We are an island offshore a continent, when that continent coalesces under a hegemon - Spain of the armada, Napoleonic France, Hitler's Germany - it generally means trouble for us.
That is true but the game is changing. Communications are getting better all the time and its getting easier and easier to develop relationships with countries far more amenable to Britain's outlook than Europe.
In fifty years a new age jet will take you to Sydney in two hours, Jo'burg in 45 minutes. That's the future. Lets turn France into a flyover state.
I hope you are right about the plane... It sounds really cool
I'm glad I will never fly at 5000mph. Any notion of what the ticket would cost? Its a preposterous notion to hang an anti French prejudice against. Just who are the countries where its easier to get a relationship better than our current allies? As far as I can see the Outer policy is to fall over themselves to create a whole list of new enemies.
Presumably this fancy airplane will be powered by the fusion reactors we've been waiting for since the 1960s?
As if any aircraft will be flying at 5000 mph. Military maybe, and probably unmanned, but passenger? No, not unless the self loading freight is wearing a G suit, and is willing to die in a quite spectacular way if anything goes wrong.
Suggest you read up about scramjets. This is real technology, not theoretical:
For some reason futurologists are obsessed with flying. In Back to the Future they thought we'd have flying cars in 2015 but still be using fax machines. The real revolution with the internet and mobile communications seems to have taken them by surprise.
Real leaps in technology will always take us by surprise. We can only predict incremental advances on technologies we already have - we cannot predict advances made on new technologies yet to be developed.
This is from the right-wing NY Observer, so caveats about the source. But if this is indeed true, things do not look good for Hillaryworld:
... "Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies."
She's still available to sell at 2.04 on Betfair for next President. I'd be selling all the way out to 2.4, maybe even to 2.5.
(Note in up to my eyeballs in this market, so may not be completely impartial.)
Why would the SoS be given the real names of people like this, CIA operatives abroad? Why would these names be on any email server? Despite everything - what has Hillary done. Has she divulged the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence? I am not a Hillary fan BTW, but its a poor indictment of the USA that she is the most plausible candidate for president.
I find it baffling that you have a hard time understanding why what she is alleged to have done in this article would be a problem for her either legally or politically.
I find it baffling that you think the SoS has access to all information all the time.... The idea that the SoS would want to have the names of people working undercover is utterly implausible....
Are you missing the point that this report is about emails on her server - i.e. emails sent to her in her official capacity? And what does her wanting the names have to do with anything? If emails identifying the names were on her private server in her house, then she is responsible for that information being there.
This is not 'access to all the information all the time', this is information alleged to have been sent to her and kept on her private server in her private home.
Why would secret names be bandies around on an email system? Especially one addressed to Hillary@athome.com. Of course it may have been - been though it seems strange, but why would the SoS want names of spies. And breaking the law involves giving the names to enemies not simply being aware of them.
I feel it would be much better for the site if people showed what they made the whole market to 100% when giving tips on events... it worries me that some people who aren't all that shrewd in betting terms give out tips willy nilly, without really knowing what the true price is, using some pseudo science / muggy guesswork
I think the fundamental problem with the EU deal is that it doesn't accommodate the clear parting of the ways between the UK (and a couple of other states) and the "core" of the EU, which still seems to be set out on a very different trajectory to us.
Ultimately there will have to be A Deal that establishes some kind of "associate membership" of the EU - for Britain, maybe some of the Scandinavian countries, perhaps ultimately Turkey and Ukraine - with appropriate safeguards to stop them being overwhelmed by the numerically and economically dominant core group on their path to deeper integration.
What Cameron is delivering is a deal, but it is not The Deal.
So it's just a can kicked down the road. For now, most of us may decide it is a kickable can. But at some point the can can be kicked no further, and even (most of) the more europhile politicians have enough sense to realise the British public have minimal truck with joining the euro, pooling much more sovereignty with our neighbours or entering a federal European system.
Like some others on here, I think in the Very Long Run it makes little difference whether we are on the fringes of the EU with an ever-increasing list of opt-outs, or in the EEA outside the EU. But we need to find a way to get there.
I think you make reasonable points, I don't go all the way with the detail but you make fair points.
On a 15-30 year timescale I can't see that the status quo has any chance of being sustainable, particularly if the political elite in core European countries (and to whatever extent they form a distinct group, the economic and policy elite) maintains an appetite for deeper integration. There's no sign that drivers for further pooling of sovereignty are going to go away: the financial crisis revealed structural issues in the Eurozone that call for deeper economic integration, the migration crisis revealed structural issues with a "borderless Europe" that call for deeper political integration, and no doubt future events will provide motivation, justification or excuses aplenty for binding more tightly what is at present a rather cobbled-together and ad hoc (hence at times incoherent and ineffective) semi-federation.
Cameron's deal doesn't make a smidgeon of difference to this kind of big picture. My fear is that unless The Deal happens somewhat pre-emptively - not necessarily immediately, but soonish - then the great drift of events may pull the UK along on a current that sets us in a kind of union pretty much nobody intended us to be drawn into. And big renegotiations can occur once every how many years? In that sense this is a chance missed and maybe a vital one.
We are an island offshore a continent, when that continent coalesces under a hegemon - Spain of the armada, Napoleonic France, Hitler's Germany - it generally means trouble for us.
That is true but the game is changing. Communications are getting better all the time and its getting easier and easier to develop relationships with countries far more amenable to Britain's outlook than Europe.
In fifty years a new age jet will take you to Sydney in two hours, Jo'burg in 45 minutes. That's the future. Lets turn France into a flyover state.
I hope you are right about the plane... It sounds really cool
I'm glad I will never fly at 5000mph. Any notion of what the ticket would cost? Its a preposterous notion to hang an anti French prejudice against. Just who are the countries where its easier to get a relationship better than our current allies? As far as I can see the Outer policy is to fall over themselves to create a whole list of new enemies.
Presumably this fancy airplane will be powered by the fusion reactors we've been waiting for since the 1960s?
As if any aircraft will be flying at 5000 mph. Military maybe, and probably unmanned, but passenger? No, not unless the self loading freight is wearing a G suit, and is willing to die in a quite spectacular way if anything goes wrong.
Suggest you read up about scramjets. This is real technology, not theoretical:
I know a bit about Scramjets. I don't think they've managed to get one running for more than 5 minutes.
They remain experimental, and are unlikely to be used for passenger aircraft, but for military purposes. Do you think a human could survive the acceleration, or the G forces exerted on the body of a sudden change in direction at those velocities?
I'm still not keen '' Mach 5 at 15 miles up. At that point, it is 20 per cent of the distance to orbit, and the thinning air allows it to switch to “pure” rocket mode, burning liquid oxygen fuel, at which point it can hit the velocity required to escape Earth’s atmosphere – Mach 25, or 16,250mph.''
I do not see this as a gateway to a New Anglophone Century. Jolly good wheeze that it may be.
I disagree. We get nothing out of this acknowledgment (or statement of the bleeding obvious, as it might also be known). Laws can still be imposed on us without our consent and we can now be discriminated against. So being in that outer ring brings us no advantages beyond what we already have now and one pretty appalling disadvantage, an acceptance that we can be discriminated against. Why is that an advantage to us?
It depends what you mean by an advantage.
In a formal sense, compared with what we could have negotiated before Blair and Brown threw away most of the vetos and other bargaining chips, it's poor. Compared with the immediate post-Lisbon situation, where ever-closer union was built into the treaties and we were theoretically at least all moving in the same direction, albeit at different speeds, it's an improvement.
