Richard says we have an opt out of ever closer union. This isn't true. You won't be able to quote anywhere in the draft memo where it says "ever closer union" doesn't apply to us.
Page 9:
Therefore, the references to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe do not offer a basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EU secondary legislation. They should not be used either to support an extensive interpretation of the competences of the Union or of the powers of its institutions as set out in the Treaties. ... The references to an ever closer union among the peoples are therefore compatible with different paths of integration being available for different Member States and do not compel all Member States to aim for a common destination. The Treaties allow an evolution towards a deeper degree of integration among the Member States that share such a vision of their common future, without this applying to other Member States.
If you think that will ever find its way even close to a treaty after an in vote you are substantially more naive than I give you credit for. Cameron won't even fight that hard for it after the referendum, why should be, he got what he wants, a remain result, and he believes in the EU. Back in 2007 Cameron pledged that a future Conservative government would pull out of the EU social chapter as a "top priority", almost a decade later....
If its not in a treaty, its worthless, the ECJ has overturned even codicils to treaties before never mind "legally binding" documents.
In terms of new bond. Damien Lewis is again very very good in his new US show, Billions.
I think bond has run its course. The reboot looked promising but it seems to have gone backwards to me.
You might think that, the film execs will be ordering plenty more as they make a boat load of cash.
SPECTRE was fecking awful tho. A truly terrible film. Craig hasn't retired too early, he's retired too late. One movie too late. A blot on his CV. Shame
I didn't like it. But I didn't like the Star War movie either. And seemed to be in the minority for both. And sure as eggs is eggs there are going to be more of both.
@Plato_Says He's one of the few that has stood up personally to Mugabe and Putin over their terrible attitudes towards homosexuality, and has suffered lasting brain injuries as a result of Mugabe's thugs. I have alot of respect for him.
I've got respect for Tatchell, too. He has some opinions I find entirely ridiculous, and his politics is the opposite of mine, but he's personally very brave, and not without integrity.
He reminds me a bit of Monbiot. I abjure most of what he says, but at least he isn't a hypocrite. He really means what he says, and lives his life accordingly. The contrast with just about everyone else on the Guardian is stark.
Every time I think about voting REMAIN, I come on here and read the flatulent, supercilious chuntering of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, and I go right back to LEAVE.
So to that extent, these pompous fools provide a useful service.
This debate is already utterly toxic and it hasn't even started yet. If only there were an option to vote against both LEAVE and REMAIN.
I had significant respect for Meeks and Nabavi as commenters before this. But something about this debate reduces their respective IQs by about a quarter, and also inflicts some weird personality change, where they become over-indulged toddlers, throwing tantrums on Mike's supermarket floor as they are refused the Robinsons Fruit Shoot of an easy referendum win.
You haven't really recovered from being made to look a poncing, screeching, blustering idiot the last time you encountered Mr Nabavi's patient, gentle but acid-tinged refutations. Small wonder you have withdrawn from direct encounter. I sympathise.
A few days back Casino paid me the (dubious) compliment of being labelled a 'swing' Tory activist who was until very recently a likely strong yes voter, but dismayed at Cameron's current terms to being 50-50. I am still perching uneasily on the fence awaiting the results of this week's summit and the campaign. But you are doing wonderfully in pushing me back to REMAIN, though the blissful irony is I may be joining you there.
What exactly has meat eating got to do with it? @isam here is a veggie IIRC and passionate about Leave.
EU animal welfare laws are more relaxed than ours. It's an area where we should have pushed harder so that our farmers are not competitively disadvantaged selling in particular pork products to the continent.
It's also an example of our relative impotence (Or lack of political will), one of the two.
BSE was always known as JCB in France, for obvious reasons.
In terms of new bond. Damien Lewis is again very very good in his new US show, Billions.
I first saw Damien Lewis in 'Band of Brothers' - then saw him in an earlier UK TV show 'A Touch of Frost' and my reaction was 'Hasn't that Yank got a great British accent'...
It was remarkable quite how many of Easy Company in BoB were played by British actors.
Mr. Eagles, you think our economy will collapse if we leave?
A thousand jobs is not a small number, but nor is it a critical one. Besides, leaving the EU reduces the cost of trading with them, and we'll be freer to make trade deals elsewhere. We can also reduce the bureaucratic burden on businesses.
But why would the UK, with a population of 65m be able to negotiate a better deal than the EU with its population of 500m?
