politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To mark the massive Central European Bank’s massive QE prog
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To mark the massive Central European Bank’s massive QE programme a Marf cartoon
As the Central European Bank moves to go ahead with a massive QE Politicalbetting's, Marf, gives her take pic.twitter.com/GprXSkVcWl
0
Comments
-
Morning all
0 -
Very good Marf.
One of the less than bright presenters on R5 was interviewing someone from the Mint the other day about some commemorative coin. She asked if he was ever tempted to make one for himself. He gently explained that was called counterfeiting0 -
Cheers Marf - where can I get one of those...?0
-
Good morning, Mr. Stodge.
Ah, printing money. Worked so well during the last economic crisis in Europe.
On a more (probably) serious note, the Germans want the government bonds held by national governments, not centrally by the ECB. That could be a bone of contention:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30915210
It could also mark the shifting of power from eurozone nation-states towards the amorphous mass of mewling eunuchs and meddlesome bureaucrats that is central power in the eurozone, and EU.0 -
Mr. L, dim people in news can be bloody aggravating, or entertainingly stupid. Still recall one clown helpfully explaining the avalanche went 'downhill, powered by gravity'. Thanks, Captain Science.0
-
In response to Pulpstar (fpt): there are various electoral offences - bribery / treating / undue influence.
Sunflower seeds are probably OK because they are not money - unless this new QE goes massively wrong, of course.0 -
This Marf cartoon, albeit with a different caption, surely dates from way back ...... it's my all time favourite of hers.0
-
F1: the Marussia auction, it seems, has been cancelled. Haas has denied being the mystery buyer (odd he was asked given he'll enter the sport in 2016, I think).0
-
Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.0
-
Neither is beer which is where most of the electoral bribery rules started. I think you were right to warn her.Cyclefree said:In response to Pulpstar (fpt): there are various electoral offences - bribery / treating / undue influence.
Sunflower seeds are probably OK because they are not money - unless this new QE goes massively wrong, of course.0 -
peter_from_putney said:
The latest GE Seats update from http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/ has the Tories leading by the narowest margin:
Conservatives ......... 282
Labour ................... 281
SNP .........................34
Liberal Democrats .... 28
UKIP ..........................3
Others (incl N.I.) ....... 22
Total ...................... 650
Majority = 326
Labour + Lib Dem + SNP = 343
Labour + SNP = 315
Con + Lib Dem = 310
Labour + Lib Dem = 309
Con + UKIP + DUP = 293
Sinn Fein abstentions, De facto majority 323
Lib Dem abstentions set the bar to 310
SNP abstentions set the bar to 3060 -
Marf brilliant.
Anyone prepared to speculate on what the £ Euro rate likely to be in 6 months and end of year?
Euro 1.40-1.50 to £1 seems conservative.0 -
Wouldn't a Scandi/German/Dutch/UK economic union be wonderful. (neither a troll nor a joke)Socrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
0 -
Has anyone asked the Lib Dems if they'll work with the SNP yet ?
0 -
Beer is covered by the treating offence, I think.DavidL said:
Neither is beer which is where most of the electoral bribery rules started. I think you were right to warn her.Cyclefree said:In response to Pulpstar (fpt): there are various electoral offences - bribery / treating / undue influence.
Sunflower seeds are probably OK because they are not money - unless this new QE goes massively wrong, of course.
Unless you're very unlucky you never get approached by any candidate at all these days.
0 -
You're surely kidding. What's shocking is that the ECB has pretty much given Germany a veto on the form of QE they are going to undertake and bowed to the pressure Germany has heaped on it. Far from overriding Germany's wishes the ECB has shown itself to be hidebound to them.Socrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
0 -
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.0 -
Mmm .... some nice, tasty, cheap VW, AUDI, and M-B deals about to hit the UK showrooms?
I think not somehow.0 -
OblitusSumMe said:
Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?
How about Communists?0 -
How many mattresses are there in Europe stuffed with Swiss Francs now ?0
-
Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.
Spot the mistake.0 -
Legumes?OblitusSumMe said:Could someone think up a more jolly insult than "ecofascist" for the Greens?
0 -
Hmm...that was the deal and has been ever since the EEC was formed.Socrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
Ever since the Factortame case it has been clear that EU legislation can require an English Court to overrule an Act of Parliament and find it illegal. It is a mystery to me why and how the German Constitutional Court have maintained that they are different.
What is a more interesting question is whether the ability to create additional currency is indeed within the current powers of the ECB. I personally don't see how it is unless you read their duties to stabilise the system as the power to do whatever they want.
If there is a court challenge to this it is more likely to be in the ECJ than the German Courts but personally I would not waste my time with that lot. The idea that they would find that a major EU institution had exceeded its powers in such an important way is fantastical.
0 -
Spot the mistake.antifrank said:Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.
It amounts to the same thing for most cases.
"Unlike the Court's judgments, the written opinions of the Advocates General are the works of a single author and are consequently generally more readable and deal with the legal issues more comprehensively than the Court, which is limited to the particular matters at hand. The opinions of the Advocates General are advisory and do not bind the Court, but they are nonetheless very influential and are followed in the majority of cases."0 -
Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.
The man really is an idiot. And ignorant with it too.0 -
What did the German constitutional court claim? I find it hard to have much sympathy for them. They chose to abandon their own money back in 1999. If QE is against the German constitution then I can only assume the creation of the single currency was too.Socrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
0 -
It amounts to the same thing for most cases.Indigo said:
Spot the mistake.antifrank said:Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.
"Unlike the Court's judgments, the written opinions of the Advocates General are the works of a single author and are consequently generally more readable and deal with the legal issues more comprehensively than the Court, which is limited to the particular matters at hand. The opinions of the Advocates General are advisory and do not bind the Court, but they are nonetheless very influential and are followed in the majority of cases."
So in other words, the ECJ hasn't so much as looked at this case yet. Thank you for confirming the lamentable factual error in AEP's original article.0 -
Going back to the debates, Cameron has played a decent game so far on it bringing the Greens into play - but if there is a debate without him, and with the other leaders that would get punished. I find the 6-4 tip on him not showing a bit odd, and its one I'm swerving.0
-
So in other words, the ECJ hasn't so much as looked at this case yet. Thank you for confirming the lamentable factual error in AEP's original article.antifrank said:
It amounts to the same thing for most cases.Indigo said:
Spot the mistake.antifrank said:Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.
