politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rose might front Remain but he won’t lead it

surbiton said:

taffys said:

''Ministers want this declaration in order to protect the status of the pound sterling as a legitimate currency that will always exist.''

The utterly craven, spineless tone of this language is already getting ripped to shreds in social media.

Sterling is hardly used in International trade. My company invoices £ 22-23m within the UK. About 8% of our sales within the UK is in EUR.

In terms of international currency reserves the GBP is number 3 or 4 (we swap places with the Yen) on about 4% - vs USD at ~60% and EUR at ~20% - so down - but far from out - and about double where we were 20 years ago (GBP 2% Yen 6%).....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency

flightpath01 said:

surbiton said:

JEO said:

surbiton said:

So where do you place USA, China, Japan, Germany ? We are only bigger than France and Brazil because of the exchange rate appreciation of the last 4 years which is slowly reversing itself.

A country with Manufacturing Output still below it's previous peak.

The sterling appreciation of the last few years is following a much bigger depreciation during the Brown years. Our economy is doing much better than the Eurozone's. The Remain campaign will get nowhere if its main argument is that the UK is shit and can't do as well as other non-EU economies.

We will see. Tell that to the worker at Nissan !

Correct, but already we see lots of daft arguments being set up about the In campaign denigrating Britain. We do well out of inward investment into the UK.
I have to say if I was younger I would be a bit worried about my future being in the hands of some of the logic being spouted here.

Considering the misleading statements and outright lies you keep repeating on these threads I am not surprised you are upset by logic and facts.

Alanbrooke said:

JEO said:

The British Empire is “gone”, an ally of Angel Merkel has said as he warned the UK can only remain in the “Champions League” of nations by staying in the European Union.

Michael Gahrer, an MEP for the German Chancellor’s CDU party, upped the pressure on Ms Merkel and David Cameron's talks by warning of the impact of Britain leaving the EU.

He said Scotland could go independent and banks could flee overseas if Britain exits Europe and played down the chances of Mr Cameron winning the removal of a pledge for “ever closer union”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11922207/British-Empire-is-gone-Angela-Merkel-ally-says-as-he-urges-In-vote-ahead-of-EU-crunch-talks.html

The British Empre is gone - something anyone under 60 has grown with up and long accepted.

Maybe if the germans could just accept theirs has gone too we'd all be a lot happier.

Yes, I am so godsdamned sick of near any reluctance or questioning from the uk on something being raised a consequence of acting like we still have an empire or similar feeling, it happens far too often. We know we're not a superpower, but we are still a power and we can ask for things and do things without it being a sign of self important or colonial arrogance.

ydoethur said:

richardDodd said:

ydoether. ..As you point out.. it is exactly the loss of sovereignty and the sinister way superstates are planning to force uncontrolled immigration that worries most people..

Yes - and it's not going to be successfully countered by the points that actually, Britain has much lower immigration than most of the rest of the EU, or that we still have veto over most of the key decisions, even though both are true. It just makes the people who are putting those lines look complacent.

If they put a positive case - that I (for example) and for that matter hundreds of other people benefitted from having a very hard-working and honest plumber from Lodz in my hometown after all the British plumbers had moved to more profitable areas, or that while creeping loss of veto is a worry, while we are in the EU we can still force changes to the rules to make them better for Britain (as Norway, for example, cannot, even though most EU decisions are ultimately binding on it as well) that would be far more helpful. That wouldn't convert diehard Eurosceptics, but it would encourage the swing voters to feel happier about the EU.

Norway has more control over the drafting and amending of Single Market regulations than the UK. They also have a veto which we do not.

Alanbrooke said:

DavidL said:

Alanbrooke said:

taffys said:

''Sterling is hardly used in International trade. My company invoices £ 22-23m within the UK. About 8% of our sales within the UK is in EUR.''

Again, that is not the point. Sterling allows us CONTROL. It allows us to set our own monetary policy.

It6's going to be like the Indyref again, where some posters think a currency is about the means of exchange, rather than the fuller sense of controlling the economy through interest rates, QE, value versus other currencies etc.

And, conversely, where the Outers will blithely assume that they will get exactly what they want out of a new trading agreement with Europe in the same way the Yes supporters maintained the much larger English economy was going to give Scotland everything it wanted.

As you said an hour ago, far more heat than light.

The contentious areas will be agriculture ( as always ) and services.

Like we've made progress in either over recent years......