I'm also unclear as to why leaving the EU would reduce the cost of trading with them? True, Britain wouldn't have to pay a membership fee, nor comply with EU legislation (though if selling to the EU then many of the regulations would still apply). But against that, access to free trade would almost certainly be restricted, as would in all probability freedom of movement. While some of the Remain figures for the benefits of membership seem excessive, I find it difficult to believe that it would be cheaper to trade with them from the outside.
There's a great programme on World Service I listen to sometimes (it's at 3am) called NewsExtra - One Topic, One Hour.
They addressed this a few days ago: there is a deal at the moment that the EU is negotiating with Mercosur. The trade-off the EU is proposing is opening up Mercosur for high tech engineering (which will mainly benefit Germany and Northern Italy) in return for opening the EU for high grade beef (which will mainly hit Scotland, Northern England and Ireland (North & South). If we were independent we can optimise deals for our own needs.
Re: trade barriers with the EU I thought a basic WTO principle was that no new trade barriers can be erected. I'm not sure the EU *can* whack up tarrifs on the UK just because we leave.
My own reason for voting Leave is that our vision of the future is simply different from that which is shared by most Continental politicians. They want ever more political and economic integration. We don't. If we vote for Remain, we're voting for endless arguments about the future direction of travel, with corresponding ill-feeling all round.
From their point of view, European integration means peace and democracy. These arguments cut very little ice with us, but both points of view are held quite sincerely, and make sense from the perspective of different countries. We have been a partial democracy since 1832, a full democracy since 1918, and governed by the rule of law since long before then, so the EU gives us nothing that we don't already have. But, for a country that has been ruled by fascists or communists, the EU does look like a guarantor of their freedoms.
As to the rest:-
1. Voting Leave or Remain, because you don't look some of the people making the arguments, is silly. Leave will have Nigel Farage and the Right of the Conservative Party. Remain will have Martin McGuinness, Natalie Bennet, and John McDonnell. One should decide how to vote on the merits of the issue.
2. It's entirely reasonable for soft supporters of Leave to say what kinds of arguments from Remain they would find convincing. So far, Remain have made a terrible case, (as have Leave) combining hyperbole, insults, and threatening of the terrors of the Earth. Polling is shifting towards Leave, and that is down to bad arguments being made by Remain.
In terms of new bond. Damien Lewis is again very very good in his new US show, Billions.
I first saw Damien Lewis in 'Band of Brothers' - then saw him in an earlier UK TV show 'A Touch of Frost' and my reaction was 'Hasn't that Yank got a great British accent'...
It was remarkable quite how many of Easy Company in BoB were played by British actors.
In his (otherwise rather good) assessment of the Republican debate on Saturday Iain Martin on Capex rather charmingly described himself as a "Britisher" and signed off now "back to blighty".
This provides a potential insight into why Martin writes the most unbelievable rubbish on Scotland. His views on Britain and Europe were clearly defined by The Hotspur , his views on America by Dan Dare, his views on Scotland by Brigadoon while his early career was mentored by Andrew Neil.
If you think that will ever find its way even close to a treaty after an in vote you are substantially more naive than I give you credit for. Cameron won't even fight that hard for it after the referendum, why should be, he got what he wants, a remain result, and he believes in the EU.
What are you going on about? That is the text from the draft agreement. It's what the EU leaders are going to sign up to in the next few days. It is also legally binding.
If your argument is simply that you think all EU leaders are a bunch of lying charlatans who can't be trusted to implement agreements they sign up to, then I expect you'll vote Leave. That has nothing to do with the point I was addressing, which was to answer @NorfolkTilIDie.
What exactly has meat eating got to do with it? @isam here is a veggie IIRC and passionate about Leave.
EU animal welfare laws are more relaxed than ours. It's an area where we should have pushed harder so that our farmers are not competitively disadvantaged selling in particular pork products to the continent.
It's also an example of our relative impotence (Or lack of political will), one of the two.
BSE was always known as JCB in France, for obvious reasons.
In terms of new bond. Damien Lewis is again very very good in his new US show, Billions.
I first saw Damien Lewis in 'Band of Brothers' - then saw him in an earlier UK TV show 'A Touch of Frost' and my reaction was 'Hasn't that Yank got a great British accent'...
It was remarkable quite how many of Easy Company in BoB were played by British actors.