In a practical sense, and admittedly somewhat optimistically, I think this could mark the beginning of a change of approach. Rather than seeing us as deadweights impeding what they want to do (and everyone agrees the Eurozone has severe structural issues), it provides a route by which, without losing face, they can get on with their ever-closer union and not involve us. It will be so much easier for them to do so that I'm moderately confident that that is how it will work out.
I can see why that is an advantage for the Eurozone.
Now let's have some forensic questions and some specific answers in relation to the consequences for Britain.
1. What does Britain get out of this? 2. Specifically, why are we agreeing that we can be discriminated against? 3. Why is that good for Britain? 4. What does the phrase "objective reasons" mean? 5. Who defines this? 6. Is this phrase justiciable by the ECJ? 7. Has such a phrase been used in any other EU treaty, agreement or other document? 8. If so, has it been interpreted by the ECJ? 9. What was that interpretation?
I hope you would agree that I am not a frothing BOO'er.
But an "optimistic mark of a beginning of a change of approach" strikes me as so much p*ss and wind, I have to say. And far from "practical" in any sense of the word I understand.
The wording is a bit of face-saving nonsense for us crafted by civil servants congratulating themselves on the cleverness of their wordsmithery. I had to deal with these types when I was working in government at the time of the Single European Act. Getting a trustworthy practical and verifiable answer out of them was like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
In a practical sense, and admittedly somewhat optimistically, I think this could mark the beginning of a change of approach. Rather than seeing us as deadweights impeding what they want to do (and everyone agrees the Eurozone has severe structural issues), it provides a route by which, without losing face, they can get on with their ever-closer union and not involve us. It will be so much easier for them to do so that I'm moderately confident that that is how it will work out.
The interesting bit here is that a number of prominent euro federalists have been pushing for a two speed Europe for quite a long time. It's what Jacques Delor calls "Priviledged Partnership". It was on the table, but Cameron didn't take it, he wanted to "dock" the UK with the EU.
They were, accordingly, prepared to make big concessions to the British leader. Jacques Delors emerged from retirement to propose a “privileged partnership” for Britain, based on free movement of goods and services but not political integration. Guy Verhofstadt, the federalist Euro-liberal leader, made a similar offer, calling it “associate membership”.
But, to the incredulity of Continental Europhiles, David Cameron is pushing only for token changes, most of which can be achieved through domestic legislation without requiring treaty change. He has ruled out campaigning to leave the EU. He has told Jean-Claude Juncker that he intends to use the referendum to, as the President of the European Commission puts it, “dock Britain to the EU”.
Why would secret names be bandies around on an email system? Especially one addressed to Hillary@athome.com. Of course it may have been - been though it seems strange, but why would the SoS want names of spies. And breaking the law involves giving the names to enemies not simply being aware of them.
No, mishandling classified information is a crime in its own right - she does not have to had knowingly - or even unwittingly - given the names to enemies of the state in order to have committed a crime. It is a crime to handle classified information in a manner in which it could (not even would) be compromised.
I have no idea why the email included the real names of intelligence assets. But it is obvious why the SoS in the course of her duties would receive intelligence information, and information about the reliability of the intelligence source. The whole point of this scandal is that she made a conscious decision to conduct ALL her official email communications through her own personal email on a private server in her private home.
Given that this was a conscious decision of hers, if it is now proved that she allowed classified information to be sent to her and then stored it on this unsecure system, then she committed a crime.
If she thought this information was not classified, she may not have committed any crime more serious than gross incompetence, but as yet that is not a federal felony. Even in that case, one or more of her close aides may be going to prison for unauthorized declassification of material and transmission of the same over unsecure comms.
Why would secret names be bandies around on an email system? Especially one addressed to Hillary@athome.com. Of course it may have been - been though it seems strange, but why would the SoS want names of spies. And breaking the law involves giving the names to enemies not simply being aware of them.
No, mishandling classified information is a crime in its own right - she does not have to had knowingly - or even unwittingly - given the names to enemies of the state in order to have committed a crime. It is a crime to handle classified information in a manner in which it could (not even would) be compromised.
Snip
Doesn't she have a cast-iron defence, as pioneering by Richard Nixon: It's not illegal if the Secretary of State does it.
'Even just a smart leader, wouldn't need to be Eurosceptic. There are some out and out lies coming from the Tory leadership at the moment. The "red card" isn't like any red card in sport, the migrant deal is worthless and the non-EMU protections are worthless however much Richard N likes to dress it up.'
Yes. For the second time in the last 25 years the Conservative leadership is perpetrating a massive fraud about the EU on the voters.
Last time, we had careerist/airhead (delete as applicable) Tory MPs queueing up to tell us what a great deal for the UK Maastricht was, and how it 'would put the break on [EU] Federalism'.
And we had that nice Mr.Major being all soothing to the public while the whips and party machine ruthlessly bullied MPs who dissented.
Spot the difference with now. It's exactly the same playbook.
Indeed: it is the fundamental dishonesty which is so corrosive of trust. The EU itself is quite open about its aims. Commendably so. Those who support it here should be equally frank. They are not, on the whole. The reason they are not is because they believe that, if they were, they would not get the support. They may be right but I wonder.
But that dishonesty - and we see it now with this so-called deal - which gives us nothing at all of any substance risks ultimately dooming the whole project of anchoring Britain in the EU. But still the long term is pretty long term and Cameron has a referendum to win, so who cares, eh?
It's depressing for those of us who want Europe to work effectively and to deal with the issues on its borders: wars, deep instability, severe risks from deeply hostile terrorist organisations, mass migration, challenges from the last two to European culture and values (in their widest sense), a hostile and defensive Russia, as well as the economic challenges around the globe.
Just once in a while, could you post something that is completely bat-shit crazy? It's kinda dispiriting for the rest of us to see post after post that is so well-argued and completely on the money....
It's also dispiriting that no politician seems to have half your intuition.
I did get rather taken to task when I suggested that men in Germany should be put under curfew rather than women.
Mind you, that's not bat-shit crazy but utter common-sense.....
Have you a link to the Major letter? Would make interesting reading with the passage of time.
"STATEMENT ON ARTICLE 118A OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY:
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
However, in its judgement today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118a cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are being undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118a which properly belong under the other Member States' Agreement on Social Policy.
I am sending copies of this letter to Heads of State or Government of European Union Member States."
We are an island offshore a continent, when that continent coalesces under a hegemon - Spain of the armada, Napoleonic France, Hitler's Germany - it generally means trouble for us.
That is true but the game is changing. Communications are getting better all the time and its getting easier and easier to develop relationships with countries far more amenable to Britain's outlook than Europe.
In fifty years a new age jet will take you to Sydney in two hours, Jo'burg in 45 minutes. That's the future. Lets turn France into a flyover state.
I hope you are right about the plane... It sounds really cool
I'm glad I will never fly at 5000mph. Any notion of what the ticket would cost? Its a preposterous notion to hang an anti French prejudice against. Just who are the countries where its easier to get a relationship better than our current allies? As far as I can see the Outer policy is to fall over themselves to create a whole list of new enemies.
Presumably this fancy airplane will be powered by the fusion reactors we've been waiting for since the 1960s?
....
Vacuum energy, zero point energy. Thats the way forward! If it exists of course.
I can see why that is an advantage for the Eurozone.
Now let's have some forensic questions and some specific answers in relation to the consequences for Britain.
1. What does Britain get out of this? 2. Specifically, why are we agreeing that we can be discriminated against? 3. Why is that good for Britain? 4. What does the phrase "objective reasons" mean? 5. Who defines this? 6. Is this phrase justiciable by the ECJ? 7. Has such a phrase been used in any other EU treaty, agreement or other document? 8. If so, has it been interpreted by the ECJ? 9. What was that interpretation?
