politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » REMAIN moves back up a touch after busy day on the referend
Comments
-
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.MP_SE said:
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.AlastairMeeks said:
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.SeanT said:
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.Pulpstar said:
Nabavi will be along to explain shortlySeanT said:
LEGALLY BINDINGviewcode said:
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...Scott_P said:
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?kle4 said:It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
Still confused...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
Chortle.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
0 -
Roger Bootle on the dangers of the 'status quo'
'Staying in the EU is a leap in the dark with both legs shackled'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/10/if-leaving-the-eu-is-a-leap-in-the-dark-then-staying-in-is-a-lea/0 -
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?0 -
This is the key - the deal didn't achieve much by way of reform of the EU. Had it promised an end to CAP/CFP, etc you name it then yes, I would have been cautious.MaxPB said:
No, the deal is still worthless. It was always going to be worthless unless we had a treaty change with 27 signatures on the dotted line before we went to vote. I've said this time and again, the PM could have come back from Brussels with a veto, exit from the CAP and CFP and a new rebate but without treaty change or a new "Treaty of London" before our vote it would all mean absolutely nothing. If/when we deliver a remain vote there is going to be no appetite to implement anything Dave has negotiated, even his thinnest gruel is going to be put to one side and ignored for a year or so until we forget may be trust worthy, I think he is. I think he tried to rush the negotiation because he knows another summer of the migrant crisis is basically going to destroy any chance of a remain vote so he has done the best possible deal in the shortest period of time. That means there is no treaty change, no EUParl assent and no legal framework to bind our remain vote to the EU implementing it. The last point is the key point, I don't think the EU are to be trusted and though I personally wouldn't be swayed by Dave's negotiations even if he had got 27 signatures on a new/amended treaty without that they hold absolutely no meaning. As I said, Dave could have got the best deal out there, the internal markets veto, an opt-out from the CAP/CFP, enhanced movement instead of free movement etc... but it would all come to nought without having it enshrined in a new or amended treaty with the 28th signature (ours) going on the dotted line with the Remain vote.TOPPING said:Dave, together with the other 27 heads of the EU, hammered out a deal that has been decried as worthless and achieving nothing.
because...because...well, just because...
...
...then you should vote LEAVE!
A few times, if you can.
But the irony is that the paucity of its achievement in the eyes of many is what gives it its bite.
"All" it achieved was an opt-out of ever closer union (nothing the 27 can do to make us opt in), and continued non-discrimination between EZ and non-EZ (remember the court case). It did a bit on the emergency brake and competitiveness, who cares.
So in its modesty, it protects us from others' duplicity, such as it may be. Indeed even the vice-prez rails only against the free movement of people, rather than the above (I don't have a huge problem with free movement of people, you may have, of course).0 -
Oh the deal is dismal. But it will be implemented if we vote Remain.Cyclefree said:
Some of us Mr Meeks did our own legal analysis. We may be wrong but I have spent more time analysing EU laws than is really sensible in a well-lived life. And FWIW I thought the deal was a bit "meh" and not worth making a song and dance about. Cameron did so he can hardly be surprised if others call him out on it.AlastairMeeks said:
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.SeanT said:
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.Pulpstar said:
Nabavi will be along to explain shortlySeanT said:
LEGALLY BINDINGviewcode said:
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...Scott_P said:
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?kle4 said:It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
Still confused...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
Chortle.
A bit of English understatement would have been much more comme il faut.0 -
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.AlastairMeeks said:MP_SE said:
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.AlastairMeeks said:
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.SeanT said:
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.Pulpstar said:
Nabavi will be along to explain shortlySeanT said:
LEGALLY BINDINGviewcode said:
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...Scott_P said:
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?kle4 said:It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
Still confused...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
Chortle.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
lol - given that you have spent most of the last 2 months telling all the leavers they are disreputable who will pass your test ?0 -
What a stupid, pointless bet, which merely reveals your ignorance.SeanT said:
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.AlastairMeeks said:MP_SE said:
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.AlastairMeeks said:
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.SeanT said:
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.Pulpstar said:
Nabavi will be along to explain shortlySeanT said:
LEGALLY BINDINGviewcode said:
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...Scott_P said:
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?kle4 said:It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
Still confused...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
Chortle.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
Cameron has to get words written into the next EU Treaty for his deal to be fulfilled. That could be a decade away, or more, or indeed could never happen. Ever.
The bet is impossible.
You're welcome to offer me your own version based on your idea that it is not legally binding. I'm a reasonable man.0 -
lol - given that you have spent most of the last 2 months telling all the leavers they are disreputable who will pass your test ?Alanbrooke said:
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.AlastairMeeks said:MP_SE said:
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.AlastairMeeks said:
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.SeanT said:
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.Pulpstar said:
Nabavi will be along to explain shortlySeanT said:
LEGALLY BINDINGviewcode said:
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...Scott_P said:
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?kle4 said:It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
Still confused...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
Chortle.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
I said they were crazy, not disreputable. If I were to exclude the crazy, I'd have no one take me up on my bet.0 -
MrsB said:
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
...
Then he should have taken longer and fought for a better deal.
And one that was actually legally binding.
0 -
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.MrsB said:Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?0 -
I said they were crazy, not disreputable. If I were to exclude the crazy, I'd have no one take me up on my bet.AlastairMeeks said:
lol - given that you have spent most of the last 2 months telling all the leavers they are disreputable who will pass your test ?Alanbrooke said:
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.AlastairMeeks said:MP_SE said:
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.AlastairMeeks said:
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.SeanT said:
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.Pulpstar said:
Nabavi will be along to explain shortlySeanT said:
LEGALLY BINDINGviewcode said:
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...Scott_P said:
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?kle4 said:It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
Still confused...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
Chortle.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
not even the remainers ?
well maybe it's sent us all mad.0 -
'We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday'
I'd leave the spoof posts to the real experts of the genre0 -
Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?MrsB said:Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
Of course. Has it occurred to you that many people just don't share his view ?0 -
Why would the Dominican Republic and Mexico be pissed off if we Leave?MrsB said:We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday.
0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36013170
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.0 -
That opt-out isn't going to be part of any EU treaty. It means nothing. Our opt-out of the EU justice measures have bite because they are part of the Lisbon Treaty, the same is true for our opt-out wrt to asylum and migration of non-EU citizens, we aren't in Schengen and therefore the deal didn't apply to us because there was no way to enforce it.TOPPING said:This is the key - the deal didn't achieve much by way of reform of the EU. Had it promised an end to CAP/CFP, etc you name it then yes, I would have been cautious.