Every time I think about voting REMAIN, I come on here and read the flatulent, supercilious chuntering of Alistair Meeks and Richard Nabavi, and I go right back to LEAVE.
So to that extent, these pompous fools provide a useful service.
This debate is already utterly toxic and it hasn't even started yet. If only there were an option to vote against both LEAVE and REMAIN.
I had significant respect for Meeks and Nabavi as commenters before this. But something about this debate reduces their respective IQs by about a quarter, and also inflicts some weird personality change, where they become over-indulged toddlers, throwing tantrums on Mike's supermarket floor as they are refused the Robinsons Fruit Shoot of an easy referendum win.
You haven't really recovered from being made to look a poncing, screeching, blustering idiot the last time you encountered Mr Nabavi's patient, gentle but acid-tinged refutations. Small wonder you have withdrawn from direct encounter. I sympathise.
A few days back Casino paid me the (dubious) compliment of being labelled a 'swing' Tory activist who was until very recently a likely strong yes voter, but dismayed at Cameron's current terms to being 50-50. I am still perching uneasily on the fence awaiting the results of this week's summit and the campaign. But you are doing wonderfully in pushing me back to REMAIN, though the blissful irony is I may be joining you there.
Thanks for your honesty JohnO!
FWIW, I think Remain will win, and possibly quite clearly. My point was that I wouldn't believe Leave would win until people like your good self - a longstanding pro-EU Tory, and leadership loyalist, on the left of the party - felt there was no serious alternative but to vote Leave.
So, in that sense, I felt (and still do feel) you are a useful litmus test. No pressure.
Mr. Eagles, you think our economy will collapse if we leave?
A thousand jobs is not a small number, but nor is it a critical one. Besides, leaving the EU reduces the cost of trading with them, and we'll be freer to make trade deals elsewhere. We can also reduce the bureaucratic burden on businesses.
But why would the UK, with a population of 65m be able to negotiate a better deal than the EU with its population of 500m?
I'm also unclear as to why leaving the EU would reduce the cost of trading with them? True, Britain wouldn't have to pay a membership fee, nor comply with EU legislation (though if selling to the EU then many of the regulations would still apply). But against that, access to free trade would almost certainly be restricted, as would in all probability freedom of movement. While some of the Remain figures for the benefits of membership seem excessive, I find it difficult to believe that it would be cheaper to trade with them from the outside.
There's a great programme on World Service I listen to sometimes (it's at 3am) called NewsExtra - One Topic, One Hour.
They addressed this a few days ago: there is a deal at the moment that the EU is negotiating with Mercosur. The trade-off the EU is proposing is opening up Mercosur for high tech engineering (which will mainly benefit Germany and Northern Italy) in return for opening the EU for high grade beef (which will mainly hit Scotland, Northern England and Ireland (North & South). If we were independent we can optimise deals for our own needs.
Re: trade barriers with the EU I thought a basic WTO principle was that no new trade barriers can be erected. I'm not sure the EU *can* whack up tarrifs on the UK just because we leave.
I think it is more the case that (unless we move to the EEA arrangement) the basic position is that we will revert to the internationally agreed tariffs. I am not sure it is necessary for their to be any 'new' tariffs, just adherence to those already in place outside the single market.
If you think that will ever find its way even close to a treaty after an in vote you are substantially more naive than I give you credit for. Cameron won't even fight that hard for it after the referendum, why should be, he got what he wants, a remain result, and he believes in the EU.
What are you going on about? That is the text from the draft agreement. It's what the EU leaders are going to sign up to in the next few days. It is also legally binding.
If your argument is simply that you think all EU leaders are a bunch of lying charlatans who can't be trusted to implement agreements they sign up to, then I expect you'll vote Leave. That has nothing to do with the point I was addressing, which was to answer @NorfolkTilIDie.
Not a judgement on the EU per se but I honestly believe that the idea that ANY politician is not a lying charlatan is incredibly naive. That does not necessarily mean that 100% of them are but that honest politicians are so incredibly rare that it is far better just to assume they are all lying every time they move their lips.
Indeed. Cameron has given up what leverage we had for nothing. He has been as bad as Blair was when he gave up the rebate for nothing.
We will bound by rules into whose formulation we will have no input. Much like being outside, in fact. So we may as well be there and get the advantage of those freedoms, difficult as life might be initially.
Both parts of that are profoundly wrong in my opinion. The deal is clear: leave the UK alone with all its opt-outs and its semi-detached membership, and in return we'll let the Eurozone integrate further (which everyone agrees is necessary).