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

richardDodd said:

ydoether. ..As you point out.. it is exactly the loss of sovereignty and the sinister way superstates are planning to force uncontrolled immigration that worries most people..

Yes - and it's not going to be successfully countered by the points that actually, Britain has much lower immigration than most of the rest of the EU, or that we still have veto over most of the key decisions, even though both are true. It just makes the people who are putting those lines look complacent.

If they put a positive case - that I (for example) and for that matter hundreds of other people benefitted from having a very hard-working and honest plumber from Lodz in my hometown after all the British plumbers had moved to more profitable areas, or that while creeping loss of veto is a worry, while we are in the EU we can still force changes to the rules to make them better for Britain (as Norway, for example, cannot, even though most EU decisions are ultimately binding on it as well) that would be far more helpful. That wouldn't convert diehard Eurosceptics, but it would encourage the swing voters to feel happier about the EU.

Norway has more control over the drafting and amending of Single Market regulations than the UK. They also have a veto which we do not.

Are you sure about that? That’s not what they say.

surbiton said:

JohnLilburne said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Roger, no research, but I suspect many are supportive of Russia's action in Syria.

The way they are going about attacking the rebels shows that we are just poncing about when it comes to IS.

Why is that coming as a surprise to anybody ? Russia's main strategy is to shore up Assad. They have not hidden that. I am not sure why they would act as USA's lackey. The UK is there to play that role.

The IS is being bombarded by the "coalition" for over a year now. Are you saying that the USA and those heinous Gulf countries whose monetary and material support created IS in the first place are incapable of finishing IS ? That shows real weakness.

It is not the job of Russia to support US foreign policy.

They are just flushing out that US and UK were not trying hard, just trying to look good whilst their paid chums took over Syria.

Charles said:

isam said:

Charles said:

isam said:

David Cameron's four key demands to remain in the EU revealed

'Forcing Brussels to make “an explicit statement” that Britain will be kept out of any move towards a European superstate. This will require an exemption for the UK from the EU’s founding principle of “ever closer union”.
An “explicit statement” that the euro is not the official currency of the EU, making clear that Europe is a “multi-currency” union. Ministers want this declaration in order to protect the status of the pound sterling as a legitimate currency that will always exist.
A new “red card” system to bring power back from Brussels to Britain. This would give groups of national parliaments the power to stop unwanted directives being handed down and to scrap existing EU laws.
A new structure for the EU itself. The block of 28 nations must be reorganised to prevent the nine countries that are not in the eurozone being dominated by the 19 member states that are, with particular protections for the City of London.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11924603/David-Camerons-four-key-demands-to-remain-in-the-EU-revealed.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM54522&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FAM_New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FAM_New_2015_10_11&utm_campaign=DM54522

That would probably be ok. But I doubt #4, which is by far and away the most important, will happen

If we succeeded in all 4 and voted to Remain, do you think other countries would start making special demands as well?

Possibly, although #3 and #4 will apply to everyone.

Isn't Holland already having a referenedum on some aspect of the EU treaty?

Well the whole point of the negotiations is to reform the EU so why should not others stick their oar in? Let's see what comes out and vote on it? To repeat.... subsequent new treaties will require new referendums.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. W, I was referring to arguments about sovereignty and control [which does make it ironic that so many Scottish separatists want to be in the EU].

Edited extra bit: Mr. Moses, if we vote In it will be read by EU-fanatics here, and other EU nations, as being a Yes to full steam ahead.

MD I find it equally baffling that the loyalists are so desperate to hold onto Scotland that they will resort to any skullduggery. Hopefully England votes OUT.

John_M said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. W, I was referring to arguments about sovereignty and control [which does make it ironic that so many Scottish separatists want to be in the EU].

Edited extra bit: Mr. Moses, if we vote In it will be read by EU-fanatics here, and other EU nations, as being a Yes to full steam ahead.

Which is why I think the most likely result is a very narrow Yes, stay In, but no mandate for further integration by the UK

You seem to assume that the EU would give a flying f*ck about some vaporous 'mandate'. If we vote to remain, we're going to be QMVed into ever closer union.

Yes we will see if the unionists want to become a sub region of Brussels, be interesting if they polish off the "Better Together" , "pooling and sharing " crap in the campaign.

Just wanted to pop on - heard one of the Eagles on Pienaar today, happened to be talking about uni/multilateralism.