But the irony is that the paucity of its achievement in the eyes of many is what gives it its bite.
"All" it achieved was an opt-out of ever closer union (nothing the 27 can do to make us opt in), and continued non-discrimination between EZ and non-EZ (remember the court case). It did a bit on the emergency brake and competitiveness, who cares.
So in its modesty, it protects us from others' duplicity, such as it may be. Indeed even the vice-prez rails only against the free movement of people, rather than the above (I don't have a huge problem with free movement of people, you may have, of course).
Dave's non-discrimination for currencies in the single market reform is already there, the court case you cite (the ECB vs LCH) has already been won, as long as we maintain single market membership the ECJ has ruled EUR can be cleared by any jurisdiction within the single market. Though I'm not an expert by any means, I'm sure if any such issue were to arise in future this case would form the ground work for any company or our government were it being discriminated against within the single market.
Back to the opt-out, without it being enshrined in an EU treaty the other EU nations are under no obligation to recognise it. This is where the 27 signatures on the dotted line come in. Yes maybe the current leaders will respect it in future summits, but governments and attitudes change. Who is to say that there won't be some raging federalist in power in Germany next time with a leftist coalition of SPD, Linke and Greens taking over, why should they respect a deal signed by Merkel that hasn't been integrated into German law by way of amending the Lisbon Treaty. It's meaningless. Unless we have the ever-closer union opt-out put into an existing treaty or form the basis of a new one which requires all 28 nations to agree to it and recognise it, there isn't any point in even having it.0 -
We were doing badly in the 70s for our own domestic reasons; a lot has changed since the 70s. Not least the 80s were since then. This article makes the case very well:MrsB said:But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade.
http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave/
0 -
No, you're not. On this subject you're an idiot. No bet can be framed around Cameron's EU deal, for the precise reason that the EU changes deals and laws and rules on a whim, or never, or always, or tomorrow. As it decides.SeanT said:
You're welcome to offer me your own version based on your idea that it is not legally binding. I'm a reasonable man.AlastairMeeks said:
What a stupid, pointless bet, which merely reveals your ignorance.SeanT said:
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.AlastairMeeks said:MP_SE said:
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.AlastairMeeks said:
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.SeanT said:
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.Pulpstar said:
Nabavi will be along to explain shortlySeanT said:
LEGALLY BINDINGviewcode said:
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...Scott_P said:
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?kle4 said:It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
Still confused...
nny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
Chortle.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
Cameron has to get words written into the next EU Treaty for his deal to be fulfilled. That could be a decade away, or more, or indeed could never happen. Ever.
The bet is impossible.
Imagine framing a bet on "whether or not the EU will depose a democratically elected EU government in the next ten years" in 2005. You'd have been laughed to scorn.
Yet that is what the EU did in Greece, and arguably Italy.
will you two PLEASE sort out your quote applications.
Jeez
edit: oh no I've now become a victim also.0 -
TOPPING said:
No, you're not. On this subject you're an idiot. No bet can be framed around Cameron's EU deal, for the precise reason that the EU changes deals and laws and rules on a whim, or never, or always, or tomorrow. As it decides.SeanT said:
You're welcome to offer me your own version based on your idea that it is not legally binding. I'm a reasonable man.AlastairMeeks said:
What a stupid, pointless bet, which merely reveals your ignorance.SeanT said:
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.AlastairMeeks said:MP_SE said:
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.AlastairMeeks said:
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the winSeanT said:
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.Pulpstar said:
Nabavi will be along to explain shortlySeanT said:
LEGALLY BINDINGviewcode said:
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...Scott_P said:
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?kle4 said:It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
Still confused...
nny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
Chortle.
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
Cameron has to get words written into the next EU Treaty for his deal to be fulfilled. That could be a decade away, or more, or indeed could never happen. Ever.
The bet is impossible.
Imagine framing a bet on "whether or not the EU will depose a democratically elected EU government in the next ten years" in 2005. You'd have been laughed to scorn.
Yet that is what the EU did in Greece, and arguably Italy.
You make an excellent case to vote Leave0 -
You're welcome to offer me your own version based on your idea that it is not legally binding. I'm a reasonable man.SeanT said:
What a stupid, pointless bet, which merely reveals your ignorance.AlastairMeeks said:
I'm quite happy to frame a bet on this subject with reputable posters. Evens that the deal that David Cameron has negotiated gets implemented in full. Bet void if Leave wins.SeanT said:AlastairMeeks said:
Eurocrats do what they like regardless of whether or not it is legal/illegal, e.g. eurozone bailouts.MP_SE said:
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.AlastairMeeks said:
Christine Lagarde as French finance minister boasted:"We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.
Cameron has to get words written into the next EU Treaty for his deal to be fulfilled. That could be a decade away, or more, or indeed could never happen. Ever.
The bet is impossible.
No, you're not. On this subject you're an idiot. No bet can be framed around Cameron's EU deal, for the precise reason that the EU changes deals and laws and rules on a whim, or never, or always, or tomorrow. As it decides.
Imagine framing a bet on "whether or not the EU will depose a democratically elected EU government in the next ten years" in 2005. You'd have been laughed to scorn.
Yet that is what the EU did in Greece, and arguably Italy.
Logic fail. If the EU changes this deal, I lose the bet. But it won't:
a) because it probably legally can't; and
b) because it would be political madness to do so.
But my even money bet stands for anyone reputable who is less chicken licken than you. After all, if wildly improbable things have happened in the last ten years, it must be worth a punt?0 -
Stephen Fry has sparked outrage after criticizing the idea of safe spaces and trigger words, and saying that child victims of sexual abuse should 'grow up' and not feel sorry for themselves.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3534366/Stephen-Fry-sparks-outrage-saying-child-abuse-victims-sympathy-self-pity-gets-none-sympathy.html
I was with him about the regression left, etc etc etc, until the bit about abuse should grow up...0 -
I'm not 100% sure that we would have won that ECB/LCH case in EEA, and doubt very much we'd have won it outside of EEA.MaxPB said:
That opt-out isn't going to be part of any EU treaty. It means nothing. Our opt-out of the EU justice measures have bite because they are part of the Lisbon Treaty, the same is true for our opt-out wrt to asylum and migration of non-EU citizens, we aren't in Schengen and therefore the deal didn't apply to us because there was no way to enforce it.TOPPING said:This is the key - the deal didn't achieve much by way of reform of the EU. Had it promised an end to CAP/CFP, etc you name it then yes, I would have been cautious.