And it's simply not true that we will have no input into the rules. We'll have as much input as anyone else, with the added protections of the non-discrimination against non-Eurozone countries. If we leave, but sign up to the single market in financial and other services (which again everyone agrees is vital), we'd have zero input into the rules, still be bound by them, and lose the protection of the non-discrimination against non-Eurozone countries.
I know that this is a point which I've made repeatedly, but I haven't seen any serious argument suggesting that it is wrong. In particular, I am baffled that anyone could, with a straight face, argue that EEA membership is better in this respect.
Also, I'm amused to see that posters on the internet think they know more about HSBC's business plans than the chief executive of HSBC does.
We have no representation on the ECB and therefore no input into its rules.
As for your last statement, the HSBC was not making a business plan but making a vague statement about what might possibly happen. I've seen enough real business plans to make a shrewd guess that the costs of employment in a country are a significant factor in any decision about where to locate people. French employment laws (and many others besides) elicit nothing but groans from those having to deal with them.
Doesn't HSBC still own CCF?
If so they have substantial retail banking operations in a Eurozone country and I could well imagine they would see the need to have a lead regulator, at least for that part of the operations, in France. That would probably account for most of the jobs. The corporate banking division will stay in London and be regulated by the BoE not the ECB.
Richard Nabavi, the quote you paste says ever closer union should not be used for extending EU treaties, but it don't say the concept does not apply to UK. It even says ever closer union is "compatible" with all integration paths, including UK within that!!
Not a judgement on the EU per se but I honestly believe that the idea that ANY politician is not a lying charlatan is incredibly naive. That does not necessarily mean that 100% of them are but that honest politicians are so incredibly rare that it is far better just to assume they are all lying every time they move their lips.
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but the point is that an agreement is an agreement. There is no world in which we can do anything without some degree of mutual trust with other friendly countries. For that matter, our EU friends are the ones with the stronger cause for complaint on this score: they have a solemn, formally-ratified treaty with us, and we're trying to change it retrospectively. Indeed, the principal complaint in the UK against Cameron's renegotiation is that he hasn't tried hard enough to welch on the deal.
I think understanding the mindset of the Eastern states is totally underestimated. They see the EU as a bulwark against a massive former power.
We're on the edge of Europe, only Ireland is further West. We weren't invaded and Ireland was neutral in WW2. Our history and islands status make us quite different as national personalites.
I could imagine Ireland following us out given our trading links and shared migration.
My own reason for voting Leave is that our vision of the future is simply different from that which is shared by most Continental politicians. They want ever more political and economic integration. We don't. If we vote for Remain, we're voting for endless arguments about the future direction of travel, with corresponding ill-feeling all round.
From their point of view, European integration means peace and democracy. These arguments cut very little ice with us, but both points of view are held quite sincerely, and make sense from the perspective of different countries. We have been a partial democracy since 1832, a full democracy since 1918, and governed by the rule of law since long before then, so the EU gives us nothing that we don't already have. But, for a country that has been ruled by fascists or communists, the EU does look like a guarantor of their freedoms.
As to the rest:-
1. Voting Leave or Remain, because you don't look some of the people making the arguments, is silly. Leave will have Nigel Farage and the Right of the Conservative Party. Remain will have Martin McGuinness, Natalie Bennet, and John McDonnell. One should decide how to vote on the merits of the issue.
2. It's entirely reasonable for soft supporters of Leave to say what kinds of arguments from Remain they would find convincing. So far, Remain have made a terrible case, (as have Leave) combining hyperbole, insults, and threatening of the terrors of the Earth. Polling is shifting towards Leave, and that is down to bad arguments being made by Remain.
Richard Nabavi, the quote you paste says ever closer union should not be used for extending EU treaties, but it don't say the concept does not apply to UK. It even says ever closer union is "compatible" with all integration paths, including UK within that!!
It doesn't name the UK, of course. But that is not surprising, and everyone knows that the UK is the country to which it most applies.
What are you going on about? That is the text from the draft agreement. It's what the EU leaders are going to sign up to in the next few days. It is also legally binding.
If your argument is simply that you think all EU leaders are a bunch of lying charlatans who can't be trusted to implement agreements they sign up to, then I expect you'll vote Leave. That has nothing to do with the point I was addressing, which was to answer @NorfolkTilIDie.
