trade blocs end up with a ton of standards based legislation.
Chapter Nine of the NAFTA agreement (about which I sadly know rather more than I would like) basically forces the US standards onto Mexico and Canada. Essentially, the Canadian and Mexican governments have to accept that products made to US standards are acceptable for local consumption - technically it says that while local countries are free to have their own standards, they must not act as trade barriers, ant the US has been harsh at enforcing this one. The result is that - effectively - NAFTA has become a single regulated entity, only with the largest country setting the standards rather than NAFTA itself.
I suspect that in pre EU days, and when Ireland and the UK had a free trade agreement, that Ireland essentially accepted the decisions of the BSI and CORGI and the like.
If we were to leave the EU, but remain in a free trade pact with the it, then I suspect we would de facto choose to adopt EU standards - simply because it would be easier.
If the EU were to get rid of its standards setting mandate, then I suspect that everyone inside the block would essentially coalesce around German standards as that is the single largest market inside the EU.
Comments
On topic, smart positioning by Clegg - no, there are not hordes of Euro enthusiasts itching to vote for a pro-EU party (no more than there are hordes of Euro phobes) - but it provides good, clear differentiation and highlights the mess the two major parties are in. Any one who thinks only the Tories only do civil wars over the EU hasn't got a long memory.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530503/Exposed-What-DIDNT-tell-new-wave-migrants-heading-booming-Britain.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Silly me, its the mail saying it! They will probably all get married to each other and live happily ever after in reality
"In the protected spaces, the electrical circuits that are required to trigger the system shall be conducted in fireproof cables, in accordance with the I.E.C. standards. The pipe systems necessary for hydraulic or pneumatic use shall be made of steel or other heat-resistant material approved by the national authority."
The necessary regulations are already in place. It's an example of the EU wasting money.
Fluffy your crap is bad enough without posting it twice to torture us even more
I find that gesture and the culture that seems to surround it utterly baffling.
The figures as they stand would make the SNP largest but some way short of an overall majority. The Lib Dems could arrive in a taxi and the Greens too would be struggling, so a government would need the support or at least the tolerance of two of the three substantial groups. There don't look to be any particularly natural alliances there but srange as it sounds, an SNP supply-and-confidence agreement with the Tories seems least unlikely. Would the SNP members / MSPs wear that? I have no idea, but the other possibilities - a grand SNP-Lab coalition or some form of Con-Lab arrangement - seem even more unlikely, and an SNP-minority government would be unstable without some form of support if there's not a third, reasonably-sized, opposition group with which to negotiate.
I was going to say looks like PiaraPowar hadn't noticed it either... Then looked at his twitter...
All I can say is i am astounded its not a spoof... Sickening hypocrisy, this guy is a complete idiot
Piara Powar (@PiaraPowar)
29/12/2013 12:01
Looks like Anelka been fooled by his friend Dieudonne. No place for anti- semitism/ far-right politics wherever it comes from. The but (1/2)
Piara Powar (@PiaraPowar)
29/12/2013 12:01
(2/2) is that it reflects the mess of French race politics. Too many minorities in the suburbs losing out, 'integration' policies failing.
I don't really see much reason to expect any difference this time other than perhaps they are so far down to their core vote that what's left may be more motivated to turn out in a low-poll election. Against that has to be set the fact that the simultaneous local elections - where turnout will be higher - are in areas that are poor for the Yellows.
And you have to look at what gold plating has been added in different jurisdictions because most of the EU legislation these days is framework imposing minimum standards which EU states are entitled to improve upon undermining the concept of a single market. If the UK, for example, wanted to provide the casing had to be of a material which did not conduct electricity as a safety measure it could provide that.
By now you are needing an expert in EU law, local experts in each country you are wanting to sell into and someone who actually knows about the IECs. If you are a large corporation with branches in the markets you want to sell into and a compliance department this is doable but if you are a small manufacturer in Sheffield you just give up. You really do.
Although this does tend to favour the big players, whether German, Chinese or American, who can use economies of scale to squeeze out smaller competitors, who might otherwise exploit a local monopoly supplying Latvian or Scottish fire extinguishers. So on balance, who knows?