But the irony is that the paucity of its achievement in the eyes of many is what gives it its bite.
"All" it achieved was an opt-out of ever closer union (nothing the 27 can do to make us opt in), and continued non-discrimination between EZ and non-EZ (remember the court case). It did a bit on the emergency brake and competitiveness, who cares.
So in its modesty, it protects us from others' duplicity, such as it may be. Indeed even the vice-prez rails only against the free movement of people, rather than the above (I don't have a huge problem with free movement of people, you may have, of course).
Dave's non-discrimination for currencies in the single market reform is already there, the court case you cite (the ECB vs LCH) has already been won, as long as we maintain single market membership the ECJ has ruled EUR can be cleared by any jurisdiction within the single market. Though I'm not an expert by any means, I'm sure if any such issue were to arise in future this case would form the ground work for any company or our government were it being discriminated against within the single market.
Back to the opt-out, without it being enshrined in an EU treaty the other EU nations are under no obligation to recognise it. This is where the 27 signatures on the dotted line come in. Yes maybe the current leaders will respect it in future summits, but governments and attitudes change. Who is to say that there won't be some raging federalist in power in Germany next time with a leftist coalition of SPD, Linke and Greens taking over, why should they respect a deal signed by Merkel that hasn't been integrated into German law by way of amending the Lisbon Treaty. It's meaningless. Unless we have the ever-closer union opt-out put into an existing treaty or form the basis of a new one which requires all 28 nations to agree to it and recognise it, there isn't any point in even having it.
But as mentioned upthread, I perfectly understand that if you believe that the risks of a change to whatever has been agreed are too great to trust the continuity of the deal, you must vote out.0 -
SeanT: lol. Agreed. It's very annoying
But something that the Silly Mister Meeks does to his posts makes it impossible to nest quotes properly.
Easiest just to delete everything else, and put the part you are replying to in italics or quotes.0 -
Surely Cameron actually paid £9k more?Scott_P said:Pithy upsum of today's revelations...
@TheRedRag: Cameron paid HMRC £20,000 more than needed out of integrity. Corbyn paid £100 more out of incompetence.
ie He didn't claim a £20k allowance - this increasing his tax bill by 45% of £20k = £9k.0 -
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.Sean_F said:
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.MrsB said:Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.0 -
-
I've just had my copy of the government's pamphlet delivered.
Big mistake?? I think it reads as if we are subscribers to The New Day.
Nevertheless I still think we ought to stay.0 -
@STJamesl: Absolutely no way the Conservatives are going to make this a thing, oh no.
https://t.co/1VIMScHbE50 -
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.Casino_Royale said:
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.Sean_F said:
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.MrsB said:Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.0 -
Bootle is an idiot. I know I'm obviously biased, but I read his prizewinning essay (rough precis: everything good will happen, obvs) and was unimpressed. Plus he came out with one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard from an economist (that distance doesn't matter for trade in C21) One disadvantage LEAVE have is that it's top-heavy with people with many qualifications but no sense: Lilico genuinely thinks terraforming Mars is cheaper than combating global warming (dafuq?), Boris is an unearthly child.runnymede said:Roger Bootle on the dangers of the 'status quo'
'Staying in the EU is a leap in the dark with both legs shackled'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/10/if-leaving-the-eu-is-a-leap-in-the-dark-then-staying-in-is-a-lea/
Colour me stupid, but I prefer the honest hatred of the Farages, Tebbits, et al. I disagree with them but at least their arguments are coherent, comprehensible and have some relationship to reality.0 -
Possibly, but the case has already been won and "non-discrimination" now has legal precedent within the EU legal system. They are giving up something that already exists.TOPPING said:I'm not 100% sure that we would have won that ECB/LCH case in EEA, and doubt very much we'd have won it outside of EEA.
But as mentioned upthread, I perfectly understand that if you believe that the risks of a change to whatever has been agreed are too great to trust the continuity of the deal, you must vote out.
Well as I said, my personal view is that even if Dave's negotiation were legally binding and he had 27 signatures already gathered I would still be voting to leave, there just isn't enough in there. I've said it many, many times, I would have liked the internal markets veto, failing that a double/super majority requirement for FinReg/EMU measures of EMU and non-EMU countries. If Dave had got that I would have been content to vote remain. We don't have that, we are still at the mercy of the EMU majority in QMV measures and without a new treaty on the horizon we have no recourse to achieve it.0 -
Stephen Fry has just gone up hugely in my estimation.FrancisUrquhart said:Stephen Fry has sparked outrage after criticizing the idea of safe spaces and trigger words, and saying that child victims of sexual abuse should 'grow up' and not feel sorry for themselves.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3534366/Stephen-Fry-sparks-outrage-saying-child-abuse-victims-sympathy-self-pity-gets-none-sympathy.html
I was with him about the regression left, etc etc etc, until the bit about abuse should grow up...
Good for him.0 -
I think we will vote Remain. I'm not so sure the deal will be implemented in full but I think it hardly matters whether it is or not because events will move matters along in the EU. At any rate, I'm not taking you up on your bet.AlastairMeeks said:
Oh the deal is dismal. But it will be implemented if we vote Remain.Cyclefree said:
Some of us Mr Meeks did our own legal analysis. We may be wrong but I have spent more time analysing EU laws than is really sensible in a well-lived life. And FWIW I thought the deal was a bit "meh" and not worth making a song and dance about. Cameron did so he can hardly be surprised if others call him out on it.AlastairMeeks said:
I had no idea that the Leavers placed such great store on the legal opinion of an unqualified Eurocrat. But I suppose critical thinking goes out of the window when the rush caused by mad Europhobia is coursing through the veins.SeanT said:
I'm FEVERISH with anticipation.Pulpstar said:
Nabavi will be along to explain shortlySeanT said:
LEGALLY BINDINGviewcode said:
The food is lousy. And such small portions too...Scott_P said:
So is your complaint that he secured it, or didn't secure it?kle4 said:It highlights just how bad it was, in that it barely qualifies as a deal, let alone a bad one.