"Unlike the Court's judgments, the written opinions of the Advocates General are the works of a single author and are consequently generally more readable and deal with the legal issues more comprehensively than the Court, which is limited to the particular matters at hand. The opinions of the Advocates General are advisory and do not bind the Court, but they are nonetheless very influential and are followed in the majority of cases."
Well QE is starting, so presumably it got given the go ahead by someone.0 -
Fwiw Marr asked Clegg on Sunday.Pulpstar said:Has anyone asked the Lib Dems if they'll work with the SNP yet ?
'He said he would not join a coalition including Ukip. Asked if he said he would serve in a cabinet with Nigel Farage, he said no. And he came close to ruling out being in a coalition involving the SNP. Asked if he would sit in a cabinet with them, he said he would “find it very difficult to imagine the circumstances” in which he could do that.'
If only he'd made a pledge or a vow to dispel any doubt.
0 -
The man really is an idiot. And ignorant with it too.DavidL said:Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.
Germany is obliged to submit to the decisions of the ECJ. That has, and always will be the case, as long as Germany remains part of the EU. Of course Germany can leave, but it can't unilaterally set aside the judgments of the ECJ without doing so.0 -
0
-
Clegg may not, but would FarronTheuniondivvie said:
Fwiw Marr asked Clegg on Sunday.Pulpstar said:Has anyone asked the Lib Dems if they'll work with the SNP yet ?
'He said he would not join a coalition including Ukip. Asked if he said he would serve in a cabinet with Nigel Farage, he said no. And he came close to ruling out being in a coalition involving the SNP. Asked if he would sit in a cabinet with them, he said he would “find it very difficult to imagine the circumstances” in which he could do that.'
If only he'd made a pledge or a vow to dispel any doubt. ? 0 -
Germany is obliged to submit to the decisions of the ECJ. That has, and always will be the case, as long as Germany remains part of the EU. Of course Germany can leave, but it can't unilaterally set aside the judgments of the ECJ without doing so.Grandiose said:
The man really is an idiot. And ignorant with it too.DavidL said:Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.
That doesnt appear to be how the Germans see it, from the same articleGermany's judges have never accepted the ECJ's outlandish claims to primacy. Their ruling on the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 warned in thunderous terms that the court reserves the right to strike down any EU law that breaches the German Grundgesetz or Basic Law.
They went further in their verdict on the Lisbon Treaty in July 2009, shooting down imperial conceits. The EU is merely a treaty club. The historic states are the “masters of the Treaties” and not the other way round.0 -
The German courts throwing a hissy fit is why we have the absolute cluster-fcuk in Eurpoean patent law that we have now. Don't ask me to describe it it's just too awful to contemplate.DavidL said:
Hmm...that was the deal and has been ever since the EEC was formed.Socrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
Ever since the Factortame case it has been clear that EU legislation can require an English Court to overrule an Act of Parliament and find it illegal. It is a mystery to me why and how the German Constitutional Court have maintained that they are different.0 -
Pretty academic really since Clegg will be making a fast exit from the scene after the GE, always assuming he holds onto Sheffield Hallam.Theuniondivvie said:
Fwiw Marr asked Clegg on Sunday.Pulpstar said:Has anyone asked the Lib Dems if they'll work with the SNP yet ?
'He said he would not join a coalition including Ukip. Asked if he said he would serve in a cabinet with Nigel Farage, he said no. And he came close to ruling out being in a coalition involving the SNP. Asked if he would sit in a cabinet with them, he said he would “find it very difficult to imagine the circumstances” in which he could do that.'
If only he'd made a pledge or a vow to dispel any doubt.0 -
That doesnt appear to be how the Germans see it, from the same articleIndigo said:
Germany is obliged to submit to the decisions of the ECJ. That has, and always will be the case, as long as Germany remains part of the EU. Of course Germany can leave, but it can't unilaterally set aside the judgments of the ECJ without doing so.Grandiose said:
The man really is an idiot. And ignorant with it too.DavidL said:Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.Germany's judges have never accepted the ECJ's outlandish claims to primacy. Their ruling on the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 warned in thunderous terms that the court reserves the right to strike down any EU law that breaches the German Grundgesetz or Basic Law.
The German Constitutional Court has reserved the right to strike down the powers of the EU or rulings of the ECJ if they fail to comply with Germany's constitutional protections. However it is clear that to do so would take Germany out of the EU, or place it at great risk of doing so. That would be by judicial rather than political process, but it's the same option as we have in the UK.
They went further in their verdict on the Lisbon Treaty in July 2009, shooting down imperial conceits. The EU is merely a treaty club. The historic states are the “masters of the Treaties” and not the other way round.0 -
That doesnt appear to be how the Germans see it, from the same articleIndigo said:
Germany is obliged to submit to the decisions of the ECJ. That has, and always will be the case, as long as Germany remains part of the EU. Of course Germany can leave, but it can't unilaterally set aside the judgments of the ECJ without doing so.Grandiose said:
The man really is an idiot. And ignorant with it too.DavidL said:Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.Germany's judges have never accepted the ECJ's outlandish claims to primacy. Their ruling on the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 warned in thunderous terms that the court reserves the right to strike down any EU law that breaches the German Grundgesetz or Basic Law.
So far as conventional laws are concerned, it has been clear since at least 1990 (Barber v GRE) that EU law overrides domestic laws.
They went further in their verdict on the Lisbon Treaty in July 2009, shooting down imperial conceits. The EU is merely a treaty club. The historic states are the “masters of the Treaties” and not the other way round.
Where the Advocate-General is potentially breaking new ground is in arguing that EU law overrides domestic constitutional laws. Since the UK has no formal single coherent constitutional document, this seems to make the square root of f all's difference to the UK. Though I suppose it might conceivably affect the operation of the Act of Union.0 -
Germany is obliged to submit to the decisions of the ECJ. That has, and always will be the case, as long as Germany remains part of the EU. Of course Germany can leave, but it can't unilaterally set aside the judgments of the ECJ without doing so.Grandiose said:
The man really is an idiot. And ignorant with it too.DavidL said:Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.
Exactly so. They can leave, as can we of course.