I hope you would agree that I am not a frothing BOO'er.
But an "optimistic mark of a beginning of a change of approach" strikes me as so much p*ss and wind, I have to say. And far from "practical" in any sense of the word I understand.
The wording is a bit of face-saving nonsense for us crafted by civil servants congratulating themselves on the cleverness of their wordsmithery. I had to deal with these types when I was working in government at the time of the Single European Act. Getting a trustworthy practical and verifiable answer out of them was like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
You seem obsessed by that one minor phrase "objective reasons", ignoring all the rest. There's no such thing as verifiable answer, it's a document worded in such a way as to have a decent chance of being agreed by 28 countries. It does, however, mark IMO a change of direction, which in the circumstances - the very poor negotiating hand Cameron was bequeathed - is better than nothing.
Is it perfect? No, of course not. Can I guarantee that things will work out in my optimistic scenario? No, of course not.
But all these considerations apply, in even greater quantity and hugely greater uncertainty, if we vote leave. I remain totally baffled by the fact that people are dissecting this document in minute detail and with huge mistrust, and completely ignoring the fact that we re being asked to vote for a situation where we'd be negotiating with the same, apparently untrustworthy, partners, on exactly the same issues, if we leave, without knowing even the faintest outline of what we'd be trying to agree with them.
Why would secret names be bandies around on an email system? Especially one addressed to Hillary@athome.com. Of course it may have been - been though it seems strange, but why would the SoS want names of spies. And breaking the law involves giving the names to enemies not simply being aware of them.
No, mishandling classified information is a crime in its own right - she does not have to had knowingly - or even unwittingly - given the names to enemies of the state in order to have committed a crime. It is a crime to handle classified information in a manner in which it could (not even would) be compromised.
I have no idea why the email included the real names of intelligence assets. But it is obvious why the SoS in the course of her duties would receive intelligence information, and information about the reliability of the intelligence source. The whole point of this scandal is that she made a conscious decision to conduct ALL her official email communications through her own personal email on a private server in her private home.
Given that this was a conscious decision of hers, if it is now proved that she allowed classified information to be sent to her and then stored it on this unsecure system, then she committed a crime.
If she thought this information was not classified, she may not have committed any crime more serious than gross incompetence, but as yet that is not a federal felony. Even in that case, one or more of her close aides may be going to prison for unauthorized declassification of material and transmission of the same over unsecure comms.
Anyone else would have been clamped in irons and hauled off to prison to await trial a long time ago. Clinton's getting special treatment.
Why would secret names be bandies around on an email system? Especially one addressed to Hillary@athome.com. Of course it may have been - been though it seems strange, but why would the SoS want names of spies. And breaking the law involves giving the names to enemies not simply being aware of them.
No, mishandling classified information is a crime in its own right - she does not have to had knowingly - or even unwittingly - given the names to enemies of the state in order to have committed a crime. It is a crime to handle classified information in a manner in which it could (not even would) be compromised.
I have no idea why the email included the real names of intelligence assets. But it is obvious why the SoS in the course of her duties would receive intelligence information, and information about the reliability of the intelligence source. The whole point of this scandal is that she made a conscious decision to conduct ALL her official email communications through her own personal email on a private server in her private home.
Given that this was a conscious decision of hers, if it is now proved that she allowed classified information to be sent to her and then stored it on this unsecure system, then she committed a crime.
If she thought this information was not classified, she may not have committed any crime more serious than gross incompetence, but as yet that is not a federal felony. Even in that case, one or more of her close aides may be going to prison for unauthorized declassification of material and transmission of the same over unsecure comms.
Genuine question as I've not followed this as much as perhaps I should have - but is it known that the private server was unsecure (rather than just not secured by the Feds) or does she have a plausible defence along the lines of 'I didn't trust the integrity of the SoS email system, so used my own system as it was more secure and less prone to be hacked' - Cue examples of using strong PGPEncryption etc. on it.
But all these considerations apply, in even greater quantity and hugely greater uncertainty, if we vote leave. I remain totally baffled by the fact that people are dissecting this document in minute detail and with huge mistrust, and completely ignoring the fact that we re being asked to vote for a situation where we'd be negotiating with the same, apparently untrustworthy, partners, on exactly the same issues, if we leave, without knowing even the faintest outline of what we'd be trying to agree with them.
Partners which wanted to offer us a trade-only outer-ring arrangement, and were turned down by Cameron.
Why would secret names be bandies around on an email system? Especially one addressed to Hillary@athome.com. Of course it may have been - been though it seems strange, but why would the SoS want names of spies. And breaking the law involves giving the names to enemies not simply being aware of them.
No, mishandling classified information is a crime in its own right - she does not have to had knowingly - or even unwittingly - given the names to enemies of the state in order to have committed a crime. It is a crime to handle classified information in a manner in which it could (not even would) be compromised.
Snip
Doesn't she have a cast-iron defence, as pioneering by Richard Nixon: It's not illegal if the Secretary of State does it.
the great Tory Euro split, the one that was supposed to be on a par with the Repeal of the Corn Laws, has been called off.
That is not to say the party is united. Dozens of Tory MPs will vote to leave the EU, and at some point the debate may get bitter and unpleasant. If the Conservative party were in the midst of an existential crisis, and about to tear itself apart on this great issue of principle, then at this point - with Cameron’s renegotiation virtually over - the fissure would open up in the House of Commons. The Out bandwagon would be rolling, and passions would not running high. But it isn’t, and they’re not. If anything, momentum is with the In side. (Look at what Theresa May said last night.) Not only is there no need to dig out the Robert Peel biographies; this doesn’t even seem to compare with Maastricht.
There may be an entire dissertation to be written about why the great Tory Euro split has fizzled out but here is a quick summary of some of the people/factors who can take the credit/blame.
Mark Reckless, Ukip, and Nigel Farage - because if Reckless had kept his seat at the election, or Ukip had done better, then defecting to an anti-EU party might be a realistic career option for Conservative MPs. Now it isn’t.
First past the post - because, without FPTP, a rightwing, anti-EU party would be electorally viable.
Ed Miliband and Labour - because if Labour were in government, and holding a referendum, Tory MPs would probably find backing the No campaign much more appealing. So Miliband contributed a) by losing the election and b) by virtually ruling out one if he had won.
David Cameron - because he seems to be doing a reasonably good job of containing his ministerial EU rebels.
Of these four factors, FPTP is probably the most important.
Why would secret names be bandies around on an email system? Especially one addressed to Hillary@athome.com. Of course it may have been - been though it seems strange, but why would the SoS want names of spies. And breaking the law involves giving the names to enemies not simply being aware of them.
No, mishandling classified information is a crime in its own right - she does not have to had knowingly - or even unwittingly - given the names to enemies of the state in order to have committed a crime. It is a crime to handle classified information in a manner in which it could (not even would) be compromised.
I have no idea why the email included the real names of intelligence assets. But it is obvious why the SoS in the course of her duties would receive intelligence information, and information about the reliability of the intelligence source. The whole point of this scandal is that she made a conscious decision to conduct ALL her official email communications through her own personal email on a private server in her private home.
Given that this was a conscious decision of hers, if it is now proved that she allowed classified information to be sent to her and then stored it on this unsecure system, then she committed a crime.
If she thought this information was not classified, she may not have committed any crime more serious than gross incompetence, but as yet that is not a federal felony. Even in that case, one or more of her close aides may be going to prison for unauthorized declassification of material and transmission of the same over unsecure comms.