Still confused...
The EU is entirely greedy and untrustworthy when we are a member, but if we leave they will be generous and trustworthy. Meanwhile we will pursue a free-trade protectionist approach, raising tariffs against all whilst exporting freely to all. We will maintain and increase growth whilst preventing all immigration...except from the ethnic group or ancestry of the person you are speaking to. We will adopt the Canada option. Or Norway. Or Switzerland. Or Narnia. Or our own tailor-made agreement, which will cost us nothing and give us everything. Brexit means up and down, left and right, the penny and the bun, it is infinitely virtuous and if we only believe, tap our heels three times, say "there's no place like home", then all our wishes will be granted, Kim Greist will escape with us, and tomorrow will be another day...
Chortle.
A bit of English understatement would have been much more comme il faut.
0 -
44% of goods and services trade, based on traditional trade data. Probably less than 40% in value-added terms, and with other appropriate adjustments. Lower still if we consider our earnings from overseas investments as well.TOPPING said:
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.Casino_Royale said:
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.Sean_F said:
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.MrsB said:Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
And falling.
0 -
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of stoning and 10% who thought homosexuality should be illegal. As non-muslims outnumber muslims 19/1 it would suggest that more non muslims are in favour of stoning adulterers and making homosexuality illegal!SeanT said:Jesus, the details on that Channel 4 Muslim poll are extraordinary.
5% - 1 in 20 - maybe 100,000 - sympathise with the stoning to death of adulterers
Only 1 in 3 would inform the police if they thought people close to them were involved with terrorism
More than half think homosexuality should be illegal
23% want some form of Sharia law in the UK
1 in 3 think polygamy should be legal
http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/10/half-of-british-muslims-think-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-5807066/
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.0 -
3 years plus since he stopped hence circa £20,000MikeL said:
Surely Cameron actually paid £9k more?Scott_P said:Pithy upsum of today's revelations...
@TheRedRag: Cameron paid HMRC £20,000 more than needed out of integrity. Corbyn paid £100 more out of incompetence.
ie He didn't claim a £20k allowance - this increasing his tax bill by 45% of £20k = £9k.0 -
I don't see how you would have preferred double/super majority requirement for FinReg and as we haven't got it you will leave, in which case we presumably have no veto or anything over them.MaxPB said:
Possibly, but the case has already been won and "non-discrimination" now has legal precedent within the EU legal system. They are giving up something that already exists.TOPPING said:I'm not 100% sure that we would have won that ECB/LCH case in EEA, and doubt very much we'd have won it outside of EEA.
But as mentioned upthread, I perfectly understand that if you believe that the risks of a change to whatever has been agreed are too great to trust the continuity of the deal, you must vote out.
Well as I said, my personal view is that even if Dave's negotiation were legally binding and he had 27 signatures already gathered I would still be voting to leave, there just isn't enough in there. I've said it many, many times, I would have liked the internal markets veto, failing that a double/super majority requirement for FinReg/EMU measures of EMU and non-EMU countries. If Dave had got that I would have been content to vote remain. We don't have that, we are still at the mercy of the EMU majority in QMV measures and without a new treaty on the horizon we have no recourse to achieve it.
Especially at this moment: a cursory reading (!) of the Delegated Acts illustrates that as an EU member there is all to play for in terms of input into FinReg which affects us greatly, in or out.
As said, I prefer to have had some input into them than none.0 -
In 1975 only 10% of our trade was with the then Common Market, admittedly only 6 members then.runnymede said:
44% of goods and services trade, based on traditional trade data. Probably less than 40% in value-added terms, and with other appropriate adjustments. Lower still if we consider our earnings from overseas investments as well.TOPPING said:
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.Casino_Royale said:
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.Sean_F said:
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.MrsB said:Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
And falling.
0 -
But why would you swap a position of more influence for one of less influence?runnymede said:
44% of goods and services trade, based on traditional trade data. Probably less than 40% in value-added terms, and with other appropriate adjustments. Lower still if we consider our earnings from overseas investments as well.TOPPING said:
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.Casino_Royale said:
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.Sean_F said:
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.MrsB said:Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
And falling.0 -
It's likely they would prefer Euros and not the funny money notes the BoE print out.Philip_Thompson said:
Why would the Dominican Republic and Mexico be pissed off if we Leave?MrsB said:We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday.
0 -
I understand this is a convincing argument for you, as it is the Government, but I don't believe us having 1/28th of a say in shaping the rules of a single market of a declining portion of our export trade is worth surrendering sovereignty on trade, regions, agriculture, fisheries, social, employment, justice and home affairs policies and incurring the costs and restrictions of membership, including the charter of fundamental rights and other creeping encroachments.TOPPING said:
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.Casino_Royale said:
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.Sean_F said:
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.MrsB said:Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
I appreciate others have a different view.0 -
All the subjugated nations of South East Britain should get their own Mayor and begin the process of extinguishing England.MyBurningEars said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36013170
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.0 -
Just pointing out some anomalies in the data!SeanT said:
Can you show me any community or country where adulterers are stoned to death? Outside Islam?foxinsoxuk said:
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of stoning and 10% who thought homosexuality should be illegal. As non-muslims outnumber muslims 19/1 it would suggest that more non muslims are in favour of stoning adulterers and making homosexuality illegal!SeanT said:Jesus, the details on that Channel 4 Muslim poll are extraordinary.
5% - 1 in 20 - maybe 100,000 - sympathise with the stoning to death of adulterers
Only 1 in 3 would inform the police if they thought people close to them were involved with terrorism
More than half think homosexuality should be illegal
23% want some form of Sharia law in the UK
1 in 3 think polygamy should be legal
http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/10/half-of-british-muslims-think-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-5807066/
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
*waits*
*keeps waiting*
Answer: you can't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning
Your arguments are futile. The problem is ISLAM. Let us be rid.
While the headlines are about terrorism and gays, there is much positive in the survey. The vast majority feel British, trust their MPs and councillors and oppose terrorism for example.0 -
The detail is even more alarming, the older generations actually tended to be more secular and integrated, the younger were more vociferous about their beliefs:SeanT said:Jesus, the details on that Channel 4 Muslim poll are extraordinary.