God they, the whole shadow cabinet are a bunch of utter, utter disingenous, cowardly sh1ts.

How on earth can they live with themselves?

So, Mr Tyndall, the EU comes along to EFTA and says “we’re doing this” and the EFTA states can agree or not?
But they’re not part of the discussion. And the EU can do whatever it iis nternally anyway, which might well affect businesses operating outside and exporting into the EU.

John_M said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. W, I was referring to arguments about sovereignty and control [which does make it ironic that so many Scottish separatists want to be in the EU].

Edited extra bit: Mr. Moses, if we vote In it will be read by EU-fanatics here, and other EU nations, as being a Yes to full steam ahead.

Which is why I think the most likely result is a very narrow Yes, stay In, but no mandate for further integration by the UK

You seem to assume that the EU would give a flying f*ck about some vaporous 'mandate'. If we vote to remain, we're going to be QMVed into ever closer union.

No, as clearly there will likely only be an In vote if the EU makes some noises about an EU non-eurozone area, much as Scotland only voted No with promises of more powers. Ultimately the UK will only stay in the EU as part of a non-Eurozone area with Sweden, Denmark and a few Eastern European nations, much as Scotland will only stay in the UK with more powers and probably FFA

JosiasJessop said:

dr_spyn said:

I hope none of PB's American readers will jump to the conclusion that Corbyn was busily hiking the Appalachian Trail, and therefore unable to meet HMQ.

http://news.sky.com/story/1567524/corbyn-missed-privy-council-to-go-on-holiday

Will walking The West Highland Way be code for Corbyn's next absence?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22470691

"walking The West Highland Way"

Wet and boggy down south, bumpy with fine views up north?

+1.

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

richardDodd said:

ydoether. ..As you point out.. it is exactly the loss of sovereignty and the sinister way superstates are planning to force uncontrolled immigration that worries most people..

Yes - and it's not going to be successfully countered by the points that actually, Britain has much lower immigration than most of the rest of the EU, or that we still have veto over most of the key decisions, even though both are true. It just makes the people who are putting those lines look complacent.

If they put a positive case - that I (for example) and for that matter hundreds of other people benefitted from having a very hard-working and honest plumber from Lodz in my hometown after all the British plumbers had moved to more profitable areas, or that while creeping loss of veto is a worry, while we are in the EU we can still force changes to the rules to make them better for Britain (as Norway, for example, cannot, even though most EU decisions are ultimately binding on it as well) that would be far more helpful. That wouldn't convert diehard Eurosceptics, but it would encourage the swing voters to feel happier about the EU.

Norway has more control over the drafting and amending of Single Market regulations than the UK. They also have a veto which we do not.

Are you sure about that? That’s not what they say.

Rest assured nobody knows what they are talking about. Pure blind prejudice. The emphasis is on blind.
The EEA might be OK for us, but the EU will continue to exist so its naïve to talk about being free of it.

taffys said:

'Hence the fight about the European Financial Transaction tax.'

Indeed. Maybe we should up our contribution to the EU in exchange for them leaving the City alone.

Nobody seems to have thought of is. If we want more from the EU, we have to give more. More autonomy for Britain and our economy, in exchange for a doubling in our contributions.

If you want Europe a la carte you have to pay a la carte prices.

Or just eat at another restaurant where the prices are more reasonable and the service much better.

flightpath01 said:

The Russian national anthem is being played... Corbyn will be standing to attention.

I’m really glad I’m a liberal. Fancy carrying all that hate around . Must warp your mind!

OldKingCole said:

flightpath01 said:

The Russian national anthem is being played... Corbyn will be standing to attention.

I’m really glad I’m a liberal. Fancy carrying all that hate around . Must warp your mind!

Seems to be a common trait of a lot of the Tory frothers on here. Bile and hatred seems to be their be all and end all. As you say cannot be good for them. Luckily there are a few sensible ones but not enough to balance it.

richardDodd said:

MG You are the one with the most bile and hatred on PB..You demonstrate it every day...

Along comes bellend to prove my point.

richardDodd said:

MG Where is the bile and hatred in my post..it is more a plea for someone to help you..

LOL, an EU immigrant that foams and froths about how bad the EU is, oh how we laughed.

As things stand I'm very firmly in the Remain camp. Possibly the only thing that could swing me the other way is if David Cameron wins too many concessions for my liking. In that scenario I might start to feel that our remaining in was no longer in the interests of the EU - which would sadden me greatly.