So if Cameron lies to us all the time, what makes you think that his EU colleagues are some how paragons of truth ? Especially when we know they are not. Consider John Major's opt out from the Social Chapter, and how the EU suddenly decided that the Working Time Directive was employment law and not social law, and we didn't have an opt out on employment law.
When this whole agreement gets ignored after the referendum, and probably struck down by the ECJ, I would love to gloat at the naivety of people that campaigned for it, but it will be too depressing. People who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Richard Nabavi, the quote you paste says ever closer union should not be used for extending EU treaties, but it don't say the concept does not apply to UK. It even says ever closer union is "compatible" with all integration paths, including UK within that!!
I don't think it matters much whether Ever Closer Union formally applies to the UK, if the actual *practice* of the EU is Ever Closer Union.
Returning power from EU Institutions to national institutions is certainly not on the agenda, rather the reverse.
There's a great programme on World Service I listen to sometimes (it's at 3am) called NewsExtra - One Topic, One Hour.
They addressed this a few days ago: there is a deal at the moment that the EU is negotiating with Mercosur. The trade-off the EU is proposing is opening up Mercosur for high tech engineering (which will mainly benefit Germany and Northern Italy) in return for opening the EU for high grade beef (which will mainly hit Scotland, Northern England and Ireland (North & South). If we were independent we can optimise deals for our own needs.
Re: trade barriers with the EU I thought a basic WTO principle was that no new trade barriers can be erected. I'm not sure the EU *can* whack up tarrifs on the UK just because we leave.
I think it is more the case that (unless we move to the EEA arrangement) the basic position is that we will revert to the internationally agreed tariffs. I am not sure it is necessary for their to be any 'new' tariffs, just adherence to those already in place outside the single market.
The total sum of tariffs that would be paid by those exporting to the EU countries, is less than we pay the EU for membership. Its cheaper for the country to leave and pay the exporters for the extra they have to spend on tariffs.
Not a judgement on the EU per se but I honestly believe that the idea that ANY politician is not a lying charlatan is incredibly naive. That does not necessarily mean that 100% of them are but that honest politicians are so incredibly rare that it is far better just to assume they are all lying every time they move their lips.
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but the point is that an agreement is an agreement. There is no world in which we can do anything without some degree of mutual trust with other friendly countries. For that matter, our EU friends are the ones with the stronger cause for complaint on this score: they have a solemn, formally-ratified treaty with us, and we're trying to change it retrospectively. Indeed, the principal complaint in the UK against Cameron's renegotiation is that he hasn't tried hard enough to welch on the deal.
That is Cameron's problem not mine nor most of LEAVE campaign's. I don't want renegotiation of the deal. I want to leave and that is entirely in accordance with the Treaty as the means to do so it is written into it.
If only there were an option to vote against both LEAVE and REMAIN.
That's the problem I am having. I really don't want to vote for either of them, but if I sit it out "I don't get to complain about it"
That would be unacceptable
Write Farage is a cock in the box next to Remain or Leave and let the returning officer decide if it is a valid vote.
The problem is that while Farage is indeed as you describe him, history has a pretty good chance of finding that he was actually right about most things European and quite a lot of things immigration.
You mean like when he said I think 29 million immigrants from two countries would move to the UK, when their population was fewer than 29 million ?
In fairness to them I am pretty sure there were several claims at the time that the discrepenacy was due to siginifant outflows already happening. I am about to go into a meeting so am unable to find any links to prove/disprove the claim.
If you think that will ever find its way even close to a treaty after an in vote you are substantially more naive than I give you credit for. Cameron won't even fight that hard for it after the referendum, why should be, he got what he wants, a remain result, and he believes in the EU.
What are you going on about? That is the text from the draft agreement. It's what the EU leaders are going to sign up to in the next few days. It is also legally binding.
If your argument is simply that you think all EU leaders are a bunch of lying charlatans who can't be trusted to implement agreements they sign up to, then I expect you'll vote Leave. That has nothing to do with the point I was addressing, which was to answer @NorfolkTilIDie.
How does what you quote - which is in an agreement but not in a treaty - work with the very clear wording of the Treaty of Rome? And which body will interpret both documents? The ECJ. So even if one were not to take the view that all politicians are lying charlatans we would need to depend on this allegedly legally binding wording being interpreted by a court whose very function (and its actions in case after case) is to advance the purposes of the EU as set out in its founding treaty and in treaty after treaty thereafter, none of which have this wording.