But whilst you are in the club you are bound by the rules of the club. AEP has been promoting this fantasy for years on the back of jurists who have lost every case they have brought. The legitimacy of the actions of EU institutions and the ultimate interpretation of the EU treaties is a matter for the ECJ and no one else.0 -
98.6% book on Rother Valley
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/rother-valley/winning-party
With 104 days to go that works out as a just over 4% return on your money.0 -
Clegg statement, June 2015 ....Theuniondivvie said:
Fwiw Marr asked Clegg on Sunday.Pulpstar said:Has anyone asked the Lib Dems if they'll work with the SNP yet ?
'He said he would not join a coalition including Ukip. Asked if he said he would serve in a cabinet with Nigel Farage, he said no. And he came close to ruling out being in a coalition involving the SNP. Asked if he would sit in a cabinet with them, he said he would “find it very difficult to imagine the circumstances” in which he could do that.'
If only he'd made a pledge or a vow to dispel any doubt.
"It is in the national interest and in order to regain financial stability that the Lib Dems have agreed to join a coalition of the Labour Party and the SNP which would otherwise not have a government majority in parliament."
0 -
Concerning my comments on previous thread at 10.38, do any UKIP supporters know UKIPs potential policy on AMS or PR in general please? Thanksa0
-
He's left the wiggle room there.peter_from_putney said:
Pretty academic really since Clegg will be making a fast exit from the scene after the GE, always assuming he holds onto Sheffield Hallam.Theuniondivvie said:
Fwiw Marr asked Clegg on Sunday.Pulpstar said:Has anyone asked the Lib Dems if they'll work with the SNP yet ?
'He said he would not join a coalition including Ukip. Asked if he said he would serve in a cabinet with Nigel Farage, he said no. And he came close to ruling out being in a coalition involving the SNP. Asked if he would sit in a cabinet with them, he said he would “find it very difficult to imagine the circumstances” in which he could do that.'
If only he'd made a pledge or a vow to dispel any doubt.0 -
Curiously, I think the £ is already trading higher against the € than before our own QE - which has totalled £375bn since it began.TCPoliticalBetting said:Marf brilliant.
Anyone prepared to speculate on what the £ Euro rate likely to be in 6 months and end of year?
Euro 1.40-1.50 to £1 seems conservative.
If QE for the Eurozone "works" then wouldn't you expect the € to strengthen against the £, as the Eurozone economy picked itself up off the floor.0 -
Hills 8-1 on UKIP is the value I think, though I'm on both sides of this - winning ~ £100 if UKIP wins, drawing stumps if Labour hold.Pulpstar said:98.6% book on Rother Valley
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/rother-valley/winning-party
With 104 days to go that works out as a just over 4% return on your money.
If the Conservatives win, you see me with Mr Hodges in Westminster....
0 -
So far as conventional laws are concerned, it has been clear since at least 1990 (Barber v GRE) that EU law overrides domestic laws.antifrank said:
That doesnt appear to be how the Germans see it, from the same articleIndigo said:
Germany is obliged to submit to the decisions of the ECJ. That has, and always will be the case, as long as Germany remains part of the EU. Of course Germany can leave, but it can't unilaterally set aside the judgments of the ECJ without doing so.Grandiose said:
The man really is an idiot. And ignorant with it too.DavidL said:Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:[...]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.
Germany's judges have never accepted the ECJ's outlandish claims to primacy. Their ruling on the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 warned in thunderous terms that the court reserves the right to strike down any EU law that breaches the German Grundgesetz or Basic Law.
They went further in their verdict on the Lisbon Treaty in July 2009, shooting down imperial conceits. The EU is merely a treaty club. The historic states are the “masters of the Treaties” and not the other way round.
Where the Advocate-General is potentially breaking new ground is in arguing that EU law overrides domestic constitutional laws. Since the UK has no formal single coherent constitutional document, this seems to make the square root of f all's difference to the UK. Though I suppose it might conceivably affect the operation of the Act of Union.
That was the relatively clear judgment of the ECJ in the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] case, which drove the Germans to their own "Solange" judgment. Putting a rule of national law in constitutional rather than primary legislation cannot elevate it above the law of the ECJ. It would, frankly, be strange if it did - a national "sandwich" with the ECJ in the middle.0 -
So far as conventional laws are concerned, it has been clear since at least 1990 (Barber v GRE) that EU law overrides domestic laws.antifrank said:Indigo said:
That doesnt appear to be how the Germans see it, from the same articleGrandiose said:
Germany is obliged to submit to the decisions of the ECJ. That has, and always will be the case, as long as Germany remains part of the EU. Of course Germany can leave, but it can't unilaterally set aside the judgments of the ECJ without doing so.DavidL said:
The man really is an idiot. And ignorant with it too.Germany's judges have never accepted the ECJ's outlandish claims to primacy. Their ruling on the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 warned in thunderous terms that the court reserves the right to strike down any EU law that breaches the German Grundgesetz or Basic Law.
They went further in their verdict on the Lisbon Treaty in July 2009, shooting down imperial conceits. The EU is merely a treaty club. The historic states are the “masters of the Treaties” and not the other way round.
Where the Advocate-General is potentially breaking new ground is in arguing that EU law overrides domestic constitutional laws. Since the UK has no formal single coherent constitutional document, this seems to make the square root of f all's difference to the UK. Though I suppose it might conceivably affect the operation of the Act of Union.
Its very bizarre, the EU Law as I understand it has its influence on British Law by virtue of the European Communities Act (1972) and presumably a similar Act in German Law. It logically follows that the repeal of that Act, stops any further such authority, it must therefore be within the competency of certainly the government, possibly the constitutional court to attach limitations to that initial enabling act, that might present a political problem, but would presumably solve the legal problem.
I don't know the wording of the equivalent enabling act in Germany, perhaps it places their constitutional court above the ECJ, in the same way as Cameron is proposing to do with his British Bill of Rights.0 -
What happens if the ECJ rules it has supremacy, and the German Constitutional Court disagrees, presumably it comes down to whose judgement the German government chooses to enforce.Grandiose said:That was the relatively clear judgment of the ECJ in the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] case, which drove the Germans to their own "Solange" judgment. Putting a rule of national law in constitutional rather than primary legislation cannot elevate it above the law of the ECJ. It would, frankly, be strange if it did - a national "sandwich" with the ECJ in the middle.