In any case this is not going to be a referendum that'll enthuse me. The choice is going to be between a watered down membership and leaving altogether. These are my third and fourth preferences respectively (my first being increased integration and my second being the status quo).

HurstLlama said:

All a bit grumpy on here this morning however, I have news to cheer.

If you are drinking a blend the Co-Op's own label scotch is perfectly drinkable. Comfortably acceptable, especially with a mixer, with more famous household names and yet it retails for just £12.99 as opposed the £17 or thereabouts (unless on special offer) of Bells, Grouse, et al..

There , isn't that good news? Don't rush to thank me.

Afternoon Hurst, difficult to lighten the tone on here I think. However good news indeed if you like a dram. I shall go and do something lighter now though , clean the privies or such like , as I doubt we will get much joy here this afternoon.

Richard_Tyndall said:

flightpath01 said:

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

richardDodd said:

ydoether. ..As you point out.. it is exactly the loss of sovereignty and the sinister way superstates are planning to force uncontrolled immigration that worries most people..

Yes - and it's not going to be successfully countered by the points that actually, Britain has much lower immigration than most of the rest of the EU, or that we still have veto over most of the key decisions, even though both are true. It just makes the people who are putting those lines look complacent.

If they put a positive case - that I (for example) and for that matter hundreds of other people benefitted from having a very hard-working and honest plumber from Lodz in my hometown after all the British plumbers had moved to more profitable areas, or that while creeping loss of veto is a worry, while we are in the EU we can still force changes to the rules to make them better for Britain (as Norway, for example, cannot, even though most EU decisions are ultimately binding on it as well) that would be far more helpful. That wouldn't convert diehard Eurosceptics, but it would encourage the swing voters to feel happier about the EU.

Norway has more control over the drafting and amending of Single Market regulations than the UK. They also have a veto which we do not.

Are you sure about that? That’s not what they say.

Rest assured nobody knows what they are talking about. Pure blind prejudice. The emphasis is on blind.
The EEA might be OK for us, but the EU will continue to exist so its naïve to talk about being free of it.

From the man who consistently lies on here about the EU and EEA. If you notice I actually quote the legislation. You just make stuff up.

I really would have thought after the number of times you have been shown to be either grossly ill informed or just outright dishonest you would have chosen to stay under your rock.

Hah.
Rabid outers on here moan that negotiations are not worth anything since we will be QMV'd out of it, yet you say the EEA is fine for everything... Oh except they have no votes. A say without a vote is not worth a bucket of spit.

You ignore all reality because it suits your infantile ignorant prejudice. The EEA may well suit us, but nobody pretend it will be any different of magically better. And the likes of everyone currently employed on our car industry had better hope we would still protect our inward investment success.

HurstLlama said:

All a bit grumpy on here this morning however, I have news to cheer.

If you are drinking a blend the Co-Op's own label scotch is perfectly drinkable. Comfortably acceptable, especially with a mixer, with more famous household names and yet it retails for just £12.99 as opposed the £17 or thereabouts (unless on special offer) of Bells, Grouse, et al..

There , isn't that good news? Don't rush to thank me.

I’ve rather given up whisky as I get older. Find it gives me a headache too easily. East of England Co-op, on the other hand, has some extremely acceptable wines.

DavidL said:

HurstLlama said:

All a bit grumpy on here this morning however, I have news to cheer.

If you are drinking a blend the Co-Op's own label scotch is perfectly drinkable. Comfortably acceptable, especially with a mixer, with more famous household names and yet it retails for just £12.99 as opposed the £17 or thereabouts (unless on special offer) of Bells, Grouse, et al..

There , isn't that good news? Don't rush to thank me.

We keep a bottle of grouse for anyone ill advised enough to put anything other than a drop of water in their whisky. Had it for years. The malts on the other hand....

Generous....I've got a bottle of Bells for that very purpose......of similar longevity......

DavidL said:

HurstLlama said:

All a bit grumpy on here this morning however, I have news to cheer.

If you are drinking a blend the Co-Op's own label scotch is perfectly drinkable. Comfortably acceptable, especially with a mixer, with more famous household names and yet it retails for just £12.99 as opposed the £17 or thereabouts (unless on special offer) of Bells, Grouse, et al..

There , isn't that good news? Don't rush to thank me.

We keep a bottle of grouse for anyone ill advised enough to put anything other than a drop of water in their whisky. Had it for years. The malts on the other hand....