5% - 1 in 20 - maybe 100,000 - sympathise with the stoning to death of adulterers
Only 1 in 3 would inform the police if they thought people close to them were involved with terrorism
More than half think homosexuality should be illegal
23% want some form of Sharia law in the UK
1 in 3 think polygamy should be legal
http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/10/half-of-british-muslims-think-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-5807066/
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
The percentage of Muslims who want homosexuality to be illegal:
71% of Muslims 16-24.
65% of Muslims 25-34.
55% of Muslims 35-44.
54% of Muslims 45-54.
50% of Muslims 55+.
“If I could choose, I would prefer to live in Britain under sharia law rather than British law”
Age 16-24 – 37% prefer sharia law, 50% prefer British law
Age 25-34 – 32% prefer sharia law, 52% prefer British law
Age 35-44 – 26% prefer sharia law, 63% prefer British law
Age 45-54 – 16% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law
Age 55+ – 17% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law
0 -
Ummm....Casino_Royale said:
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.
Who want's to tell him?0 -
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?Scott_P said:@STJamesl: Absolutely no way the Conservatives are going to make this a thing, oh no.
https://t.co/1VIMScHbE5
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.
0 -
0
-
Though not enough for an independent Scotland to dump the funny money and use Euros right?DairA said:
It's likely they would prefer Euros and not the funny money notes the BoE print out.Philip_Thompson said:
Why would the Dominican Republic and Mexico be pissed off if we Leave?MrsB said:We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday.
0 -
If he keeps his cash in a current account, say because he disagrees with the military-industrial complex (ie owning stocks and shares), it is entirely feasible he earned no interest last year. Likewise if he bowed to the god of capitalism and invested it, he again could easily have no interest (if it was, say, a capital accumulation fund).Cyclefree said:
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?Scott_P said:@STJamesl: Absolutely no way the Conservatives are going to make this a thing, oh no.
https://t.co/1VIMScHbE5
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.0 -
He's got two ex wives, plus I can see him making regular and significant charitable donations and donations to good causes.Cyclefree said:
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?Scott_P said:@STJamesl: Absolutely no way the Conservatives are going to make this a thing, oh no.
https://t.co/1VIMScHbE5
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.0 -
A surprising percentage of non muslims too.SeanT said:
Yeah, I feel REALLY REALLY positive that at least 1.5 MILLION BRITISH MUSLIMS would NOT tell the police if they knew a close friend or relative was a terroristfoxinsoxuk said:
Just pointing out some anomalies in the data!SeanT said:
Can you show me any community or country where adulterers are stoned to death? Outside Islam?foxinsoxuk said:
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of stoning and 10% who thought homosexuality should be illegal. As non-muslims outnumber muslims 19/1 it would suggest that more non muslims are in favour of stoning adulterers and making homosexuality illegal!SeanT said:Jesus, the details on that Channel 4 Muslim poll are extraordinary.
5% - 1 in 20 - maybe 100,000 - sympathise with the stoning to death of adulterers
Only 1 in 3 would inform the police if they thought people close to them were involved with terrorism
More than half think homosexuality should be illegal
23% want some form of Sharia law in the UK
1 in 3 think polygamy should be legal
http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/10/half-of-british-muslims-think-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-5807066/
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
*waits*
*keeps waiting*
Answer: you can't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning
Your arguments are futile. The problem is ISLAM. Let us be rid.
While the headlines are about terrorism and gays, there is much positive in the survey. The vast majority feel British, trust their MPs and councillors and oppose terrorism for example.
I am not saying there is no problem, just that there is plenty to be positive about too.0 -
@MrHarryCole: Uh oh. Seems Comrade Corbyn did not declare some outside earnings on his long awaited tax return: Sun exclusive: https://t.co/XAUJff9ale0
-
That is assuming the EU is the top table for many of the rules which relate to the UK's exports...TOPPING said:
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.Casino_Royale said:
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.Sean_F said:
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.MrsB said:Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.0 -
I'm assuming The Sun's legal team didn't check this article beforehandScott_P said:@MrHarryCole: Uh oh. Seems Comrade Corbyn did not declare some outside earnings on his long awaited tax return: Sun exclusive: https://t.co/XAUJff9ale
The Sun’s revelation today poses serious questions about whether Mr Corbyn has himself evaded tax, landing him in serious trouble.0 -
That's a pretty low bar, though. We should be glad, should we, that people oppose terrorism. Well whoopee. That should be a given, frankly. And people who are born in Britain and are British feel British. Well, hooray!foxinsoxuk said:
Just pointing out some anomalies in the data!SeanT said:
Can you show me any community or country where adulterers are stoned to death? Outside Islam?foxinsoxuk said:
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of stoning and 10% who thought homosexuality should be illegal. As non-muslims outnumber muslims 19/1 it would suggest that more non muslims are in favour of stoning adulterers and making homosexuality illegal!SeanT said:Jesus, the details on that Channel 4 Muslim poll are extraordinary.
5% - 1 in 20 - maybe 100,000 - sympathise with the stoning to death of adulterers
Only 1 in 3 would inform the police if they thought people close to them were involved with terrorism
More than half think homosexuality should be illegal
23% want some form of Sharia law in the UK
1 in 3 think polygamy should be legal
http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/10/half-of-british-muslims-think-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-5807066/
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
*waits*
*keeps waiting*
Answer: you can't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning
Your arguments are futile. The problem is ISLAM. Let us be rid.
While the headlines are about terrorism and gays, there is much positive in the survey. The vast majority feel British, trust their MPs and councillors and oppose terrorism for example.
What a poverty of low expectations we have that we're pathetically grateful that a majority of Muslims oppose terrorism even though a majority of those will not speak up about it. So that not opposing it does not really amount to much, does it. Because turning a blind eye to it when you could have done something about it is not really cause for celebration. Your inaction allows it to flourish even if you personally oppose it.
Even if the criticisms of how the poll has been conducted have some validity, these are still worrying results. We cannot assume that the longer people have been here the more likely they are to assimilate. Nor can we assume that those who are born here and are therefore British will share the views of the majority of their fellow citizens. And this means that they are more likely to be susceptible to the currents of opinion flowing through the Muslim world at present. That's hardly encouraging.