Unspoofable as always.
Ships and rigs used to have a very good system for fire extinguishers which meant that different extinguishers were different colours and you could tell from a distance what type of extinguisher you were looking at.
Then they decided to standardise everything and made all extinguishers red but with a small bar at the top showing the colour code for the type of extinguisher. Now it is impossible to tell from a distance what kind of extinguisher is sat at the end of the corridor and you can end up going for an extinguisher only to find it is a type you can't use.
There is nothing wrong with standardisation but the end result turned out to be far worse than what we had before.
The article, written in 2004, states that based on official figures there was no flood at that time, explains that many Poles were already in the country and forecasts more will arrive. If you want to see this as proof of evil lefties lying then so be it. There's not much point arguing about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10542898/Alex-Salmond-warns-Scots-they-would-regret-voting-against-independence.html
The single market is a brilliant idea and the best justification for the existence of the EU. I am very much in favour of it. It's just that these ridiculous regulations from the European Parliament do not help and in many cases positively hinder its operation.
Repeat to fade.
Secondly, two main opposition groups is harder to manage for a minority government than three, for the simple reason that there are fewer options to work deals and it's harder to divide them amongst themselves.
Its a small thing, but something that helps the impression of EU meddling.
Piara Powar @PiaraPowar
Follow
Hodgson used very silly term within a diverse team environment. He should know better. Assume it wasn't a Freudian slip, no evidence
10:19 AM - 17 Oct 2013
Piara Powar @PiaraPowar
Follow
to suggest it was. Some players will see it as reflection of the crude language still used by some coaches and attitudes that still prevail.
10:20 AM - 17 Oct 2013
Whether it boosts the Lib Dems in the Euros it feels like another small move in the Lib Dems gradual transformation into an entirely boring, elitist party. I suspect Nigel Farage will be pleased about this. If Clegg is leading the Europhile charge, the sceptics are almost shooting at an open goal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-bromwich-albion/10543309/Nicolas-Anelka-and-West-Bromwich-Albion-must-apologise-now-over-quenelle-gesture.html
Scottish independence would be worth a very sizeable amount of earnings for me too.
There is no way the EU is going away, in one form or another it is here to stay. And 2014, with the centenary of the outbreak of hostilities, will probably remind us graphically why we have it.
The electorate's only option is to choose to vote for members of a gaggle of rag tag oppositions (all of whom have some distinctly dubious members). How perversely absurd is that. Not only that our total representation makes up less than 10% of the total and our largest grouping less than 5%. We have as much chance of influencing European policy as the SNP have of influencing UK Military Policy in Westminster.
And Clegg thinks prostrating ourselves at the alter of Ever Closer Union is the route to the Land of Milk and Honey.
Nick Clegg is the Clown Prince Of Idiots! The EU and its Parliament are an insult to democracy and an insult to the British people.
Am about 1/3 way through it.
Have also been reading Margaret MacMillan's book on the outbreak of war. Complements her book on the Peace Treaties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/10542383/Samir-Nasri-and-Mamadou-Sakho-pictured-performing-same-controversial-quenelle-gesture-as-Nicolas-Anelka.html
Come on Pete, speak up.
I wonder about long term benefit to Labour in particular , eg with one of its councillors allying with a Tory in trying to abolishing the council's own flag in favour of the Union Flag just because it has a saltire on it (Stirling: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24463256) . They really risk ending up as the penal battalions for the Tory chateau generals (and even if, as someone rightly corrected me, the chateau generals' own subsequent careers are at risk, that is no consolation to the PBI who have already collected their nice CWGC headstones). What's the point of winning the union (of 1707) if you lose your heart?
http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/29/nicolas-anelka-posts-picture-of-barack-obama-making-the-quenelle-as-he-denies-racism-4244315/
What exactly does it mean?
And who's Pete?
Devomax would be OK, but it would be ginger beer rather than champagne.
Some in SLAB and Labour do seem to know that danger and it's not just Brown's own breakaway faction of better together (the amusingly named "united with labour") that fear it.