Quite so, Mr. L. and generally speaking I prefer an Islay single malt myself. However, there are times when Laphroaig or such are too much and then I will take a blend. Until recently I thought the Irish whiskey's provided a better value for those times. However, and let us put snobbery aside here, the discovery of a blend that retails for £4 less than the big names but is still quite drinkable is, I think, jolly good news.

flightpath01 said:

Hah.
Rabid outers on here moan that negotiations are not worth anything since we will be QMV'd out of it, yet you say the EEA is fine for everything... Oh except they have no votes. A say without a vote is not worth a bucket of spit.

You ignore all reality because it suits your infantile ignorant prejudice. The EEA may well suit us, but nobody pretend it will be any different of magically better. And the likes of everyone currently employed on our car industry had better hope we would still protect our inward investment success.

And again. The man who lies consistently about the EU and EEA has a rant because he doesn't like it when he is called out and when his lies are countered with actual facts and quotes.

Perhaps your worthless dribbling reflects the fact that you really are too dumb to understand these issues.

RichardDodd/MalcolmG

Can you two no longer interact with each other directly or indirectly.

Your convervsations are tedious for everyone else to read.

If you two do want to talk to each other, we suggest you get a room.

Steven_Whaley said:

As things stand I'm very firmly in the Remain camp. Possibly the only thing that could swing me the other way is if David Cameron wins too many concessions for my liking. In that scenario I might start to feel that our remaining in was no longer in the interests of the EU - which would sadden me greatly.

In any case this is not going to be a referendum that'll enthuse me. The choice is going to be between a watered down membership and leaving altogether. These are my third and fourth preferences respectively (my first being increased integration and my second being the status quo).

You have my admiration Steven . I may disagree fundamentally with your views on wanting closer union and more integration but at least you are honest enough to actually make clear that is what you want. That is a perfectly valid and reasonable position - even if one with which I cannot agree.

Plato_Says said:

I still can't face reading the whole article, it makes me flinch - but I've just noticed how many times it's been shared directly from the DT website 14k - I've never seen another get that sort of message spreading. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

And the British Government wasn’t in talks with the IRA at the time? Covertly, of course.

surbiton said:

JohnLilburne said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Roger, no research, but I suspect many are supportive of Russia's action in Syria.

The way they are going about attacking the rebels shows that we are just poncing about when it comes to IS.

Why is that coming as a surprise to anybody ? Russia's main strategy is to shore up Assad. They have not hidden that. I am not sure why they would act as USA's lackey. The UK is there to play that role.

The IS is being bombarded by the "coalition" for over a year now. Are you saying that the USA and those heinous Gulf countries whose monetary and material support created IS in the first place are incapable of finishing IS ? That shows real weakness.

It is not the job of Russia to support US foreign policy.

Furthermore, Russia's strategy (the only viable strategy militarily) is to use a ground force (the Syrian army) to follow up on airstrikes and hold territory. Since the Coalition refused to work with the Syrian army, it's hardly surprising they've had 13 months and achieved the square route of f-all. In fact they've overseen a massive expansion of IS territory.

PBModerator said:

RichardDodd/MalcolmG

Can you two no longer interact with each other directly or indirectly.

Your convervsations are tedious for everyone else to read.

If you two do want to talk to each other, we suggest you get a room.

Gladly , they are tedious to me as well , he seems to have some obsession with me.

OldKingCole said:

HurstLlama said:

All a bit grumpy on here this morning however, I have news to cheer.

If you are drinking a blend the Co-Op's own label scotch is perfectly drinkable. Comfortably acceptable, especially with a mixer, with more famous household names and yet it retails for just £12.99 as opposed the £17 or thereabouts (unless on special offer) of Bells, Grouse, et al..

There , isn't that good news? Don't rush to thank me.

I’ve rather given up whisky as I get older. Find it gives me a headache too easily. East of England Co-op, on the other hand, has some extremely acceptable wines.

Yes even in our little village Co-op the wine racks are worth regular inspection. The best place for wine bargains that I have found in recent years though are the foreign retailers, Aldi and Lidl. They frequently have some very acceptable stuff for very low prices. I well remember the day when I found a good Vhino Verde (to which I am partial) for £2 a bottle. I would have bought their entire stick except that such wine has to be drunk quickly.

P.S. Given that you spent your working life dealing with the effects of chemicals on the human body, what do you think it is in whisky that now gives you a headache?