Genuine question as I've not followed this as much as perhaps I should have - but is it known that the private server was unsecure (rather than just not secured by the Feds) or does she have a plausible defence along the lines of 'I didn't trust the integrity of the SoS email system, so used my own system as it was more secure and less prone to be hacked' - Cue examples of using strong PGPEncryption etc. on it.
The SoS Email Servers are secured by the NSA, the best in the world at that job, the odds that a off the shelf box sitting in her house was better secured seem on the thin side. In any case to be a secure server within the terms of the law, it has to fall within the governments definition of "secure" which almost certainly starts with the requirement to be on government premises and gets more demanding from then on.
Have you a link to the Major letter? Would make interesting reading with the passage of time.
"STATEMENT ON ARTICLE 118A OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY:
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
However, in its judgement today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118a cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are being undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118a which properly belong under the other Member States' Agreement on Social Policy.
I am sending copies of this letter to Heads of State or Government of European Union Member States."
It is amusing to see Richard admitting that the new memo doesn't provide any concrete protections but suggests a new directional spirit what we should take, and two posts below it a former PM complaining that the spirit of direction in previous treaties being wantonly ignored a few years down the line.
You appear to be experiencing some cognitive dissonance.. you claim to be in favour of LEAVE, and yet you are celebrating events which pretty much guarantee REMAIN. They also guarantee a lot of extremely pissed off voters, members and MPs when the agreement subsequently turns out to be meaningless flimflam.
FP01..I once had Barnes Wallis draw a small sketch for me which illustrated his idea for a vacuum powered aircraft....it had two long prongs going forward which he said would send a charge across which would compact the air in between them and thus create the vacuum..which the aircraft would then move into,, He gave me the sketch...which I have now lost..
You appear to be experiencing some cognitive dissonance.. you claim to be in favour of LEAVE, and yet you are celebrating events which pretty much guarantee REMAIN. They also guarantee a lot of extremely pissed off voters, members and MPs when the agreement subsequently turns out to be meaningless flimflam.
Nope, I'm hoping the party remains united whatever the outcome.
The party is more likely to split after a win for Remain.
Partners which wanted to offer us a trade-only outer-ring arrangement, and were turned down by Cameron.
With all due respect to Dan Hannan, whom I much admire, I really don't think he can be cited as a reliable independent source on the pros and cons of a suggestion, which wasn't even a formal suggestion.
Partners which wanted to offer us a trade-only outer-ring arrangement, and were turned down by Cameron.
With all due respect to Dan Hannan, whom I much admire, I really don't think he can be cited as a reliable independent source on the pros and cons of a suggestion, which wasn't even a formal suggestion.
Do you have evidence to refute it, or you discount it because you disagree with it ? You could listen to Verhofstadt
I asked a question of Remainers yesterday that went unanswered, namely:
If we leave, what will EU countries stop buying and selling us?
You see, I have suppliers, if I tell them I'm going elsewhere they never, ever, put their prices up.
We will continue to trade I would have thought. The costs of trading from outside a trading block will be more complex and costly, but the common standards we have now would surely be maintained. I would think that over time less direct outside investment would come our way and more go to the EU. But if we joined the EEA and agreed to all the single market rules then trading would be little different. In those circumstances I do not see what all the frenetic fuss is about. The EU and Eurozone generating trade and income from within itself would have benefits to its growth. It would have to put up with a closer political union as well though.
As Finkenstein points put in The Times today though, the different strands of outers seem at odds over where they see their future to be.
It is amusing to see Richard admitting that the new memo doesn't provide any concrete protections but suggests a new directional spirit what we should take, and two posts below it a former PM complaining that the spirit of direction in previous treaties being wantonly ignored a few years down the line.
John Major's letter does not show it was 'wantonly ignored'. It says that the ECJ interpreted the article differently from what was intended. That could be for several reasons, such as the article not being drafted properly. John Major was therefore asking for a change to the article.
We'll never know what would have happened next, because a few months later the Blair government signed up to the Working Time Directive anyway.
The reason I am focusing on this is because you are saying that this is an improvement. I see a change which gives us no leverage over what the EZ does and nothing in return for giving up that leverage. Furthermore, for the first time it states that discrimination against an EU member is permitted. This is not a minor point. The whole raison d'etre of the EU is that there should be no discrimination on the basis of nationality or any other reason, as far as I can see. And now our better deal allows us to be discriminated against for "objective reasons" which no-one has yet been able to explain what they mean.
So either it's a meaningless phrase or it's been put in there for a reason. I go with the latter. I'm willing to bet that it's been put in there precisely in order to allow the EZ to make things tougher and more difficult for those not in the inner core, pour encourager les autres. And if that harms Britain, tant pis.
I accept that leaving will not be easy. I said as much yesterday.
But this deal is being sold to us as some great improvement on the current position. And those who run this argument should surely be able to explain why - in specific, quantifiable, concrete terms - it is an improvement. And those who negotiated this should be able to answer these questions. Any government lawyer - which I was - would have asked these questions (and many others). Any Minister - let alone the PM - should have asked these questions. Any senior negotiator should have asked. So what are the answers?
And if they didn't they were being negligent and are now talking out of their collective arses in saying that it achieves all they wanted.
Your emphasis on what Brown did pre-Lisbon is a bit irrelevant, frankly. Yes - he left Britain in a worse position. But Cameron made an elementary mistake in making it clear before the negotiations that he wanted Britain to stay in the EU. He gave away his best negotiating card. To get the best deal - even with a poor hand - you have to be prepared to walk away. The rest of the EU have never thought him serious about his concerns in the way that they knew that Mrs T was serious about her rebate negotiations. That's why after much work she eventually got something worthwhile and Cameron - on the evidence so far - has not. He has got the only thing he ever wanted: a fig leaf in order to be able to get past the referendum successfully before retiring.
This is not about Britain and the EU. This is about him ending his career with another successful vote. And it will no doubt work, as I have said. But let's not pretend that it's any more than that.
The sturm und drang will come once David has departed, in 2018 or so, and it begins to dawn on everyone that his deal was a dud, which fixed nothing, apart from his need to win a referendum, and that we are still subordinate to anything the EU wants to do. And, boy, will they want to do stuff - indeed we will find ourselves in a worse position, as the EU will be fairly sure we won't call another vote, and even if we do we will surely vote REMAIN, again.
By that time Dave will be gone. But that's when the bitterness and rancour will begin. It could be vicious.
Indeed, however I get the feeling some Tory MPs are backing Remain as not to rock the boat, which would be a mistake.
I asked a question of Remainers yesterday that went unanswered, namely:
If we leave, what will EU countries stop buying and selling us?
You see, I have suppliers, if I tell them I'm going elsewhere they never, ever, put their prices up.
We will continue to trade I would have thought. The costs of trading from outside a trading block will be more complex and costly, but the common standards we have now would surely be maintained. I would think that over time less direct outside investment would come our way and more go to the EU. But if we joined the EEA and agreed to all the single market rules then trading would be little different. In those circumstances I do not see what all the frenetic fuss is about. The EU and Eurozone generating trade and income from within itself would have benefits to its growth. It would have to put up with a closer political union as well though.
As Finkenstein points put in The Times today though, the different strands of outers seem at odds over where they see their future to be.
Oh right, so if we leave trade WON'T be affected. That contradicts the very basis of the Remain argument.
I am now beginning to understand just how tedious the Scottish independence debates we had on here were for people who were not that interested in them.