A good many in SLAB will also remember the bucket of sh** that was poured over them by little Ed and his chums for following HIS orders and strategy for 2011. SLAB are if anything even more prone to fracturing than they were a few years ago because it's not just the fear of being seen as Cameron's little helpers in better together that divides them, but also a fundamental disagreement over whether to repeat the same type of strategy and campaign from 2011 for the referendum. Quite a few in SLAB did actually notice how catastrophic that relentless negativity was for them and they also do not relish being forced to expend resources and what activists they have on a referendum while the lib dems and tories shout from the sidelines and save all their resources for 2016.
Only as these blocs collapsed (particularly in the Balkans) did war become even a possibility.
Well of course this is difficult to dispute because we can;t turn the clock back and re-run post '45 without the EU.
But here's the thing. Why have so many people endured so much privation on the continent of Europe since 2008?? Particularly in the south??
It is surely because they see the EU as a way of avoiding the past - where one army or another from somewhere or other trampled across the continent for centuries.
Neil's comment on this discussion - LOL!
It's a fundamental misunderstanding to believe that institutions cause or prevent wars. They can help by providing a framework; they can hinder by getting in the way of effective diplomacy. However, a question on the scale of war or peace is almost always more significant than the niceties of process. WWII did not break out because the League of Nations failed to prevent it; it broke out because revisionist politicians willed it and saw no use for the League's processes.
That said, it would be equally wrong to claim that the ECSC and its successors, the EEC, EC and EU had nothing to do with preventing another war. The destruction of the first half of the 20th century produced a profound change in mindset of both (West) German and French politicians after 1945. It was not that the EEC itself prevented another war; it was that the changed minset and outlook - of which the EEC was the prime realisation - prevented further war.
In fact the boom and bust are both the fault of the EU. Unfortunately people still think the EU will save them in the end. And they are still wrong.
Now those countries in the south need a new dominant force to make everyone play nice. The EU can fulfil that role although there will be problems if any of the EU countries under strain collapses or ceases to be a democracy because the EU army is a theoretical concept. Can you see an EU force taking on Greek generals?
And yes it is very much an argument against EU meddling in stuff which rarely ends well.
I fear that will be long time coming
The central drive in Clark's narrative for me is that the 'system' was completely dysfunctional. There were far too many voices and far too many cross purposes. The notion of any nation having a coherent foreign 'policy' was a completely false one.
The result of this total failure in the system was rivalry, paranoia, hatred, ignorance, fear, misunderstanding, rampant self interest and an obsession with the fate of small, insignificant and often faraway tracts of territory.
This in turn led to an arms race and a priming of readiness for war.
The larger Scottish law firms have been stampeding to merge with English law firms in recent years. Here's a summary from a year ago:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/company-news/2013-year-for-more-law-firm-mergers.19746687
And a BBC article from a couple of months ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24821771
Most recently Dundas & Wilson have agreed to merge with CMS Cameron McKenna. At the same time Scotland is considering independence, its law firms are being bought and sold for English gold.
I predict there will be never ending reminders of the tuition fee u turn in the lead up to the next GE, and this will depress the LDvotemore than people seem to think
4/6 LD/UKIP still available
Whether this has been done in anticipation of Scottish independence I can't say but it seems unlikely. Just natural predation.
If anything, the excess of voices was a restraining factor as they tended to cancel each other out, revert policy to a status quo position or produce irresolution.
First of all, most business sell only nationally. Therefore you are already selling what your customers want and what one existing local standard requires, not 28.
Second, you now have to retool to make fire extinguishers to a different standard, purely because some bureaucrat wants the same specs to apply in Liepaya as in Leicester.
Third, you still have to provide support and spare parts for all your obsolete models. So you have to run two production lines and tie up more capital in spares.
Fourth, depending on how your manufacturing works, you risk being stuck with unsellable obsolete stock. If you sell 15,000 units a year but you manufacture them in 30,000-lot production runs, what do you do if Nick Palmer's rules apply from Jan 2015? Take a huge unsellable stock writedown, I guess.