0 -
Its very bizarre, the EU Law as I understand it has its influence on British Law by virtue of the European Communities Act (1972) and presumably a similar Act in German Law. It logically follows that the repeal of that Act, stops any further such authority, it must therefore be within the competency of certainly the government, possibly the constitutional court to attach limitations to that initial enabling act, that might present a political problem, but would presumably solve the legal problem.Indigo said:
So far as conventional laws are concerned, it has been clear since at least 1990 (Barber v GRE) that EU law overrides domestic laws.antifrank said:Indigo said:
That doesnt appear to be how the Germans see it, from the same articleGrandiose said:
Germany is obliged to submit to the decisions of the ECJ. That has, and always will be the case, as long as Germany remains part of the EU. Of course Germany can leave, but it can't unilaterally set aside the judgments of the ECJ without doing so.DavidL said:[...]
Germany's judges have never accepted the ECJ's outlandish claims to primacy. Their ruling on the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 warned in thunderous terms that the court reserves the right to strike down any EU law that breaches the German Grundgesetz or Basic Law.
They went further in their verdict on the Lisbon Treaty in July 2009, shooting down imperial conceits. The EU is merely a treaty club. The historic states are the “masters of the Treaties” and not the other way round.
Where the Advocate-General is potentially breaking new ground is in arguing that EU law overrides domestic constitutional laws. Since the UK has no formal single coherent constitutional document, this seems to make the square root of f all's difference to the UK. Though I suppose it might conceivably affect the operation of the Act of Union.
I don't know the wording of the equivalent enabling act in Germany, perhaps it places their constitutional court above the ECJ, in the same way as Cameron is proposing to do with his British Bill of Rights.
It's Article 23 of the Basic Law that is Germany's enabling law.
All it can achieve is to enable to the German Constitutional Court to effect a withdrawal (or risk it, in the hope the EU backs down) of Germany from the EU.
It cannot hope to elevate particular laws above EU law, because this would fracture the application of any EU law across the Member States. In other words, we'd have a different body of EU law for each of the member states, which would defeat the point of a common law-making body.
This is clear from the limited conditions in which it can put its foot down, vis, a lack of respect for German citizens' fundamental rights.0 -
Then you would have what is grandly known as a constitutional crisis. Which is of course really just another name for a political decision that the German people and the EU hierarchy would have to take. Do you really imagine the Germans would leave the EU over a constitutional technicality at present? Some form of fudge would be found.Indigo said:
What happens if the ECJ rules it has supremacy, and the German Constitutional Court disagrees, presumably it comes down to whose judgement the German government chooses to enforce.Grandiose said:That was the relatively clear judgment of the ECJ in the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] case, which drove the Germans to their own "Solange" judgment. Putting a rule of national law in constitutional rather than primary legislation cannot elevate it above the law of the ECJ. It would, frankly, be strange if it did - a national "sandwich" with the ECJ in the middle.
0 -
One for Nick, from the excellent Twitter account @Thatchersrise (basically news and politics from 40 years ago):
PS mods - is there any way to prevent twitter links auto-expanding?
https://twitter.com/Thatchersrise/status/5582231471333376000 -
This will probably be worth a few points to the SNP, though the Falkirk odds aren't that juicy in the first place. I'd love it if Eric 'you won't like me when I'm angry' Joyce ran as an independent.
'Dennis Canavan backs SNP candidate John McNally in Falkirk election battle'
http://tinyurl.com/o268oqc0 -
IIRC, Marf's original caption for this cartoon, during the last disastrous Labour Government went something along the lines of:
"Your father says if it's good enough for Gordon Brown, it's good enough for him."0 -
The German government may choose the side of the constitutional court in such a scenario, and pull Germany out of the EU.Indigo said:
What happens if the ECJ rules it has supremacy, and the German Constitutional Court disagrees, presumably it comes down to whose judgement the German government chooses to enforce.Grandiose said:That was the relatively clear judgment of the ECJ in the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] case, which drove the Germans to their own "Solange" judgment. Putting a rule of national law in constitutional rather than primary legislation cannot elevate it above the law of the ECJ. It would, frankly, be strange if it did - a national "sandwich" with the ECJ in the middle.
It would be almost identical as the UK. The Chancellor would make an empassioned speech about how the EU had left him or her with no other choice, about how the impact on German citizens was too great, how Germany had an important constitutional history and how unilateral withdrawal was the appropriate response.
The circumstances that would prompt that in Germany would almost certainly prompt a similar move in the UK.0 -
Crikey Pulpsta, could you SHOUT any louder?Pulpstar said:
AUDREYANNE IT'S A BETTING SITE.audreyanne said:
Oh wow even better.isam said:
I sense trolling, but I'll play alongaudreyanne said:Good thread again Mike, and agreed. My bet with Isam re. 5x UKIP seats looks rock solid from here. Mind you, at the rate they're going UKIP may end up with 1 seat (Douglas Carswell).
It's 4xUKIP seats not 5
and if you are confident I am happy to double the bet
Leopards and spots: you really do like the 'betcha' response, don't you? That and ladling out 'trolling' tags, which in your case = anyone who dares suggest all is not a warm purple haze in kipper world.
So what were we on? £10 wasn't it? I'll go to £20 but only on the condition that you're banned from replying to me with any further betchas this side of May 7th. Deal?
p.s. It's actually 4x + 1 isn't it?
AND A POLITICS SITE.
AND ESPECIALLY A POLITICAL BETTING SITE.
Isam, like the banned Tim before him, has a tiresome habit of responding to anything he doesn't like by the playground 'betcha.'
Pb.com works best when we use the existing professional markets, and keep friendly tips between posters on a relatively occasional basis. I don't think Mike's intention in founding this site in 2004 was to rival 365.com or WillHill, do you? Rather, in the words of wiki:
'The focus [of pb.com] is on political betting opportunities, but the focus is rather broader, in the sense that political issues of the day have an impact on the various betting markets.'
Isam I'm sorry you have reneged on your double up offer simply because I suggested you stop 'betcha' responses to me for the next four months. If it makes you happy to do that whenever I challenge some of your comments then that's fine. It's funny that you accuse others of trolling. A friend of mine once remarked that often those who dish out criticism are the ones least capable of taking it.