0 -
That's a massive, massive accusation.TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm assuming The Sun's legal team didn't check this article beforehandScott_P said:@MrHarryCole: Uh oh. Seems Comrade Corbyn did not declare some outside earnings on his long awaited tax return: Sun exclusive: https://t.co/XAUJff9ale
The Sun’s revelation today poses serious questions about whether Mr Corbyn has himself evaded tax, landing him in serious trouble.0 -
What about rental income from the lodger that Corbyn has? Where is that on his tax return? He is either been charging less than £4k a year (which is miles below market rate) or he has forgotten to put it down.0
-
Ah, I'd forgotten about the ex-wives.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's got two ex wives, plus I can see him making regular and significant charitable donations and donations to good causes.Cyclefree said:
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?Scott_P said:@STJamesl: Absolutely no way the Conservatives are going to make this a thing, oh no.
https://t.co/1VIMScHbE5
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.
0 -
That positivity vanishes when you read the detail and that younger Muslims are more conservative and less integrated than their parents and grandparents.foxinsoxuk said:
A surprising percentage of non muslims too.SeanT said:
Yeah, I feel REALLY REALLY positive that at least 1.5 MILLION BRITISH MUSLIMS would NOT tell the police if they knew a close friend or relative was a terroristfoxinsoxuk said:
Just pointing out some anomalies in the data!SeanT said:
Can you show me any community or country where adulterers are stoned to death? Outside Islam?foxinsoxuk said:
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of stoning and 10% who thought homosexuality should be illegal. As non-muslims outnumber muslims 19/1 it would suggest that more non muslims are in favour of stoning adulterers and making homosexuality illegal!SeanT said:Jesus, the details on that Channel 4 Muslim poll are extraordinary.
5% - 1 in 20 - maybe 100,000 - sympathise with the stoning to death of adulterers
Only 1 in 3 would inform the police if they thought people close to them were involved with terrorism
More than half think homosexuality should be illegal
23% want some form of Sharia law in the UK
1 in 3 think polygamy should be legal
http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/10/half-of-british-muslims-think-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-5807066/
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
*waits*
*keeps waiting*
Answer: you can't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning
Your arguments are futile. The problem is ISLAM. Let us be rid.
While the headlines are about terrorism and gays, there is much positive in the survey. The vast majority feel British, trust their MPs and councillors and oppose terrorism for example.
I am not saying there is no problem, just that there is plenty to be positive about too.0 -
France 24 started their 22.30 bulletin with the 'Dodgy Dave' line.
The rest of the report wasn't too complimentary either.0 -
0
-
From what have read of Mr Corbyn, it seems highly likely to me that he would devote every spare penny to the Cause.Cyclefree said:
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?Scott_P said:@STJamesl: Absolutely no way the Conservatives are going to make this a thing, oh no.
https://t.co/1VIMScHbE5
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.0 -
Osborne's latest meddling isn't for all of East Anglia, the city of Cambridge is omitted from this masterplan.MyBurningEars said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36013170
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
In addition there are to be other regional mayors for 'West of England' region, whatever that might be' and also for 'Greater Lincolnshire'.
Osborne clearly feels that the more layers of government the better.
The local people are not to be consulted whether they want this or not.
0 -
Awkward....."I had £8k on Spieth to win"...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/golf/2016/04/11/masters-winner-danny-willett-joined-by-sir-alex-ferguson-james-n/0 -
Three kids too, 70k in London ain't going to a lead a life of wealth and savings.Cyclefree said:
Ah, I'd forgotten about the ex-wives.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's got two ex wives, plus I can see him making regular and significant charitable donations and donations to good causes.Cyclefree said:
Is it really feasible that Corbyn has not earned even a pound from the money he has in his bank account, in a year? Does he give it all away? Or is he secretly buying art or rare books or something?Scott_P said:@STJamesl: Absolutely no way the Conservatives are going to make this a thing, oh no.
https://t.co/1VIMScHbE5
He's on a pretty good salary and doesn't appear to be a spender so I'm just curious as to where his money goes.
BTW this is just normal human curiosity and not a demand to know.0 -
@HarrietMaltby: Papers splashing on some people who earn some money paying the tax due on that money. Tomorrow: grown man puts shoes on correct feet0
-
0
-
If The Sun is right JC may owe £180 in tax.
Hardly Dodgy Dave territory0 -
And what is "Dodgy Dave" territory...paying even more tax than required?bigjohnowls said:If The Sun is right JC may owe £180 in tax.
Hardly Dodgy Dave territory
In reality, the "scandal" of the Panama Papers is actually it seems our leading politicians are remarkably clean. I presumed the likes of Cameron would have an extensive share / investment portfolio in a blind trust.
TBH so far all the Guardian splashes nothing is damning about anybody in this country, compared to leaders in many other countries.0 -
Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
0 -
@HarrietMaltby: The real story of course is how f-ing shambolic Corbyn's tax affairs are. Ringing endorsement of Lab's economic aptitude. Late, fined, lostbigjohnowls said:If The Sun is right JC may owe £180 in tax.
Hardly Dodgy Dave territory0 -
Oh goody. I'm sure this will work well.another_richard said:
Osborne's latest meddling isn't for all of East Anglia, the city of Cambridge is omitted from this masterplan.MyBurningEars said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36013170
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
In addition there are to be other regional mayors for 'West of England' region, whatever that might be' and also for 'Greater Lincolnshire'.
Osborne clearly feels that the more layers of government the better.
The local people are not to be consulted whether they want this or not.0 -
If the Sun are right then he has evaded tax by not declaring the income which is serious.bigjohnowls said:If The Sun is right JC may owe £180 in tax.
Hardly Dodgy Dave territory0 -
For one year...I don't think that has been a yearly thing, and I seemed to remember that is reflected in the wallpaper biz accounts.another_richard said:Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
0 -
Wait a moment, how does does being responsible for "transport and strategic planning" work if the region's major urban centres are excluded?another_richard said:
Osborne's latest meddling isn't for all of East Anglia, the city of Cambridge is omitted from this masterplan.MyBurningEars said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36013170
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
In addition there are to be other regional mayors for 'West of England' region, whatever that might be' and also for 'Greater Lincolnshire'.
Osborne clearly feels that the more layers of government the better.
The local people are not to be consulted whether they want this or not.
Or the "skills training", bearing in mind that people from all over rural Cambs get theirs at Cambridge Regional College etc?