MikeK said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Steven_Whaley said:

As things stand I'm very firmly in the Remain camp. Possibly the only thing that could swing me the other way is if David Cameron wins too many concessions for my liking. In that scenario I might start to feel that our remaining in was no longer in the interests of the EU - which would sadden me greatly.

In any case this is not going to be a referendum that'll enthuse me. The choice is going to be between a watered down membership and leaving altogether. These are my third and fourth preferences respectively (my first being increased integration and my second being the status quo).

You have my admiration Steven . I may disagree fundamentally with your views on wanting closer union and more integration but at least you are honest enough to actually make clear that is what you want. That is a perfectly valid and reasonable position - even if one with which I cannot agree.

What Steven doesn't make clear is why he wants, so much, to be bound in the EU's embrace. I mean, whats in it for him besides eventual serfdom?

There is a perfectly honourable and long standing movement for federalism in Europe. I believe it is misguided and it is not something I would support but it is intellectually honest and is in stark contrast to those who try to pretend that we can be part of the EU and still have full, or even partial, control over our country.

Cyclefree said:

HurstLlama said:

All a bit grumpy on here this morning however, I have news to cheer.

If you are drinking a blend the Co-Op's own label scotch is perfectly drinkable. Comfortably acceptable, especially with a mixer, with more famous household names and yet it retails for just £12.99 as opposed the £17 or thereabouts (unless on special offer) of Bells, Grouse, et al..

There , isn't that good news? Don't rush to thank me.

That is very good news for drinkers of scotch. Sadly, they don't include me. Can't stand the stuff - or spirits generally. Champagne, on the other hand........

Not surprising - it's bottled at around 40% abv, so it's going to taste and smell like a spirity punch in the face at first. It's when you drink it a lot and get used to it that you don't notice that any more and you begin to discern all the other wonderful aromas and tastes, the caramels, spices, dried fruit, tinned peaches etc. etc. Attend a comparative whisky tasting if you get a chance.

DavidL said:

antifrank said:

Hyperbole alert:

@MSmithsonPB: @Owen_PattersonMP "EU referendum biggest political decision since reformation". What about Churchill cabinet decision to fight on in 1940?

It isn't even the first time we've been asked this question.

Arguably it isn't even the most important political decision this decade.

For some of us it does not even come close to a decision made just last year.

Tsk, I was thinking of the AV referendum.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

HurstLlama said:

All a bit grumpy on here this morning however, I have news to cheer.

If you are drinking a blend the Co-Op's own label scotch is perfectly drinkable. Comfortably acceptable, especially with a mixer, with more famous household names and yet it retails for just £12.99 as opposed the £17 or thereabouts (unless on special offer) of Bells, Grouse, et al..

There , isn't that good news? Don't rush to thank me.

That is very good news for drinkers of scotch. Sadly, they don't include me. Can't stand the stuff - or spirits generally. Champagne, on the other hand........

Not surprising - it's bottled at around 40% abv, so it's going to taste and smell like a spirity punch in the face at first. It's when you drink it a lot and get used to it that you don't notice that any more and you begin to discern all the other wonderful aromas and tastes, the caramels, spices, dried fruit, tinned peaches etc. etc. Attend a comparative whisky tasting if you get a chance.

I don't doubt you. I have tried. No good I'm afraid. I don't drink much alcohol generally, tbh. The same with olives, bizarrely (for an Italian, I mean) and honey. Cannot bear the taste or smell. Olive oil is fine though.

On the other hand, I love offal and delicacies such as calves' brains. Make of that what you will.

HurstLlama said:

OldKingCole said:

HurstLlama said:

All a bit grumpy on here this morning however, I have news to cheer.

If you are drinking a blend the Co-Op's own label scotch is perfectly drinkable. Comfortably acceptable, especially with a mixer, with more famous household names and yet it retails for just £12.99 as opposed the £17 or thereabouts (unless on special offer) of Bells, Grouse, et al..

There , isn't that good news? Don't rush to thank me.

I’ve rather given up whisky as I get older. Find it gives me a headache too easily. East of England Co-op, on the other hand, has some extremely acceptable wines.

Yes even in our little village Co-op the wine racks are worth regular inspection. The best place for wine bargains that I have found in recent years though are the foreign retailers, Aldi and Lidl. They frequently have some very acceptable stuff for very low prices. I well remember the day when I found a good Vhino Verde (to which I am partial) for £2 a bottle. I would have bought their entire stick except that such wine has to be drunk quickly.