Fifth, you now have to liaise with any non-EU suppliers to ensure that they understand and implement the standard too.
Sixth, you have to waste time absorbing 4,000 words of guff on fire extinguishers. Cf the Declaration of Independence (one side of quarto), and the Gettysburg Address (271 words).
Seventh, this is all on the assumption that having a Euro-extinguisher is somehow beneficial at all. It might simply put marginal players out of business, diminish competition, and penalise consumers (who'll also presumably have to replace the old extinguishers at some point).
Eighth, any benefit is available only to those prepared to incur cost and risk in finding overseas sales outlets and managing the credit and exchange rate risks.
Ninth, this costs money. We have to pay Nick to do this.
Tenth, why the default assumptions that we need one standard, and that bureaucrats can identify it? Why not avoid 1 to 9 above altogether simply by mandating that all standards in place now are permissible across all EU states? This reminds me of those ecofascists who claim to know what the ideal global temperature is, and of those regulator loonies who claim to know what the right price for energy is.
This sort of wheeze, in particular the last, could only come from an institutionally leftist mindset. A noticeable characteristic of the left is that it is intolerant of any view but its own, and insists that there can be exactly one opinion on anything, whether that's climate change, prison policy, private education, race relations, or indeed Lithuanian fire extinguishers. This is why the left is splintered into lots of different parties who all hate each other, whereas the right, which is innately welcoming of individualism, is not.
Both [very honourable] antifrank and DavidL are trying to explain - in simple terms he might one day understand - why SoWo is wrong (c.f. Laywers and Independence). seanT's version of enlightenment is much funnier though....
:tumbleweed:
There are few businesses which would not like the opportunity to trade in Europe. They are just as able to compete as they always were on the domestic market, albeit they will face more competition - but those are the principles of ordinary free market trading. Indeed most businesses regularly change their designs to compete.
Feel free to rip it off as your own work. I have hugely enjoyed all your novels and I enjoy your blog too, so help yourself to "one on me" in return, as it were. Copyright hereby waived in perpetuity....
"A noticeable characteristic of the left is that it is intolerant of any view but its own, and insists that there can be exactly one opinion on anything, whether that's climate change, prison policy, private education, race relations, or indeed Lithuanian fire extinguishers. "
Osborne plans 'big expansion' in affordable homes - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25559110
No, not at all.
First of all, most business sell only nationally. Therefore you are already selling what your customers want and what one existing local standard requires, not 28.
->This is increasingly untrue and a formula for long-term disaster. There's a reason why Germany is much better at exports manufactured goods than we are, and this attitude is part of it.
Second, you now have to retool to make fire extinguishers to a different standard, purely because some bureaucrat wants the same specs to apply in Liepaya as in Leicester.
->No, unless you are lazily content to sell only to Leicester, you can now sell your single model to Liepaya as well, instead of having to make a different one which is essentially identical but happens to need some different colours or stickers.
Third, you still have to provide support and spare parts for all your obsolete models. So you have to run two production lines and tie up more capital in spares.
-> Sure, you need a transitional period - no standard is introduced overnight. Were you thinking of continuing your current model forever?
Fourth, depending on how your manufacturing works, you risk being stuck with unsellable obsolete stock. If you sell 15,000 units a year but you manufacture them in 30,000-lot production runs, what do you do if Nick Palmer's rules apply from Jan 2015? Take a huge unsellable stock writedown, I guess.
->Same issue.
Fifth, you now have to liaise with any non-EU suppliers to ensure that they understand and implement the standard too.
->Yes, but most countries don't really care whether the bottle is red or blue, so long as it's consistent. The EU is extremely influential in this sort of thing - for example, to take the area I've been working in, ASEAN has deliberately adopted the entire EU directive on cosmetics regulation, and China has just announced that it will accept all alternatives to animal tests for most cosmetics approved in the EU.
You have at least a fair chance of persuading them. Before, you had to persuade them to accept your Leicester standard.