This is all potty.0 -
Indeed no Corporation Tax since Dodgy Dave was a lad.another_richard said:Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
0 -
Osborne and Little lost money from 2009-2013 iirc, it has done very well in the last two years.another_richard said:Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
0 -
UK exports to the EU were about 30% of the total in 1973. They may well be there again by 2030.foxinsoxuk said:
In 1975 only 10% of our trade was with the then Common Market, admittedly only 6 members then.runnymede said:
44% of goods and services trade, based on traditional trade data. Probably less than 40% in value-added terms, and with other appropriate adjustments. Lower still if we consider our earnings from overseas investments as well.TOPPING said:
No, the Remain argument hinges on whether we prefer to be part of the decision-making process for rules which govern 45% of our export trade, or whether we prefer those rules to be determined in our absence.Casino_Royale said:
You don't see Canada, Australia or New Zealand suffering the ten biblical plagues for not being part of an economic and political union with their neighbours.Sean_F said:
I think we're grown up enough to govern ourselves.MrsB said:Has it occurred to anybody of the Leave persuasion that the reason Cameron is pushing Remain so hard - including the £9m on the leaflets - because he believes it is in the best interests of the country to stay in and is having a mad panic at the idea Leave might win?
I don't believe the EU is perfect. Nor do I believe the UK wil overnight turn into a wasteland if we come out. But we went in for a reason in the 1970s: we were doing badly economically and needed to improve trade. I can't see how coming out will improve trade. We are not big enough to get good deals with the likes of China. Or the EU itself. We will still have to make sure whatever we make conforms to all the EU standards or we won't be able to sell it. We will still have to agree to the free movement of people or we won't be able to get a trade agreement on any terms that we could live with. And if we did stop Europeans coming in we would have to replace them with non-Europeans immigrants in order to keep our low paid service and hospitality industries functioning not to mention the NHS and domiciliary care. And while EU politicians are not exactly the most brilliant bunch of people, I am not sure on past or present form I would trust either Labour or the Conservatives to be any more sane or competent. We would piss off everyone in all the countries where we like to go on holiday. Loads of Brits abroad So I just can't see how we would be better off in any way by coming out. What's the good in being able to claim that all the decisions are made in the UK if all the decisions are c**p?
The Remain argument really does hinge on the cost of transition, and the risk of any ill will our neighbours might bear us.
And falling.
http://forbritain.org/cogchapter2.pdf0 -
Indeed.MyBurningEars said:
Wait a moment, how does does being responsible for "transport and strategic planning" work if the region's major urban centres are excluded?another_richard said:
Osborne's latest meddling isn't for all of East Anglia, the city of Cambridge is omitted from this masterplan.MyBurningEars said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36013170
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
In addition there are to be other regional mayors for 'West of England' region, whatever that might be' and also for 'Greater Lincolnshire'.
Osborne clearly feels that the more layers of government the better.
The local people are not to be consulted whether they want this or not.
Or the "skills training", bearing in mind that people from all over rural Cambs get theirs at Cambridge Regional College etc?
This is all potty.
These new 'City Regions' are cutting across all sorts of county and regional boundaries and will be affecting all sorts of transport, health, education etc bodies.
Guaranteed to create planning chaos and arguments.
0 -
The detail is even more alarming, the older generations actually tended to be more secular and integrated, the younger were more vociferous about their beliefs:
The percentage of Muslims who want homosexuality to be illegal:
71% of Muslims 16-24.
65% of Muslims 25-34.
55% of Muslims 35-44.
54% of Muslims 45-54.
50% of Muslims 55+.
“If I could choose, I would prefer to live in Britain under sharia law rather than British law”
Age 16-24 – 37% prefer sharia law, 50% prefer British law
Age 25-34 – 32% prefer sharia law, 52% prefer British law
Age 35-44 – 26% prefer sharia law, 63% prefer British law
Age 45-54 – 16% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law
Age 55+ – 17% prefer sharia law, 75% prefer British law
There is nothing positive about this. We are incubating a disaster 20-30 years hence.
0 -
Yes - the resemblance of the current government to Heath's period of misrule becomes ever more eerie.MyBurningEars said:
Wait a moment, how does does being responsible for "transport and strategic planning" work if the region's major urban centres are excluded?another_richard said:
Osborne's latest meddling isn't for all of East Anglia, the city of Cambridge is omitted from this masterplan.MyBurningEars said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36013170
I no longer live in the area, but the idea of a "Mayor Of East Anglia" (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs) is somewhere between bloody stupid, completely insane, a mangling of a perfectly sensible dictionary definition, and a bizarre waste of money. Or possibly a combination of the above.
In addition there are to be other regional mayors for 'West of England' region, whatever that might be' and also for 'Greater Lincolnshire'.
Osborne clearly feels that the more layers of government the better.
The local people are not to be consulted whether they want this or not.
Or the "skills training", bearing in mind that people from all over rural Cambs get theirs at Cambridge Regional College etc?
This is all potty.0 -
http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/polls/icm-unlimited-survey-for-the-channel-4-programme-what-muslims-really-thinkMaxPB said:
That positivity vanishes when you read the detail and that younger Muslims are more conservative and less integrated than their parents and grandparents.foxinsoxuk said:
A surprising percentage of non muslims too.SeanT said:
Yeah, I feel REALLY REALLY positive that at least 1.5 MILLION BRITISH MUSLIMS would NOT tell the police if they knew a close friend or relative was a terroristfoxinsoxuk said:
Just pointing out some anomalies in the data!SeanT said:
Can you show me any community or country where adulterers arefoxinsoxuk said:
The non Muslim population also had a couple of % in favour of sSeanT said:Jesus, the details on that Channel 4 Muslim poll are extraordinary.
5% - 1 in 20 - maybe 100,000 - sympathise with the stoning to death of adulterers
Only 1 in 3 would inform the police if they thought people close to them were involved with terrorism
More than half think homosexuality should be illegal
23% want some form of Sharia law in the UK
1 in 3 think polygamy should be legal
http://metro.co.uk/2016/04/10/half-of-british-muslims-think-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-5807066/
These beliefs are simply incompatible with British life. I see no future for Islam in the UK unless Islam reforms, in some remarkable way. Let them depart.
Interesting to see that 37% rarely if ever go to mosque and more muslims than non muslims think Britain a moral society.
While the headlines are about terrorism and gays, there is much positive in the survey. The vast majority feel British, trust their MPs and councillors and oppose terrorism for example.
I am not saying there is no problem, just that there is plenty to be positive about too.