I admire your optimism. Others might call it naivety. I am somewhat more cynical - or realistic - about how this will end up. I think these words are mere flim flam designed to give Cameron the appearance of something rather than anything concrete and bankable and with real effects in the real world.
Look at the front pages of the most-read newspapers. Which side in the EURef are they spinning for? ...
Practically every British media description of a British politician going to an EU meeting on the continent is couched in terms of Mr Competent Straightback goes to sort out the fuzzy-wuzzies and tell 'em what's what. Welcome to Ruritania. Think blowback.
Politics isn't principally about logic; referendums, even less. The price on LEAVE is ridiculously low at the moment.
Myself, I'm for REMAIN. I go to the continent a lot and I'd support Britain joining the euro. The idea that the euro is an oh-so-badly run disaster of a currency is just xenophobia for the middle classes. The next Lehmans could be an order of magnitude, or several orders, bigger than the last one. Britain is not self-sufficient in food, owing to the prevalence here of meat-eating, and I'd like Dover to be kept open for what remains of international trade or barter. Big economies can go bust and have done. Better to be inside the EU in such a scenario.
But that's not how most of the population see it. The Daily Mail speaks for this country. Most people haven't been to the continent except perhaps only a very few times or to a beach hotel where they haven't related to the host country's culture at all. They cringe when they hear politicians say immigration made this country great. The population just don't believe that. They like Farage and the only reason they don't vote for his party in GEs is that he doesn't look like a patrician politician whether New Labourite or Tory, so he's not what they're used to and he doesn't make them feel warm and comfortable. But this referendum isn't about political parties. It's on the other side of an EU election to a British GE. If REMAIN wins, the Tory party will lose its base. And they won't be wanting that. Most Tory members and voters are blockheaded xenophobes, whether they're impoverished petty bourgeois whose children won't be taking over the business, in the golf club or trade association, or in the monarchist flagwaving working class with a couple of family members in the army. As I said, the price on LEAVE is ridiculously low. Even if LEAVE eventually loses, the price will rise on various events in the coming months. (Unless you've got a completely different view of the role of the right-wing media, that is.) I'm piling in today.
Feeling better now
(Ps I'm the child of petit bourgeois, who won't be taking over the business, & it has zero bearing on my views on the referendum)
So if Cameron lies to us all the time, what makes you think that his EU colleagues are some how paragons of truth ? Especially when we know they are not. Consider John Major's opt out from the Social Chapter, and how the EU suddenly decided that the Working Time Directive was employment law and not social law, and we didn't have an opt out on employment law.
When this whole agreement gets ignored after the referendum, and probably struck down by the ECJ, I would love to gloat at the naivety of people that campaigned for it, but it will be too depressing. People who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Silly conspiracy theories don't make an argument. The 'EU' did not suddenly decide that the Working Time Directive was employment law and not social law, the ECJ ruled that the treaty provisions implied that. There are lots of possible reasons for that, the most likely being that the provision wasn't properly drafted and UK civil servants should have been more careful in agreeing to the wording. Another possible explanation is that the ECJ were wrong. The least likely explanation - indeed a completely barmy explanation - is that anyone lied about it.
As for Cameron, you are very confused. Cameron has clearly and consistently said what he would like the EU to be; he laid it out very ably in his Bloomberg speech. Concluding that he was lying, because he hasn't so far been able to persuade 27 other countries to agree exactly with his vision, is bonkers.
Ditto the social chapter bit. You seem to have failed to understand that, in the meantime, Lisbon had been ratified.
Although I'm a member of a Party strongly committed to REMAIN, I'm actually quite relaxed about LEAVE winning and see some potential positives in a Brexit.
Nobody is suggesting we turn our backs on the world or even Europe - if we vote to LEAVE, we will still have an economic and political relationship with the EU and indeed with other countries through NATO, the UN and a host of other multi-lateral bodies.
Indeed, there are aspects of EU membership such as the single market which work well for us and, in truth, we would still be facing a European crisis in terms of migration whether the EU existed or not.
A lot of the campaign rhetoric (or scare-mongering if you want) is just that - for the campaign. The world won't end if we vote to LEAVE and the identity of Britain won't end if we choose to REMAIN. It will be in everyone's interests to make the best of whichever option is chosen so the rhetoric will be replaced by the reality of sensible negotiation and compromise and indeed it may turn out that it won't matter very much whether we are in the EU or not.