Sixth, you have to waste time absorbing 4,000 words of guff on fire extinguishers. Cf the Declaration of Independence (one side of quarto), and the Gettysburg Address (271 words).
->It's a specification, not a speech. I've done boith - specs always require more detail.
Seventh, this is all on the assumption that having a Euro-extinguisher is somehow beneficial at all. It might simply put marginal players out of business, diminish competition, and penalise consumers (who'll also presumably have to replace the old extinguishers at some point).
->There's the transitional issue, but apart from that it means a wider market for your stuff. If you choose not to sell to a wider market because you only like selling to Leicester, it's time you took up a different line of business.
Eighth, any benefit is available only to those prepared to incur cost and risk in finding overseas sales outlets and managing the credit and exchange rate risks.
->Urgh, exporting, it's dangerous and difficult. See point 1.
Ninth, this costs money. We have to pay Nick to do this.
->Not a lot! :-)
Tenth, why the default assumptions that we need one standard, and that bureaucrats can identify it? Why not avoid 1 to 9 above altogether simply by mandating that all standards in place now are permissible across all EU states? This reminds me of those ecofascists who claim to know what the ideal global temperature is, and of those regulator loonies who claim to know what the right price for energy is.
->No, because the price of energy is important, whereas the specs are often merely a matter of deciding on something. As a business, I don't care what format you want me to invoice in. But I'd prefer it if I can use the same format for all my customers.
This sort of wheeze, in particular the last, could only come from an institutionally leftist mindset. A noticeable characteristic of the left is that it is intolerant of any view but its own, and insists that there can be exactly one opinion on anything, whether that's climate change, prison policy, private education, race relations, or indeed Lithuanian fire extinguishers. This is why the left is splintered into lots of different parties who all hate each other, whereas the right, which is innately welcoming of individualism, is not.
->Nonsense. The demand for standardisation comes entirely from business - no leftist politician not involved in business gives a toss. But I do of course acknowledge that the right is perfectly united in Britain (Conservative, UKIP), France (Gaullists, right-liberals, right-greens), Italy...shall I go on?
I've worked in the private sector for most of my life and have set up and run two successful businesses. I've sometimes met businesses who disliked exports and standards. They mostly aren't there any more.
Happy New Year!
That's a good point. I've seen polls on here showing that up to 40% of lib dem voters are skeptics...
Strongly disagree there David.
If the SNP were the largest party within an NOC parliament then they would either form another Minority government (cf. 2007-11) or look towards the Greens, Inds, Lib Dems, Labour, probably in that order. I'm afraid that your own party would be the very, very last resort.
Same if LAB largest within NOC parliament. They would look to Grn, Inds, LD, SNP in that order. A Lab-Con coalition would be SLab's ultimate nightmare.
Just think how odd it'll be in nine months or so. We'll either have no more Scottish independence talk, or endless reams of it (if Yes wins). I do No wins, though. Not only for the significant maintenance of the union, but also, trivially, because Salmond's an arse. It's win-win.
LOL
Undoubtedly the finest oblivious satire seen on here since Seth O Logue and Stuarttruth were plying their unwitting trade to huge laughter.
Pure Comedy Gold.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/game-of-thrones-is-fantasy-gateway-drug-201111044505
Chapter Nine of the NAFTA agreement (about which I sadly know rather more than I would like) basically forces the US standards onto Mexico and Canada. Essentially, the Canadian and Mexican governments have to accept that products made to US standards are acceptable for local consumption - technically it says that while local countries are free to have their own standards, they must not act as trade barriers, ant the US has been harsh at enforcing this one. The result is that - effectively - NAFTA has become a single regulated entity, only with the largest country setting the standards rather than NAFTA itself.
I suspect that in pre EU days, and when Ireland and the UK had a free trade agreement, that Ireland essentially accepted the decisions of the BSI and CORGI and the like.
If we were to leave the EU, but remain in a free trade pact with the it, then I suspect we would de facto choose to adopt EU standards - simply because it would be easier.
If the EU were to get rid of its standards setting mandate, then I suspect that everyone inside the block would essentially coalesce around German standards as that is the single largest market inside the EU.