For some reason futurologists are obsessed with flying. In Back to the Future they thought we'd have flying cars in 2015 but still be using fax machines. The real revolution with the internet and mobile communications seems to have taken them by surprise.
Why would secret names be bandies around on an email system? Especially one addressed to Hillary@athome.com. Of course it may have been - been though it seems strange, but why would the SoS want names of spies. And breaking the law involves giving the names to enemies not simply being aware of them.
No, mishandling classified information is a crime in its own right - she does not have to had knowingly - or even unwittingly - given the names to enemies of the state in order to have committed a crime. It is a crime to handle classified information in a manner in which it could (not even would) be compromised.
I have no idea why the email included the real names of intelligence assets. But it is obvious why the SoS in the course of her duties would receive intelligence information, and information about the reliability of the intelligence source. The whole point of this scandal is that she made a conscious decision to conduct ALL her official email communications through her own personal email on a private server in her private home.
Given that this was a conscious decision of hers, if it is now proved that she allowed classified information to be sent to her and then stored it on this unsecure system, then she committed a crime.
If she thought this information was not classified, she may not have committed any crime more serious than gross incompetence, but as yet that is not a federal felony. Even in that case, one or more of her close aides may be going to prison for unauthorized declassification of material and transmission of the same over unsecure comms.
Genuine question as I've not followed this as much as perhaps I should have - but is it known that the private server was unsecure (rather than just not secured by the Feds) or does she have a plausible defence along the lines of 'I didn't trust the integrity of the SoS email system, so used my own system as it was more secure and less prone to be hacked' - Cue examples of using strong PGPEncryption etc. on it.
Whether or not it was secure is irrelevant if it was not secured by federal authorities. If it were secured by a private company in terms of encryption, what security clearance do the employees have, and which federal authority certified the encryption as secure? And for the server, how was the server secured both physically and electronically?
The simple answer is that, legally, a server would be considered unsecure unless secured by federal personnel according to federal protocols.
With regards to the question as to whether in fact it was technically secure, that has not been disclosed officially, but there are any number of 'experts' out there saying definitively that it was not.
I am now beginning to understand just how tedious the Scottish independence debates we had on here were for people who were not that interested in them.
It is amusing to see Richard admitting that the new memo doesn't provide any concrete protections but suggests a new directional spirit what we should take, and two posts below it a former PM complaining that the spirit of direction in previous treaties being wantonly ignored a few years down the line.
John Major's letter does not show it was 'wantonly ignored'. It says that the ECJ interpreted the article differently from what was intended.
We are getting into irregular verb territory with this.
But this deal is being sold to us as some great improvement on the current position.
No, it's not, at least not by me. It's a minor improvement, the best (in this respect) attainable in the circumstances. (As I've already said, I'm surprised that more wasn't achieved on the Benefits issue).
But you can ignore all that, and for the sake of argument simply say it makes no difference at all. Fair enough. Every single one of my questions about the alternative - much bigger questions - still applies.
I am now beginning to understand just how tedious the Scottish independence debates we had on here were for people who were not that interested in them.
I think you might have found the Remain campaign's magic bullet:
"Vote Leave for two years of incessant banging on about Europe"
Genuine question as I've not followed this as much as perhaps I should have - but is it known that the private server was unsecure (rather than just not secured by the Feds) or does she have a plausible defence along the lines of 'I didn't trust the integrity of the SoS email system, so used my own system as it was more secure and less prone to be hacked' - Cue examples of using strong PGPEncryption etc. on it.
Whether or not it was secure is irrelevant if it was not secured by federal authorities. If it were secured by a private company in terms of encryption, what security clearance do the employees have, and which federal authority certified the encryption as secure? And for the server, how was the server secured both physically and electronically?
The simple answer is that, legally, a server would be considered unsecure unless secured by federal personnel according to federal protocols.
With regards to the question as to whether in fact it was technically secure, that has not been disclosed officially, but there are any number of 'experts' out there saying definitively that it was not.
Thanks - it was more a technical question then a legal question but certainly the more I hear about this the more I am shocked that there is not more of an issue being made of it.
I am now beginning to understand just how tedious the Scottish independence debates we had on here were for people who were not that interested in them.
I think you might have found the Remain campaign's magic bullet:
"Vote Leave for two years of incessant banging on about Europe"
I hope you are similarly sanguine when the voters blame the Tories for leading them up the garden path in a year or so. As I said earlier, I disagree with Cameron for his europhilia, but I despise him for his dishonesty and lack of principle. This deal at best offers nothing, and as Miss CycleFree has pointed out could leave us worse off, and yet Cameron jumps around like he has brought home the holy grail. If the EU makes a large move toward federalism in the next couple of years, or enacts something that disadvantages the City, the Tories are going to get the blame.. better hope Labour hasn't managed to move Corbyn on in the mean time.
The reason I am focusing on this is because you are saying that this is an improvement. I see a change which gives us no leverage over what the EZ does and nothing in return for giving up that leverage. Furthermore, for the first time it states that discrimination against an EU member is permitted. This is not a minor point. The whole raison d'etre of the EU is that there should be no discrimination on the basis of nationality or any other reason, as far as I can see. And now our better deal allows us to be discriminated against for "objective reasons" which no-one has yet been able to explain what they mean.
So either it's a meaningless phrase or it's been put in there for a reason. I go with the latter. I'm willing to bet that it's been put in there precisely in order to allow the EZ to make things tougher and more difficult for those not in the inner core, pour encourager les autres. And if that harms Britain, tant pis.
I accept that leaving will not be easy. I said as much yesterday.
But this deal is being sold to us as some great improvement on the current position. And those who run this argument should surely be able to explain why - in specific, quantifiable, concrete terms - it is an improvement. And those who negotiated this should be able to answer these questions. Any government lawyer - which I was - would have asked these questions (and many others). Any Minister - let alone the PM - should have asked these questions. Any senior negotiator should have asked. So what are the answers?
And if they didn't they were being negligent and are now talking out of their collective arses in saying that it achieves all they wanted.
Your emphasis on what Brown did pre-Lisbon is a bit irrelevant, frankly. Yes - he left Britain in a worse position. But Cameron made an elementary mistake in making it clear before the negotiations that he wanted Britain to stay in the EU. He gave away his best negotiating card. To get the best deal - even with a poor hand - you have to be prepared to walk away. The rest of the EU have never thought him serious about his concerns in the way that they knew that Mrs T was serious about her rebate negotiations. That's why after much work she eventually got something worthwhile and Cameron - on the evidence so far - has not. He has got the only thing he ever wanted: a fig leaf in order to be able to get past the referendum successfully before retiring.
This is not about Britain and the EU. This is about him ending his career with another successful vote. And it will no doubt work, as I have said. But let's not pretend that it's any more than that.
I don't suppose you've changed Richard Nabavi's mind, but you've sure as hell convinced me!
But this deal is being sold to us as some great improvement on the current position.
No, it's not, at least not by me. It's a minor improvement, the best (in this respect) attainable in the circumstances. (As I've already said, I'm surprised that more wasn't achieved on the Benefits issue).
But you can ignore all that, and for the sake of argument simply say it makes no difference at all. Fair enough. Every single one of my questions about the alternative - much bigger questions - still applies.
Maybe not by you. But by Cameron. I do think more might have been achieved if Cameron had been tougher and more focused on the start and not got distracted by a benefits issue which is largely in the UK's control.
I agree re the Leave alternative. This is why I think this is a difficult issue. But I have already set out at (probably) too much length my approach to this issue, which is not really impacted very much by this bit of flim-flam.