Generally speaking this site is being spoilt by a handful of rabids on the right. They post incessantly, probably because they don't work, and it's usually the same tired regurgitated spiel from previous posts, lacking any original thought and little short of ranting. It's a shame as generally speaking for 9 out of 10 years this has been a brilliant place for debate, even in the days of Tim.
It will change when the country switches into election mode as we will be drowned out by a new wave of people who might actually have something useful to contribute.
0 -
Not really, it was a coup d'etat by the ECB. It unilaterally granted itself the ability to print money to bail out endebted members, provided they passed its preferred budgets. It might have been a good idea for the member states to give them the power to do this when they set up the Euro, but they didn't.FrankBooth said:
What did the German constitutional court claim? I find it hard to have much sympathy for them. They chose to abandon their own money back in 1999. If QE is against the German constitution then I can only assume the creation of the single currency was too.Socrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
0 -
That would be good news for my pension but seems highly unlikely. A potential Labour govt supported by the Scotttish lunatics could just as easily take the £ back t o parity with the €.TCPoliticalBetting said:Marf brilliant.
Anyone prepared to speculate on what the £ Euro rate likely to be in 6 months and end of year?
Euro 1.40-1.50 to £1 seems conservative.0 -
Would it therefore be unfair on this basis to describe Cameron's proposal of a British Bill of Rights as "a worthless bit of tinsel to wave in front of a credulous electorate" ?Grandiose said:It cannot hope to elevate particular laws above EU law, because this would fracture the application of any EU law across the Member States. In other words, we'd have a different body of EU law for each of the member states, which would defeat the point of a common law-making body.
This is clear from the limited conditions in which it can put its foot down, vis, a lack of respect for German citizens' fundamental rights.
0 -
I should probably mention the other route, which is to challenge the EU in its own terms. That is, by the EU's own rules, this particular move was invalid. Like many such challenges to government, normally the EU has failed to jump through some hoops, it will go away, do those, and come back again. I have no idea whether the ECB is entitled under the EU's own rules to do what it seeks to do.Grandiose said:
The German government may choose the side of the constitutional court in such a scenario, and pull Germany out of the EU.Indigo said:
What happens if the ECJ rules it has supremacy, and the German Constitutional Court disagrees, presumably it comes down to whose judgement the German government chooses to enforce.Grandiose said:That was the relatively clear judgment of the ECJ in the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] case, which drove the Germans to their own "Solange" judgment. Putting a rule of national law in constitutional rather than primary legislation cannot elevate it above the law of the ECJ. It would, frankly, be strange if it did - a national "sandwich" with the ECJ in the middle.
It would be almost identical as the UK. The Chancellor would make an empassioned speech about how the EU had left him or her with no other choice, about how the impact on German citizens was too great, how Germany had an important constitutional history and how unilateral withdrawal was the appropriate response.
The circumstances that would prompt that in Germany would almost certainly prompt a similar move in the UK.0 -
To some extent, perhaps. But any Bill of Rights would bind national actors.Indigo said:
Would it therefore be unfair on this basis to describe Cameron's proposal of a British Bill of Rights as "a worthless bit of tinsel to wave in front of a credulous electorate" ?Grandiose said:It cannot hope to elevate particular laws above EU law, because this would fracture the application of any EU law across the Member States. In other words, we'd have a different body of EU law for each of the member states, which would defeat the point of a common law-making body.
This is clear from the limited conditions in which it can put its foot down, vis, a lack of respect for German citizens' fundamental rights.0 -
One has to tip one's cap at audreyanne's pitch-perfect posts. An epic exercise.audreyanne said:
Crikey Pulpsta, could you SHOUT any louder?Pulpstar said:
AUDREYANNE IT'S A BETTING SITE.audreyanne said:
Oh wow even better.isam said:
I sense trolling, but I'll play alongaudreyanne said:Good thread again Mike, and agreed. My bet with Isam re. 5x UKIP seats looks rock solid from here. Mind you, at the rate they're going UKIP may end up with 1 seat (Douglas Carswell).
It's 4xUKIP seats not 5
and if you are confident I am happy to double the bet
Leopards and spots: you really do like the 'betcha' response, don't you? That and ladling out 'trolling' tags, which in your case = anyone who dares suggest all is not a warm purple haze in kipper world.
So what were we on? £10 wasn't it? I'll go to £20 but only on the condition that you're banned from replying to me with any further betchas this side of May 7th. Deal?
p.s. It's actually 4x + 1 isn't it?
AND A POLITICS SITE.
AND ESPECIALLY A POLITICAL BETTING SITE.
[...snip...]
It will change when the country switches into election mode as we will be drowned out by a new wave of people who might actually have something useful to contribute.0 -
.0
-
That doesnt appear to be how the Germans see it, from the same articleIndigo said:
Germany is obliged to submit to the decisions of the ECJ. That has, and always will be the case, as long as Germany remains part of the EU. Of course Germany can leave, but it can't unilaterally set aside the judgments of the ECJ without doing so.Grandiose said:
The man really is an idiot. And ignorant with it too.DavidL said:Indigo said:
AEP was on the case last week when it was first floatedSocrates said:Whatever you think of the wisdom of QE (I support it), it's pretty shocking that the European Union has just put two fingers up to the German constitutional court. National sovereignty doesn't mean anything for them any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.htmlThe European Court of Justice has declared legal supremacy over the sovereign state of Germany, and therefore of Britain, France, Denmark and Poland as well.
The ECJ's advocate-general has not only brushed aside the careful findings of the German constitutional court on a matter of highest importance, he has gone so far as to claim that Germany is obliged to submit to the final decision. "We cannot possibly accept this and they know it," said one German jurist close to the case.Germany's judges have never accepted the ECJ's outlandish claims to primacy. Their ruling on the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 warned in thunderous terms that the court reserves the right to strike down any EU law that breaches the German Grundgesetz or Basic Law.
Those things aren't really in contradiction with each other in practice, because the requirement to obey the treaties gets passed into domestic law. The member states are stil sovereign so they're free to pass news laws to repudiate the treaties, but if they do that then in practice they leave the EU, either by formally getting kicked out or by everybody ignoring their treaty obligations towards the rebellious member state in return.
They went further in their verdict on the Lisbon Treaty in July 2009, shooting down imperial conceits. The EU is merely a treaty club. The historic states are the “masters of the Treaties” and not the other way round.0 -
I have enough trouble understanding Scots law, let alone anyone else's. However...