On the other hand, leaving the EU does provide an opportunity for that for which I think LEAVE should be arguing - not a negative anti-European view but a positive alternative - namely, a return to EFTA and that organisation's transformation into an alternative model for economic multi-lateral co-operation. EFTA is irrelevant now but with Britain back in the fold and becoming its leader, it has the potential to be re-invented as the alternative model.
EFTA would be a loose economically-based federation of autonomous states with a minimal central structure wholly subservient to national Governments. Yes, EFTA members would form a free market but beyond that, social, political and cultural policy would be the preserve of national Parliaments. The new EFTA would be in a stronger position to negotiate economic relationships with the EU, NAFTA and others but without the political integration and in-fighting.
Indeed, it would be the Chancellor would be the main representative of HMG at EFTA rather than the Prime Minister and while we would contribute a small amount to the running of the new EFTA (perhaps offering it a home in a redundant HMG office building), such a contribution would be miniscule compared to what we contribute now to the EU.
As with YES in the Scottish Referendum, it is the inability of one side to craft a coherent and credible view of the future that leaves the field open to the status quo. I recognise there are many strands to LEAVE - they have to come up with a common view otherwise REMAIN wins by default or fear if you prefer.
What might shift me more to Remain - at least in relation to the financial services sector which, to be clear, is wider than the City of London - would be the following:-
1. A legally binding agreement that the financial rules which the eurozone adopt for themselves do not apply to the non-eurozone states. This gives the eurozone the ability to do whatever they want to do to make the euro work. Crucially, the quid pro quo is that they cannot impose these rules on states outside the eurozone. 2. They can apply to such states but only if the states agree and to the extent they agree. If this is to be the case, non-eurozone states must be fully involved in the discussions and votes at all stages. 3. There can be no discrimination against states or companies / legal entities based in non-eurozone states. In short, the eurozone can seek to make it more attractive for banks, say, to be based in the eurozone but what it cannot do is seek to make it more unattractive to be based outside it by imposing penalties or harsher rules or limiting or forbidding access to markets on such states or people within them.
This gives the eurozone what they say they want i.e. faster integration but does not discriminate against the UK as a member of the EU, the principle of non-discrimination being so very important to the EU (at least sometimes, anyway).
Anyway, the sun is shining so off to walk the hound shortly........
In terms of new bond. Damien Lewis is again very very good in his new US show, Billions.
I think bond has run its course. The reboot looked promising but it seems to have gone backwards to me.
You might think that, the film execs will be ordering plenty more as they make a boat load of cash.
SPECTRE was fecking awful tho. A truly terrible film. Craig hasn't retired too early, he's retired too late. One movie too late. A blot on his CV. Shame
I didn't like it. But I didn't like the Star War movie either. And seemed to be a minority view for both. And sure as eggs is eggs there are going to be more of both.
SPECTRE got pretty mixed reviews, after the initial euphoria. Consensus was that it was OK.
However it did make shedloads of cash - $900m and counting.
I don't doubt that the franchise will continue and I am sure they will find ways of rebooting it very successfully. Craig was an inspired choice, he just lost interest by the end.
Now I must go back to my own franchise. I have to reread the new S K Tremayne, beginning to end. Big moment. Gulp.
There was the suggestion, at least shortly after the release, that a dichotomy had emerged on the interwebs between hardcore Bond fans who loved all the back-references and in-jokes, and ordinary filmgoers who thought it was at best very long. I've not seen it myself.
As for Cameron, you are very confused. Cameron has clearly and consistently said what he would like the EU to be; he laid it out very ably in his Bloomberg speech. Concluding that he was lying, because he hasn't so far been able to persuade 27 other countries to agree exactly with his vision, is bonkers.
Yes, because he tried so hard, starting with that well known negotiating tactic, showing your opponents what is in your hand "I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which we would leave the EU", followed by that other cracker of throwing away half the things you are asking for before the negotiation even gets going, and then ending the the piece de resistance stacking his team with europhile idiots like Liddington. I wonder why he didn't get anything he asked for ?
If only there were an option to vote against both LEAVE and REMAIN.
That's the problem I am having. I really don't want to vote for either of them, but if I sit it out "I don't get to complain about it"
That would be unacceptable
Write Farage is a cock in the box next to Remain or Leave and let the returning officer decide if it is a valid vote.