We are an island offshore a continent, when that continent coalesces under a hegemon - Spain of the armada, Napoleonic France, Hitler's Germany - it generally means trouble for us.
That is true but the game is changing. Communications are getting better all the time and its getting easier and easier to develop relationships with countries far more amenable to Britain's outlook than Europe.
In fifty years a new age jet will take you to Sydney in two hours, Jo'burg in 45 minutes. That's the future. Lets turn France into a flyover state.
I hope you are right about the plane... It sounds really cool
I'm glad I will never fly at 5000mph. Any notion of what the ticket would cost? Its a preposterous notion to hang an anti French prejudice against. Just who are the countries where its easier to get a relationship better than our current allies? As far as I can see the Outer policy is to fall over themselves to create a whole list of new enemies.
Presumably this fancy airplane will be powered by the fusion reactors we've been waiting for since the 1960s?
As if any aircraft will be flying at 5000 mph. Military maybe, and probably unmanned, but passenger? No, not unless the self loading freight is wearing a G suit, and is willing to die in a quite spectacular way if anything goes wrong.
Suggest you read up about scramjets. This is real technology, not theoretical:
I know a bit about Scramjets. I don't think they've managed to get one running for more than 5 minutes.
They remain experimental, and are unlikely to be used for passenger aircraft, but for military purposes. Do you think a human could survive the acceleration, or the G forces exerted on the body of a sudden change in direction at those velocities?
They don't need to accelerate that fast. The fastest cars go 0-60mph in less than 3 seconds, that is 1200 mph per minute. So to get to 8000mph would take 7.5 minutes or so at that acceleration. Are you suggesting that people need G suits to drive a Koenigsegg? I'd suggest that's a pushed into the back of the seat thrill rather than G suit level of acceleration.
Mr. Putney, the few times I've seen Javid on the TV he has been quite unimpressive. The last time my lightweight senses tingled this much was when I saw Andy Burnham on Question Time, and was perplexed by some who (at the time) rated him rather more highly.
'I'm willing to bet that it's been put in there precisely in order to allow the EZ to make things tougher and more difficult for those not in the inner core, pour encourager les autres'
Yes it's not hard to see the threat embodied in that clause.
More concretely, it is also the case that there is a strong school of thought in the EU that the current arrangements for both euro outs and the non-EU EEA members are too lenient i.e. they are seen as getting market access too easily, and should be pressured over time into a tighter arrangement with (and ultimately absorption into) the core.
Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum all dropping out. Great news for Ted Cruz to mop up tea party and evangelical support.
When did Santorum drop out ?
Boo, I wanted to do a Santorum surge thread.
You can do a Santorum Dump thread instead
I like your thinking.
If Santorum is not on offer perhaps people will look again at Bush?
Heh, I am indeed. I'm asking a few bookies to price up the odds of a brokered convention for a thread this Sunday.
Question is, how do you get to a brokered convention? You really need at least three candidates to be running roughly level after Super Tuesday and then for a good while afterwards. That's possible but unlikely. The primary campaign has all the dynamics of an unstable equilibrium, where those furthest from the average position accelerate fastest, either towards the nomination or out of contention.
And if there are three candidates who all fail to reach the necessary delegate total by June, how then do you reach a position where *none* of them becomes the nominee? The days of deadlocked conventions were pre-primaries, when candidates didn't have millions of votes in their back pocket as mandates.
We are an island offshore a continent, when that continent coalesces under a hegemon - Spain of the armada, Napoleonic France, Hitler's Germany - it generally means trouble for us.
That is true but the game is changing. Communications are getting better all the time and its getting easier and easier to develop relationships with countries far more amenable to Britain's outlook than Europe.
In fifty years a new age jet will take you to Sydney in two hours, Jo'burg in 45 minutes. That's the future. Lets turn France into a flyover state.
I hope you are right about the plane... It sounds really cool
I'm glad I will never fly at 5000mph. Any notion of what the ticket would cost? Its a preposterous notion to hang an anti French prejudice against. Just who are the countries where its easier to get a relationship better than our current allies? As far as I can see the Outer policy is to fall over themselves to create a whole list of new enemies.
Presumably this fancy airplane will be powered by the fusion reactors we've been waiting for since the 1960s?
As if any aircraft will be flying at 5000 mph. Military maybe, and probably unmanned, but passenger? No, not unless the self loading freight is wearing a G suit, and is willing to die in a quite spectacular way if anything goes wrong.
Suggest you read up about scramjets. This is real technology, not theoretical:
I know a bit about Scramjets. I don't think they've managed to get one running for more than 5 minutes.
They remain experimental, and are unlikely to be used for passenger aircraft, but for military purposes. Do you think a human could survive the acceleration, or the G forces exerted on the body of a sudden change in direction at those velocities?
They don't need to accelerate that fast. The fastest cars go 0-60mph in less than 3 seconds, that is 1200 mph per minute. So to get to 8000mph would take 7.5 minutes or so at that acceleration. Are you suggesting that people need G suits to drive a Koenigsegg? I'd suggest that's a pushed into the back of the seat thrill rather than G suit level of acceleration.
Edit: as for unlikely to be used for passenger aircraft, it seems the industry almost unanimously disagrees with you.
1 standard gravity is approximately 22mph/s. So 0-60 in 3 seconds is barely over 1g. It the same force that you would feel jumping off a table, a g-suit might be a little extreme.
More concretely, it is also the case that there is a strong school of thought in the EU that the current arrangements for both euro outs and the non-EU EEA members are too lenient i.e. they are seen as getting market access too easily, and should be pressured over time into a tighter arrangement with (and ultimately absorption into) the core.
Good point, hence the protection now being built in:
Legal acts, including intergovernmental agreements between Member States, directly linked to the functioning of the euro area shall respect the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion, and shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States
Incidentally, I think the 'objective reasons' sentence might have been misconstrued:
Discrimination between natural or legal persons based on the official currency of the Member State, or, as the case may be, the currency that has legal tender in the Member State, where they are established is prohibited. Any difference of treatment must be based on objective reasons.
Taking the two sentences together, I read that as possibly meaning 'objective reasons other than the currency', but it would be useful to get clarification. Any MPs reading this?
Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum all dropping out. Great news for Ted Cruz to mop up tea party and evangelical support.
When did Santorum drop out ?
Boo, I wanted to do a Santorum surge thread.
You can do a Santorum Dump thread instead
I like your thinking.
If Santorum is not on offer perhaps people will look again at Bush?
Heh, I am indeed. I'm asking a few bookies to price up the odds of a brokered convention for a thread this Sunday.
Question is, how do you get to a brokered convention? You really need at least three candidates to be running roughly level after Super Tuesday and then for a good while afterwards. That's possible but unlikely. The primary campaign has all the dynamics of an unstable equilibrium, where those furthest from the average position accelerate fastest, either towards the nomination or out of contention.
And if there are three candidates who all fail to reach the necessary delegate total by June, how then do you reach a position where *none* of them becomes the nominee? The days of deadlocked conventions were pre-primaries, when candidates didn't have millions of votes in their back pocket as mandates.
Cruz takes Texas and some southern states, Trump scores New Hampshire, South Carolina and some more, Rubio takes some.
1 standard gravity is approximately 22mph/s. So 0-60 in 3 seconds is barely over 1g. It the same force that you would feel jumping off a table, a g-suit might be a little extreme.
But in my case, a padded suit might be recommended if I were to start jumping off tables (both knees in need of replacement).
I've had an email from Stronger in Europe saying that as a result of the negotiations:
"new migrants have to pay in for 4 years".
Is this true?