The problem for those like Germany with written Constitutional safeguards is that they have decided to place limits on the power of politicians. Something to do with a plebiscite that had a sub optimal outcome in the 1930s, I believe.
What the German Constitutional Court has been saying, AIUI, is that the politicians cannot get around those limitations by agreeing an EU treaty that removes those safeguards. The problem is not really a question of the supremacy of laws but the power of the politicians of the day to agree something that they do not have the power to agree.
The consequences for Germany would be, hypothetically, that if the German Constitutional Court found some of the provisions in the Lisbon Treaty incompatible with that Basic law the ratification of that treaty would be invalid and it would therefore be of no effect. Where we would go from there is anyone's guess.
What the ECJ is saying is something slightly different. They are saying that no one but them have the power to determine whether a particular course of action is lawful in terms of the Treaties or not. In this they are clearly correct and I don't think the German Court would claim otherwise. Of course they might take the view that the Treaty, as interpreted by the ECJ, does breach the Basic law even if it were possible to come to a construction that did not.
I am not sure if AEP just does not get this or whether he is trying to stir things up for the benefit of his paper. I suspect the former.0 -
Good one, Marf!0
-
But would as I understand it be subject to challenge at the ECJ.Grandiose said:
To some extent, perhaps. But any Bill of Rights would bind national actors.Indigo said:
Would it therefore be unfair on this basis to describe Cameron's proposal of a British Bill of Rights as "a worthless bit of tinsel to wave in front of a credulous electorate" ?Grandiose said:It cannot hope to elevate particular laws above EU law, because this would fracture the application of any EU law across the Member States. In other words, we'd have a different body of EU law for each of the member states, which would defeat the point of a common law-making body.
This is clear from the limited conditions in which it can put its foot down, vis, a lack of respect for German citizens' fundamental rights.
0 -
I cant say it any clearer than this..audreyanne said:
Crikey Pulpsta, could you SHOUT any louder?Pulpstar said:
AUDREYANNE IT'S A BETTING SITE.audreyanne said:
Oh wow even better.isam said:
I sense trolling, but I'll play alongaudreyanne said:Good thread again Mike, and agreed. My bet with Isam re. 5x UKIP seats looks rock solid from here. Mind you, at the rate they're going UKIP may end up with 1 seat (Douglas Carswell).
It's 4xUKIP seats not 5
and if you are confident I am happy to double the bet
p.s. It's actually 4x + 1 isn't it?
AND A POLITICS SITE.
AND ESPECIALLY A POLITICAL BETTING SITE.
Isam, like the banned Tim before him, has a tiresome habit of responding to anything he doesn't like by the playground 'betcha.'
Pb.com works best when we use the existing professional markets, and keep friendly tips between posters on a relatively occasional basis. I don't think Mike's intention in founding this site in 2004 was to rival 365.com or WillHill, do you? Rather, in the words of wiki:
'The focus [of pb.com] is on political betting opportunities, but the focus is rather broader, in the sense that political issues of the day have an impact on the various betting markets.'
Isam I'm sorry you have reneged on your double up offer simply because I suggested you stop 'betcha' responses to me for the next four months. If it makes you happy to do that whenever I challenge some of your comments then that's fine. It's funny that you accuse others of trolling. A friend of mine once remarked that often those who dish out criticism are the ones least capable of taking it.
Generally speaking this site is being spoilt by a handful of rabids on the right. They post incessantly, probably because they don't work, and it's usually the same tired regurgitated spiel from previous posts, lacking any original thought and little short of ranting. It's a shame as generally speaking for 9 out of 10 years this has been a brilliant place for debate, even in the days of Tim.
It will change when the country switches into election mode as we will be drowned out by a new wave of people who might actually have something useful to contribute.
I don't rate your opinion and don't care what you think
If I think you are talking rubbish I will challenge you to a bet if I feel like it.. .if you don't want to bet, you can say no.
I am happy to double the amount we have bet but I wont accept any conditions if I do so
0 -
Tissue_Price said:
One has to tip one's cap at audreyanne's pitch-perfect posts. An epic exercise.audreyanne said:
Crikey Pulpsta, could you SHOUT any louder?Pulpstar said:
AUDREYANNE IT'S A BETTING SITE.audreyanne said:
Oh wow even better.isam said:
I sense trolling, but I'll play alongaudreyanne said:Good thread again Mike, and agreed. My bet with Isam re. 5x UKIP seats looks rock solid from here. Mind you, at the rate they're going UKIP may end up with 1 seat (Douglas Carswell).
It's 4xUKIP seats not 5
and if you are confident I am happy to double the bet
Leopards and spots: you really do like the 'betcha' response, don't you? That and ladling out 'trolling' tags, which in your case = anyone who dares suggest all is not a warm purple haze in kipper world.
So what were we on? £10 wasn't it? I'll go to £20 but only on the condition that you're banned from replying to me with any further betchas this side of May 7th. Deal?
p.s. It's actually 4x + 1 isn't it?
AND A POLITICS SITE.
AND ESPECIALLY A POLITICAL BETTING SITE.
[...snip...]
It will change when the country switches into election mode as we will be drowned out by a new wave of people who might actually have something useful to contribute.
0 -
Has anyone posted TNS?
The Staggers @TheStaggers 33m33 minutes ago
New TNS poll: Lab 31% (-4), Con 31% (+3), Ukip 16% (-2), Lib Dems 8% (+2), Greens 7% (+2).0 -
Looks about right after their previous outlier.Tissue_Price said:Has anyone posted TNS?
The Staggers @TheStaggers 33m33 minutes ago
New TNS poll: Lab 31% (-4), Con 31% (+3), Ukip 16% (-2), Lib Dems 8% (+2), Greens 7% (+2).0 -
O/T
What in God's name is Prince Andrew doing anywhere near the World Economic Forum in Davos?
He's hardly renowned as a towering intellectual is he?0 -
Oh dear
http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/21/whatsapp-comes-to-the-desktop/
Now Dave will have to start banning stuff from desktops as well (good luck with that), he always was going to have to if it was going to be more than a cosmetic change, but now he would have to even for a cosmetic change.0 -
From the TNS data tables, it seems Ed has a women problem, with Tories leading 32-29 there. #2012memesrevisited0
-
Both the LibDems and the Greens eating into Labour's support it would seem.Pulpstar said:
Looks about right after their previous outlier.Tissue_Price said:Has anyone posted TNS?