P.S. Given that you spent your working life dealing with the effects of chemicals on the human body, what do you think it is in whisky that now gives you a headache?

I suspect, Mr L, that it’s not the whisky itself; it’s rather the failure of my brain cells to cope further, due to 60+ years of imbibing, and occasionally, especially in my early 20’s over-imbibing, assorted alcoholic drinks.

Our Wine Appreciation Group had a meeting devoted to Lidl wines recently. The reds selected were dood, and better than the whites. However the Monbaziiac was worthy of being classed as a dessert wine at £7.99 a full bottle.

OldKingCole said:

Plato_Says said:

I still can't face reading the whole article, it makes me flinch - but I've just noticed how many times it's been shared directly from the DT website 14k - I've never seen another get that sort of message spreading. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

And the British Government wasn’t in talks with the IRA at the time? Covertly, of course.

The British govt were not collaborating with the IRA like Corbyn was. The British government were when it mattered talking to the various parties, not just IRA .

Cyclefree said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Cyclefree said:

HurstLlama said:

All a bit grumpy on here this morning however, I have news to cheer.

If you are drinking a blend the Co-Op's own label scotch is perfectly drinkable. Comfortably acceptable, especially with a mixer, with more famous household names and yet it retails for just £12.99 as opposed the £17 or thereabouts (unless on special offer) of Bells, Grouse, et al..

There , isn't that good news? Don't rush to thank me.

That is very good news for drinkers of scotch. Sadly, they don't include me. Can't stand the stuff - or spirits generally. Champagne, on the other hand........

Not surprising - it's bottled at around 40% abv, so it's going to taste and smell like a spirity punch in the face at first. It's when you drink it a lot and get used to it that you don't notice that any more and you begin to discern all the other wonderful aromas and tastes, the caramels, spices, dried fruit, tinned peaches etc. etc. Attend a comparative whisky tasting if you get a chance.

I don't doubt you. I have tried. No good I'm afraid. I don't drink much alcohol generally, tbh. The same with olives, bizarrely (for an Italian, I mean) and honey. Cannot bear the taste or smell. Olive oil is fine though.

On the other hand, I love offal and delicacies such as calves' brains. Make of that what you will.

Ha! Well you have me beat on the offal front - love it all ground up with oats in haggis, but anything more organ looking (and tasting) isn't for me. Perhaps memories of being forced to eat liver at school.

Steven_Whaley said:

As things stand I'm very firmly in the Remain camp. Possibly the only thing that could swing me the other way is if David Cameron wins too many concessions for my liking. In that scenario I might start to feel that our remaining in was no longer in the interests of the EU - which would sadden me greatly.

In any case this is not going to be a referendum that'll enthuse me. The choice is going to be between a watered down membership and leaving altogether. These are my third and fourth preferences respectively (my first being increased integration and my second being the status quo).

I don't want this to come across as an aggressive 'f off then', because it's not what I am saying but you could always move to a country that is in the EU? If I felt as you do I would do that

OldKingCole said:

Plato_Says said:

I still can't face reading the whole article, it makes me flinch - but I've just noticed how many times it's been shared directly from the DT website 14k - I've never seen another get that sort of message spreading. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

And the British Government wasn’t in talks with the IRA at the time? Covertly, of course.

They may well have been. What they weren't doing was cheering at the killing of innocents like Roberta Wakeham, wife of the MP or Muriel McLean, wife of the Leader of the Scottish Conservatives, nor at the maiming of Mrs Tebbit, who suffers to this day and whose husband has had to watch the suffering of his beloved wife and care for her.

That is what this paper and those who wrote for it were doing. Corbyn was on the editorial board and takes responsibility for the editorial line taken by the publication. If you have a position of responsibility at the top of an organisation, you take responsibility - if you are a grown up with a sense of responsibility, that is - for what it does. If you don't like it or disagree with it, you argue your corner and in the last analysis you resign if there is a disagreement with which you cannot live.

And that is why Corbyn is being criticised. He wants the freedom to say what he thinks. He wants the kudos from being thought of as someone who says what he thinks, no matter how unpalatable. And when people bring up his past actions he - and his supporters - moan like babies that he should not be held responsible for what he has said and done in the past, even though that is the alpha and omega of his appeal. It's both pathetic and morally repulsive.