Yes and no, mostly no. The current proposal is they get ramped access to benefits, starting at almost nothing and reaching full benefits after 4 years. They don't say anything about paying in, and the gradient of the line between 0-4 years has yet to be agreed. But none of this happens until after the emergency break is pulled and everyone agrees... and the Poles (at least) won't.
Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum all dropping out. Great news for Ted Cruz to mop up tea party and evangelical support.
When did Santorum drop out ?
Boo, I wanted to do a Santorum surge thread.
You can do a Santorum Dump thread instead
I like your thinking.
If Santorum is not on offer perhaps people will look again at Bush?
Heh, I am indeed. I'm asking a few bookies to price up the odds of a brokered convention for a thread this Sunday.
Question is, how do you get to a brokered convention? You really need at least three candidates to be running roughly level after Super Tuesday and then for a good while afterwards. That's possible but unlikely. The primary campaign has all the dynamics of an unstable equilibrium, where those furthest from the average position accelerate fastest, either towards the nomination or out of contention.
And if there are three candidates who all fail to reach the necessary delegate total by June, how then do you reach a position where *none* of them becomes the nominee? The days of deadlocked conventions were pre-primaries, when candidates didn't have millions of votes in their back pocket as mandates.
I admit it is unlikely, but I reckon if Trump is one of the three, he won't go quietly if he's leading the delegate count, but not over the line. Or even if he's in second place.
I have no daughters, or sons, to consider, but the long-term aspect (I agree with you in intermediate turbulence but long-term advantage) strengthens my resolve to vote to Leave. Short-term ease for long-term pain can lead to terrible places (the Fourth Crusade, or Stilicho's assassination being prime examples).
It is amusing to see Richard admitting that the new memo doesn't provide any concrete protections but suggests a new directional spirit what we should take, and two posts below it a former PM complaining that the spirit of direction in previous treaties being wantonly ignored a few years down the line.
John Major's letter does not show it was 'wantonly ignored'. It says that the ECJ interpreted the article differently from what was intended. That could be for several reasons, such as the article not being drafted properly. John Major was therefore asking for a change to the article.
We'll never know what would have happened next, because a few months later the Blair government signed up to the Working Time Directive anyway.
Remarkable squirming and spin from Richard there. Of course whatever the cause of the ECJ being able to ride roughshod over UK wishes the fact is they fid it then and can very easily do it again.
And Richard makes one more very obvious point. Whatever understandings and agreements Cameron might reach, they are only any good as long as the Tories stay in power. Once Labour get back in - as they undoubtedly will one day - it all goes out of the window again. Richard likes to keep blaming Blair and Brown for the poor negotiating position Cameron found himself in. But thru were only able to do the damage they did because successive Tory governments before them fined up so comprehensively to the EU project.
The only way to guarantee this doesn't continue is to vote to Leave.
I've had an email from Stronger in Europe saying that as a result of the negotiations:
"new migrants have to pay in for 4 years".
Is this true?
Yes and no, mostly no. The current proposal is they get ramped access to benefits, starting at almost nothing and reaching full benefits after 4 years. They don't say anything about paying in, and the gradient of the line between 0-4 years has yet to be agreed. But none of this happens until after the emergency break is pulled and everyone agrees... and the Poles (at least) won't.
It goes on to say there are:
measures to boost trade and create more UK jobs.
I thought it was the swivel eyed Leavers making things up and frothing.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet
Real leaps in technology will always take us by surprise. We can only predict incremental advances on technologies we already have - we cannot predict advances made on new technologies yet to be developed.
I feel it would be much better for the site if people showed what they made the whole market to 100% when giving tips on events... it worries me that some people who aren't all that shrewd in betting terms give out tips willy nilly, without really knowing what the true price is, using some pseudo science / muggy guesswork
Cameron's deal doesn't make a smidgeon of difference to this kind of big picture. My fear is that unless The Deal happens somewhat pre-emptively - not necessarily immediately, but soonish - then the great drift of events may pull the UK along on a current that sets us in a kind of union pretty much nobody intended us to be drawn into. And big renegotiations can occur once every how many years? In that sense this is a chance missed and maybe a vital one.
They remain experimental, and are unlikely to be used for passenger aircraft, but for military purposes. Do you think a human could survive the acceleration, or the G forces exerted on the body of a sudden change in direction at those velocities?
'' Mach 5 at 15 miles up. At that point, it is 20 per cent of the distance to orbit, and the thinning air allows it to switch to “pure” rocket mode, burning liquid oxygen fuel, at which point it can hit the velocity required to escape Earth’s atmosphere – Mach 25, or 16,250mph.''
I do not see this as a gateway to a New Anglophone Century. Jolly good wheeze that it may be.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Now let's have some forensic questions and some specific answers in relation to the consequences for Britain.
1. What does Britain get out of this?
2. Specifically, why are we agreeing that we can be discriminated against?
3. Why is that good for Britain?
4. What does the phrase "objective reasons" mean?
5. Who defines this?
6. Is this phrase justiciable by the ECJ?
7. Has such a phrase been used in any other EU treaty, agreement or other document?
8. If so, has it been interpreted by the ECJ?
9. What was that interpretation?
I hope you would agree that I am not a frothing BOO'er.
But an "optimistic mark of a beginning of a change of approach" strikes me as so much p*ss and wind, I have to say. And far from "practical" in any sense of the word I understand.
The wording is a bit of face-saving nonsense for us crafted by civil servants congratulating themselves on the cleverness of their wordsmithery. I had to deal with these types when I was working in government at the time of the Single European Act. Getting a trustworthy practical and verifiable answer out of them was like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
Cameron sold us down the river.
I have no idea why the email included the real names of intelligence assets. But it is obvious why the SoS in the course of her duties would receive intelligence information, and information about the reliability of the intelligence source. The whole point of this scandal is that she made a conscious decision to conduct ALL her official email communications through her own personal email on a private server in her private home.
Given that this was a conscious decision of hers, if it is now proved that she allowed classified information to be sent to her and then stored it on this unsecure system, then she committed a crime.
If she thought this information was not classified, she may not have committed any crime more serious than gross incompetence, but as yet that is not a federal felony. Even in that case, one or more of her close aides may be going to prison for unauthorized declassification of material and transmission of the same over unsecure comms.
Mind you, that's not bat-shit crazy but utter common-sense.....
*and now I'll run and hide.....*
http://tinyurl.com/hhscccj
My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maastricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.
However, in its judgement today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government, and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.
The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the Intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement. Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 118a cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom's expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.
I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are being undermined.
Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118a which properly belong under the other Member States' Agreement on Social Policy.
I am sending copies of this letter to Heads of State or Government of European Union Member States."
http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/page1344.html
Is it perfect? No, of course not. Can I guarantee that things will work out in my optimistic scenario? No, of course not.
But all these considerations apply, in even greater quantity and hugely greater uncertainty, if we vote leave. I remain totally baffled by the fact that people are dissecting this document in minute detail and with huge mistrust, and completely ignoring the fact that we re being asked to vote for a situation where we'd be negotiating with the same, apparently untrustworthy, partners, on exactly the same issues, if we leave, without knowing even the faintest outline of what we'd be trying to agree with them.
If we leave, what will EU countries stop buying and selling us?
You see, I have suppliers, if I tell them I'm going elsewhere they never, ever, put their prices up.
http://st3.cricketcountry.com/wp-content/uploads/cricket/20140521030945.jpeg
Ahahah looks like one of those touches you grow at 17 to get served at the bar lol.
This must look like the plot to a fantasy adventure movie to non-Irish people https://t.co/BmlQo8ei7U
the great Tory Euro split, the one that was supposed to be on a par with the Repeal of the Corn Laws, has been called off.