The Staggers @TheStaggers 33m33 minutes ago
New TNS poll: Lab 31% (-4), Con 31% (+3), Ukip 16% (-2), Lib Dems 8% (+2), Greens 7% (+2).0 -
He's there representing Britain.peter_from_putney said:O/T
What in God's name is Prince Andrew doing anywhere near the World Economic Forum in Davos?
He's hardly renowned as a towering intellectual is he?
Selling guns to the eskimos and women to the Chinese.0 -
Good poll for the Coalition.0
-
Yes, miss out the http or https prefix, like this:Tissue_Price said:
PS mods - is there any way to prevent twitter links auto-expanding?
twitter.com/Thatchersrise/status/558223147133337600
(or TinyURL the link)0 -
Great cartoon Marf.
Off topic, those bloody Aussies, trying to ruin our chance to win the World Cup
Eoin Morgan targeted by alleged blackmailer ahead of Australia match
• ECB said it received demand for £35,000 from Hobart man
• England captain said to have had affair five years ago
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/22/eoin-morgan-england-blackmail-attempt?CMP=share_btn_tw
0 -
Cheers, neither is that satisfactory as in case (a) it's now not a link and in case (b) some people are understandably wary of clicking on tinyurl's on message boards. I guess (a) is the better option.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, miss out the http or https prefix, like this:Tissue_Price said:
PS mods - is there any way to prevent twitter links auto-expanding?
twitter.com/Thatchersrise/status/558223147133337600
(or TinyURL the link)0 -
TNS very very close to attaining Gold Standard status0
-
So a row between a Zimmer and a Saffer has destabilised our test teamTheScreamingEagles said:Great cartoon Marf.
Off topic, those bloody Aussies, trying to ruin our chance to win the World Cup
In the last few days, the ECB received an email from an Australian man demanding a five figure sum to prevent a story about our one-day captain Eoin Morgan appearing in the national newspapers in the UK and Australia.
The allegations related to a brief relationship Eoin had with a woman from Australia five years ago. Following liaison with the Metropolitan Police, our support team on the ground in Australia investigated the blackmail.
This involved approaching the man in question who, when confronted, admitted and apologised for his actions, blaming jealousy (he is presently in a relationship with the woman concerned).
http://www.ecb.co.uk/news/articles/ecb-media-statement-–-eoin-morgan
...and now our Irish captain is the centre of a scandal0 -
.0
-
There's this way of doing it.Tissue_Price said:
Cheers, neither is that satisfactory as in case (a) it's now not a link and in case (b) some people are understandably wary of clicking on tinyurl's on message boards. I guess (a) is the better option.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, miss out the http or https prefix, like this:Tissue_Price said:
PS mods - is there any way to prevent twitter links auto-expanding?
twitter.com/Thatchersrise/status/558223147133337600
(or TinyURL the link)
Copy the main text of the tweet, like thus
News in brief – Broxtowe does its bit to save fuel. Eric Varley would be proud.
Then right click over the image, and open image in new tab and copy that URL
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B780_mpCEAA9dHE.jpg:large
0 -
How long before Winston McKenzie has joined the Greens or the SNP?
http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Winston-McKenzie-steps-branch-chairman-stand-Ukip/story-25887957-detail/story.html0 -
It depends on the issue.Indigo said:
But would as I understand it be subject to challenge at the ECJ.Grandiose said:
To some extent, perhaps. But any Bill of Rights would bind national actors.Indigo said:
Would it therefore be unfair on this basis to describe Cameron's proposal of a British Bill of Rights as "a worthless bit of tinsel to wave in front of a credulous electorate" ?Grandiose said:It cannot hope to elevate particular laws above EU law, because this would fracture the application of any EU law across the Member States. In other words, we'd have a different body of EU law for each of the member states, which would defeat the point of a common law-making body.
This is clear from the limited conditions in which it can put its foot down, vis, a lack of respect for German citizens' fundamental rights.
When UK bodies are applying EU law, or laws that fall within the scope of EU regulations, then they must ensure their actions are compatible with EU fundamental rights law. So potentially if the Bill of Rights had a lower standard then in some cases the EU would replace it with a higher one. Equally if we're still a signatory to the ECHR then the individual could petition Strassbourg.
Where the Bill of Rights gave a higher standard, then the EU might be in a position to substitute a lower standard, if the application of the British standard conflicted with the Treaty freedoms (goods, services, workers/people, capital). That is relatively unlikely by comparison.
In each case it would require a careful application of the relevant test to understand how the two (or three) regimes would overlap. Thus the Bill of Rights would have its wings clipped more than being entirely superfluous.0 -
Subsample alert - TNS find SNP 44 Con 21 Lab 21 Grn 11 LD 3 UKIP 0 in Scotland :-)0
-
Con Gain Banff & Buchan and East RenfrewshireTissue_Price said:Subsample alert - TNS find SNP 44 Con 21 Lab 21 Grn 6 LD 3 UKIP 0 in Scotland :-)
Edit: Have you got a link to their data tables, their website is an arse, and they haven't sent me an embargoed copy.
The gits.0 -
0
-
A fine challenge for Richard Tyndall's Golden Scepter of Pomposity(TM), but not quite there yet.audreyanne said:
Crikey Pulpsta, could you SHOUT any louder?Pulpstar said:
AUDREYANNE IT'S A BETTING SITE.audreyanne said:
Oh wow even better.isam said:
I sense trolling, but I'll play alongaudreyanne said:Good thread again Mike, and agreed. My bet with Isam re. 5x UKIP seats looks rock solid from here. Mind you, at the rate they're going UKIP may end up with 1 seat (Douglas Carswell).
It's 4xUKIP seats not 5
and if you are confident I am happy to double the bet
Leopards and spots: you really do like the 'betcha' response, don't you? That and ladling out 'trolling' tags, which in your case = anyone who dares suggest all is not a warm purple haze in kipper world.
So what were we on? £10 wasn't it? I'll go to £20 but only on the condition that you're banned from replying to me with any further betchas this side of May 7th. Deal?
p.s. It's actually 4x + 1 isn't it?
AND A POLITICS SITE.
AND ESPECIALLY A POLITICAL BETTING SITE.