This is the original data (615 pages). Page 117 shows the youngsters are more supportive of homosexuality than their elders. I am not sure which table that you mean when you say the opposite.
Also more muslims than controls feel strongly about being British (p590 onwards).
Only 34 % would go to the police on the terrorism question*, but a further 27% did not believe that they knew anyone who would support terrorism in the first place. 45% would talk to the individual first.
* the question was : If you suspected that a friend was getting involved with people who supported terrorism in Syria, what would you do?
It was not about supporting terrorism in the UK.
Like I said, a lot of data and some positive aspects too.0 -
Steel crisis: UK [government] may 'co-invest' to save Port Talbot plant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-360157970 -
Its £180 more than David Cameron owesbigjohnowls said:If The Sun is right JC may owe £180 in tax.
Hardly Dodgy Dave territory0 -
Didn't most Muslim immigration to the UK occur when Homosexuality was either illegal or still frowned upon and a fixture of comedy? And while "unmarried mother" was a fairly strong term of abuse?SeanT said:
Tell us the positive. Let me guess. Cakes? Curry? Shops?
The immigration of Muslims into Europe has been utterly catastrophic, for them and for us Mostly for us.
I don't blame either side for this. We sincerely thought they would integrate, they had no idea we would be so determinedly liberal (and we also offered them a much better life, so who can blame them for coming).
But the experiment has FAILED. And unless we want to endanger our liberal societies, we need to throw the process into reverse.
The funny thing about the problem with Islam (which I agree is a problem) is that while the religious attitudes it supports have been eliminated from the UK for well over 200 years, the SOCIAL attitudes have only been eliminated in the very recent past. I.e. Homosexuality has only been legal in Scotland for 25 years.0 -
At worst, HMRC would view such petty sums as "negligence", and penalise accordingly.MaxPB said:
If the Sun are right then he has evaded tax by not declaring the income which is serious.bigjohnowls said:If The Sun is right JC may owe £180 in tax.
Hardly Dodgy Dave territory
Directly accusing someone of a criminal offence (evasion) is probably defamatory, btw.
Mods, try not to let this get out of hand...0 -
Has it ?MaxPB said:
Osborne and Little lost money from 2009-2013 iirc, it has done very well in the last two years.another_richard said:Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
Nine million of losses between 2009 and 2014.
£722,000 profit 2014/15
2015/16 presumably not yet complete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_&_Little
0 -
How much IHT has Dave dodged?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Its £180 more than David Cameron owesbigjohnowls said:If The Sun is right JC may owe £180 in tax.
Hardly Dodgy Dave territory0 -
@RoyalBlue
Where does this data come from? The table on p117 indicates the precise opposite.
37% of 18-24's muslims disagree that homosexuality should be legal vs 76% of the over 65's etc.
http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/polls/icm-unlimited-survey-for-the-channel-4-programme-what-muslims-really-think
0 -
Almost all occurred when the Conservative Party was insisting on legal sanction for schools whose teachers promoted the "acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".DairA said:
Didn't most Muslim immigration to the UK occur when Homosexuality was either illegal or still frowned upon and a fixture of comedy? And while "unmarried mother" was a fairly strong term of abuse?SeanT said:
Tell us the positive. Let me guess. Cakes? Curry? Shops?
The immigration of Muslims into Europe has been utterly catastrophic, for them and for us Mostly for us.
I don't blame either side for this. We sincerely thought they would integrate, they had no idea we would be so determinedly liberal (and we also offered them a much better life, so who can blame them for coming).
But the experiment has FAILED. And unless we want to endanger our liberal societies, we need to throw the process into reverse.
The funny thing about the problem with Islam (which I agree is a problem) is that while the religious attitudes it supports have been eliminated from the UK for well over 200 years, the SOCIAL attitudes have only been eliminated in the very recent past. I.e. Homosexuality has only been legal in Scotland for 25 years.
Then Muslims arrived and gay marriage got legalised, proving once and for all that Islam threatens our freedoms0 -
Thanks for the view. It seems to be legally clear as mud whether it's supposed to be a register of the last formally-notified addresses of shareholders (as you suggest), or a register of the company's best estimate of the current addresses of shareholders, as Alastair Meeks indicated on the previous thread.viewcode said:@FPT Richard Nabavi: re shareholders
I can't be the first person to come across this question, so I was expecting every web page detailing the law to make this clear. So far I haven't found a single one*. It's really odd.
* Companies House is totally silent on the question, but that's not a surprise. They seem to regard their role as being to threaten directors with criminal sanctions whilst providing no useful information and taking zero responsibility themselves for anything.0 -
Not as much as the Milibands.bigjohnowls said:
How much IHT has Dave dodged?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Its £180 more than David Cameron owesbigjohnowls said:If The Sun is right JC may owe £180 in tax.
Hardly Dodgy Dave territory0 -
There's always Preference Shares.another_richard said:Its interesting that Osborne's been receiving all that dividend money from the wallpaper shares when I thought the business had been making losses most years.
0 -
Osbourne and Little must have had distributable reserves otherwise it couldn't have paid a dividend. These would normally come from retained profits, wouldn't they?0
-
More or less than £180?tlg86 said:
Not as much as the Milibands.bigjohnowls said:
How much IHT has Dave dodged?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Its £180 more than David Cameron owesbigjohnowls said:If The Sun is right JC may owe £180 in tax.
Hardly Dodgy Dave territory0 -
EICIPM on The Agenda now0
-
Is this quote from the Mirror really accurate:
' The Chancellor said he also made £3 in interest last year on savings held in a UK bank. '
Does Osborne really have a current account which doesn't pay any interest ???
0 -
So in the blue corner we have a man so incompetent he paid too much tax and the red corner a man so incompetent he forgot to file it on time and perhaps owes £180.
I don't know having such incompetence among leaders is a positive thing, but it is a lot better than most countries (and also of the past where we had the likes of Mandy taking dodgy loans or MP shoving dirty money down their y-fronts to ask questions in parliament).0 -
I take it back.foxinsoxuk said:@RoyalBlue
Where does this data come from? The table on p117 indicates the precise opposite.
37% of 18-24's muslims disagree that homosexuality should be legal vs 76% of the over 65's etc.
http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/polls/icm-unlimited-survey-for-the-channel-4-programme-what-muslims-really-think
0