That is not to say the party is united. Dozens of Tory MPs will vote to leave the EU, and at some point the debate may get bitter and unpleasant. If the Conservative party were in the midst of an existential crisis, and about to tear itself apart on this great issue of principle, then at this point - with Cameron’s renegotiation virtually over - the fissure would open up in the House of Commons. The Out bandwagon would be rolling, and passions would not running high. But it isn’t, and they’re not. If anything, momentum is with the In side. (Look at what Theresa May said last night.) Not only is there no need to dig out the Robert Peel biographies; this doesn’t even seem to compare with Maastricht.
There may be an entire dissertation to be written about why the great Tory Euro split has fizzled out but here is a quick summary of some of the people/factors who can take the credit/blame.
Mark Reckless, Ukip, and Nigel Farage - because if Reckless had kept his seat at the election, or Ukip had done better, then defecting to an anti-EU party might be a realistic career option for Conservative MPs. Now it isn’t.
First past the post - because, without FPTP, a rightwing, anti-EU party would be electorally viable.
Ed Miliband and Labour - because if Labour were in government, and holding a referendum, Tory MPs would probably find backing the No campaign much more appealing. So Miliband contributed a) by losing the election and b) by virtually ruling out one if he had won.
David Cameron - because he seems to be doing a reasonably good job of containing his ministerial EU rebels.
Of these four factors, FPTP is probably the most important.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/feb/03/eu-renegotiation-pmqs-cameron-corbyn-he-prepares-to-make-statement-to-mps-politics-live?page=with:block-56b20b85e4b053d050365313#block-56b20b85e4b053d050365313
I can quite see this happening all over again if we vote to stay.
Edit: Managed to sneak a 90's song reference in too.
The party is more likely to split after a win for Remain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQGf8kDHvi8
or read what Delors thinks
http://www.france24.com/en/20121228-britain-could-leave-european-union-commission-delors-eurozone-economy
But if we joined the EEA and agreed to all the single market rules then trading would be little different. In those circumstances I do not see what all the frenetic fuss is about.
The EU and Eurozone generating trade and income from within itself would have benefits to its growth. It would have to put up with a closer political union as well though.
As Finkenstein points put in The Times today though, the different strands of outers seem at odds over where they see their future to be.
We'll never know what would have happened next, because a few months later the Blair government signed up to the Working Time Directive anyway.
So either it's a meaningless phrase or it's been put in there for a reason. I go with the latter. I'm willing to bet that it's been put in there precisely in order to allow the EZ to make things tougher and more difficult for those not in the inner core, pour encourager les autres. And if that harms Britain, tant pis.
I accept that leaving will not be easy. I said as much yesterday.
But this deal is being sold to us as some great improvement on the current position. And those who run this argument should surely be able to explain why - in specific, quantifiable, concrete terms - it is an improvement. And those who negotiated this should be able to answer these questions. Any government lawyer - which I was - would have asked these questions (and many others). Any Minister - let alone the PM - should have asked these questions. Any senior negotiator should have asked. So what are the answers?
And if they didn't they were being negligent and are now talking out of their collective arses in saying that it achieves all they wanted.
Your emphasis on what Brown did pre-Lisbon is a bit irrelevant, frankly. Yes - he left Britain in a worse position. But Cameron made an elementary mistake in making it clear before the negotiations that he wanted Britain to stay in the EU. He gave away his best negotiating card. To get the best deal - even with a poor hand - you have to be prepared to walk away. The rest of the EU have never thought him serious about his concerns in the way that they knew that Mrs T was serious about her rebate negotiations. That's why after much work she eventually got something worthwhile and Cameron - on the evidence so far - has not. He has got the only thing he ever wanted: a fig leaf in order to be able to get past the referendum successfully before retiring.
This is not about Britain and the EU. This is about him ending his career with another successful vote. And it will no doubt work, as I have said. But let's not pretend that it's any more than that.
The simple answer is that, legally, a server would be considered unsecure unless secured by federal personnel according to federal protocols.
With regards to the question as to whether in fact it was technically secure, that has not been disclosed officially, but there are any number of 'experts' out there saying definitively that it was not.
But you can ignore all that, and for the sake of argument simply say it makes no difference at all. Fair enough. Every single one of my questions about the alternative - much bigger questions - still applies.
Well that is line 3 on Richard's script of distractions -
1. Scoff at the Leave campaign(s)
2. Claim nothing would improve even if we were outside the EU
3. Blame Labour
4. Revert
"Vote Leave for two years of incessant banging on about Europe"
I agree re the Leave alternative. This is why I think this is a difficult issue. But I have already set out at (probably) too much length my approach to this issue, which is not really impacted very much by this bit of flim-flam.
So probably best to sign off now.
They don't need to accelerate that fast. The fastest cars go 0-60mph in less than 3 seconds, that is 1200 mph per minute. So to get to 8000mph would take 7.5 minutes or so at that acceleration. Are you suggesting that people need G suits to drive a Koenigsegg? I'd suggest that's a pushed into the back of the seat thrill rather than G suit level of acceleration.
http://www.autobytel.com/sports-cars/car-buying-guides/10-fastest-acceleration-cars-0-60-120638/
Edit: as for unlikely to be used for passenger aircraft, it seems the industry almost unanimously disagrees with you.
Yes it's not hard to see the threat embodied in that clause.
More concretely, it is also the case that there is a strong school of thought in the EU that the current arrangements for both euro outs and the non-EU EEA members are too lenient i.e. they are seen as getting market access too easily, and should be pressured over time into a tighter arrangement with (and ultimately absorption into) the core.
"new migrants have to pay in for 4 years".
Is this true?
REMAIN 42+1
LEAVE 39-2
DK 19
And if there are three candidates who all fail to reach the necessary delegate total by June, how then do you reach a position where *none* of them becomes the nominee? The days of deadlocked conventions were pre-primaries, when candidates didn't have millions of votes in their back pocket as mandates.
Perhaps The Times read pb.com
Legal acts, including intergovernmental agreements between Member States, directly linked to the functioning of the euro area shall respect the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion, and shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States
Incidentally, I think the 'objective reasons' sentence might have been misconstrued:
Discrimination between natural or legal persons based on the official currency of the Member State, or, as the case may be, the currency that has legal tender in the Member State, where they are established is prohibited. Any difference of treatment must be based on objective reasons.
Taking the two sentences together, I read that as possibly meaning 'objective reasons other than the currency', but it would be useful to get clarification. Any MPs reading this?
And they pick Bush ?!
I enjoyed the insults, though, even if they weren't of the old quality.
I have no daughters, or sons, to consider, but the long-term aspect (I agree with you in intermediate turbulence but long-term advantage) strengthens my resolve to vote to Leave. Short-term ease for long-term pain can lead to terrible places (the Fourth Crusade, or Stilicho's assassination being prime examples).
And Richard makes one more very obvious point. Whatever understandings and agreements Cameron might reach, they are only any good as long as the Tories stay in power. Once Labour get back in - as they undoubtedly will one day - it all goes out of the window again. Richard likes to keep blaming Blair and Brown for the poor negotiating position Cameron found himself in. But thru were only able to do the damage they did because successive Tory governments before them fined up so comprehensively to the EU project.
The only way to guarantee this doesn't continue is to vote to Leave.
measures to boost trade and create more UK jobs.
I thought it was the swivel eyed Leavers making things up and frothing.
Currently 16/1 to be next Chancellor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUTH7TDqp48
I hear he's done some splendid work for charity too.