Isam, like the banned Tim before him, has a tiresome habit of responding to anything he doesn't like by the playground 'betcha.'
Pb.com works best when we use the existing professional markets, and keep friendly tips between posters on a relatively occasional basis. I don't think Mike's intention in founding this site in 2004 was to rival 365.com or WillHill, do you? Rather, in the words of wiki:
'The focus [of pb.com] is on political betting opportunities, but the focus is rather broader, in the sense that political issues of the day have an impact on the various betting markets.'
Isam I'm sorry you have reneged on your double up offer simply because I suggested you stop 'betcha' responses to me for the next four months. If it makes you happy to do that whenever I challenge some of your comments then that's fine. It's funny that you accuse others of trolling. A friend of mine once remarked that often those who dish out criticism are the ones least capable of taking it.
Generally speaking this site is being spoilt by a handful of rabids on the right. They post incessantly, probably because they don't work, and it's usually the same tired regurgitated spiel from previous posts, lacking any original thought and little short of ranting. It's a shame as generally speaking for 9 out of 10 years this has been a brilliant place for debate, even in the days of Tim.
It will change when the country switches into election mode as we will be drowned out by a new wave of people who might actually have something useful to contribute.0 -
Isn't there a WordPress setting that prevents tweets (and YouTube vids) expanding? Or is my browser doing the expanding for me?TheScreamingEagles said:
There's this way of doing it.Tissue_Price said:
Cheers, neither is that satisfactory as in case (a) it's now not a link and in case (b) some people are understandably wary of clicking on tinyurl's on message boards. I guess (a) is the better option.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, miss out the http or https prefix, like this:Tissue_Price said:
PS mods - is there any way to prevent twitter links auto-expanding?
twitter.com/Thatchersrise/status/558223147133337600
(or TinyURL the link)
Copy the main text of the tweet, like thus
News in brief – Broxtowe does its bit to save fuel. Eric Varley would be proud.
Then right click over the image, and open image in new tab and copy that URL
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B780_mpCEAA9dHE.jpg:large0 -
It's vanilla that does it.Tissue_Price said:
Isn't there a WordPress setting that prevents tweets (and YouTube vids) expanding? Or is my browser doing the expanding for me?TheScreamingEagles said:
There's this way of doing it.Tissue_Price said:
Cheers, neither is that satisfactory as in case (a) it's now not a link and in case (b) some people are understandably wary of clicking on tinyurl's on message boards. I guess (a) is the better option.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, miss out the http or https prefix, like this:Tissue_Price said:
PS mods - is there any way to prevent twitter links auto-expanding?
twitter.com/Thatchersrise/status/558223147133337600
(or TinyURL the link)
Copy the main text of the tweet, like thus
News in brief – Broxtowe does its bit to save fuel. Eric Varley would be proud.
Then right click over the image, and open image in new tab and copy that URL
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B780_mpCEAA9dHE.jpg:large
Before it used to automatically minimise them, but they did something recently, and they all appear now.
0 -
Labour to abolish right-to-buy for council tenants in Wales. A smart move, as aspiration leads to voting Tory in the long run.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-309186770 -
Like this. Click reply to see the code.Tissue_Price said:Isn't there a WordPress setting that prevents tweets (and YouTube vids) expanding? Or is my browser doing the expanding for me?
Some text which is also a link to youtube
Works for twitter too0 -
I assume you can just embed an href as well like thisTheScreamingEagles said:
There's this way of doing it.Tissue_Price said:
Cheers, neither is that satisfactory as in case (a) it's now not a link and in case (b) some people are understandably wary of clicking on tinyurl's on message boards. I guess (a) is the better option.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, miss out the http or https prefix, like this:Tissue_Price said:
PS mods - is there any way to prevent twitter links auto-expanding?
twitter.com/Thatchersrise/status/558223147133337600
(or TinyURL the link)
Copy the main text of the tweet, like thus
News in brief – Broxtowe does its bit to save fuel. Eric Varley would be proud.
Then right click over the image, and open image in new tab and copy that URL
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B780_mpCEAA9dHE.jpg:large0 -
Now all becomes clear...
"Here’s some news just in. His publisher – Random House Penguin – is launching a new Al Murray product to coincide with the election publicity campaign. Given the long gestation period of a book, this must have been months in planning."
Not only got the tour, he has also written a book.....
0 -
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I guess we will have to wait and see what rights are claimed when this new bill of right is proposed, to get some idea of how well they are going to fly at the ECJ. It certainly seems if it is planned to "free" Britain from some of the more onerous or objectionable rulings of the ECJ (votes for prisoners would be an example) then it might be quite a disappointment.Grandiose said:It depends on the issue.
When UK bodies are applying EU law, or laws that fall within the scope of EU regulations, then they must ensure their actions are compatible with EU fundamental rights law. So potentially if the Bill of Rights had a lower standard then in some cases the EU would replace it with a higher one. Equally if we're still a signatory to the ECHR then the individual could petition Strassbourg.
Where the Bill of Rights gave a higher standard, then the EU might be in a position to substitute a lower standard, if the application of the British standard conflicted with the Treaty freedoms (goods, services, workers/people, capital). That is relatively unlikely by comparison.
In each case it would require a careful application of the relevant test to understand how the two (or three) regimes would overlap. Thus the Bill of Rights would have its wings clipped more than being entirely superfluous.0 -
I'd keep the 'right to buy', but I'd remove the discounts.Anorak said:Labour to abolish right-to-buy for council tenants in Wales. A smart move, as aspiration leads to voting Tory in the long run.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-309186770 -
Compare and contrast headlines from the BBC....
LATEST:Cilla Black, Peter Andre, Darren Day and EastEnders star Jessie Wallace settle phone-hacking claims, High Court told
LATEST:Jury in case of Sun journalists accused of paying officials for stories discharged after failing to reach verdict
Now what is missing from the first headline? It was another NOTW pay out right....right...that is what everybody seeing the ticker will think...but it was the MIRROR.0 -
Yes, that's the best idea, thanks. (thanks Indigo too)Anorak said:
Like this. Click reply to see the code.Tissue_Price said:Isn't there a WordPress setting that prevents tweets (and YouTube vids) expanding? Or is my browser doing the expanding for me?
Some text which is also a link to youtube
Works for twitter too0
This discussion has been closed.