The problem is that while Farage is indeed as you describe him, history has a pretty good chance of finding that he was actually right about most things European and quite a lot of things immigration.
You mean like when he said I think 29 million immigrants from two countries would move to the UK, when their population was fewer than 29 million ?
In fairness to them I am pretty sure there were several claims at the time that the discrepenacy was due to siginifant outflows already happening. I am about to go into a meeting so am unable to find any links to prove/disprove the claim.
So if Cameron lies to us all the time, what makes you think that his EU colleagues are some how paragons of truth ? Especially when we know they are not. Consider John Major's opt out from the Social Chapter, and how the EU suddenly decided that the Working Time Directive was employment law and not social law, and we didn't have an opt out on employment law.
When this whole agreement gets ignored after the referendum, and probably struck down by the ECJ, I would love to gloat at the naivety of people that campaigned for it, but it will be too depressing. People who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Silly conspiracy theories don't make an argument. The 'EU' did not suddenly decide that the Working Time Directive was employment law and not social law, the ECJ ruled that the treaty provisions implied that. There are lots of possible reasons for that, the most likely being that the provision wasn't properly drafted and UK civil servants should have been more careful in agreeing to the wording. Another possible explanation is that the ECJ were wrong.
But the key observation is that it wasn't the Uk parly that decided. So very undemocratic.
After reading @DavidL 's comment at the top of the thread, I googled the composition of the UK's supreme court.
Where is the diversity?
Where are the *normal* people?
They are not "normal" people, they are top class lawyers. And that should surely be the criteria for their appointment.
I hope Lord Denning is still offering legal opinion and counsel to the justices from the beyond.
Unfortunately the evidence for that is slight. Denning believed that within limits the law should aim for fairness and if that required the courts to strike down or rule unenforceable parts of their agreements, so be it. He was much more interested in the reality. Modern judges, led by Lords Hoffman and Neuberger, are much more conservative and look at what the parties agreed, fair or not.
So Lord Hodge, who is brilliant, ruled that if the contract says that the Bank is not giving any advice to the hard pressed company who can't get credit elsewhere then that is the contract and the reality of them being "persuaded" that they should enter into an interest rate swop deal that they don't understand is simply inadmissible. I really don't believe Denning would have found his hands so tied.
After reading @DavidL 's comment at the top of the thread, I googled the composition of the UK's supreme court.
Where is the diversity?
Where are the *normal* people?
They are not "normal" people, they are top class lawyers. And that should surely be the criteria for their appointment.
I hope Lord Denning is still offering legal opinion and counsel to the justices from the beyond.
Lord Denning rather disgraced himself with his judgment on the appeal by the Birmingham 6 in relation to the injuries suffered in police custody. He could not countenance the consequences and so found the legal reasoning to justify the outcome he wanted. Very very poor - both legally and morally.
Let justice be done no matter if the heavens fall.
He became too concerned with protecting the reputation of the criminal justice system rather than remembering that it exists for a purpose and that purpose is not the maintenance of its own reputation.
The political arguments for and against Brexit are people peering into the crystal ball and seeing what they want to see.
At worst ... Remain - we'll lose fifty million jobs and all starve to death. Leave - it's those foreigners trying to take over our governance.
I suspect Remain will win because of inertia.
There's little doubt that ever closer political union is the intent, and I suspect a Remain vote will encourage that. But I'm on the Leave side now, because we can make our own mistakes, thank you very much.
But the key observation is that it wasn't the Uk parly that decided. So very undemocratic.
A democratically-elected UK government signed up to the treaty. A judgement from the body set up to adjudicate on the treaty went against the UK. In that respect it's no different from an adverse ruling in the ECHR, the WTO, or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
So if Cameron lies to us all the time, what makes you think that his EU colleagues are some how paragons of truth ? Especially when we know they are not. Consider John Major's opt out from the Social Chapter, and how the EU suddenly decided that the Working Time Directive was employment law and not social law, and we didn't have an opt out on employment law.
When this whole agreement gets ignored after the referendum, and probably struck down by the ECJ, I would love to gloat at the naivety of people that campaigned for it, but it will be too depressing. People who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Silly conspiracy theories don't make an argument. The 'EU' did not suddenly decide that the Working Time Directive was employment law and not social law, the ECJ ruled that the treaty provisions implied that. There are lots of possible reasons for that, the most likely being that the provision wasn't properly drafted and UK civil servants should have been more careful in agreeing to the wording. Another possible explanation is that the ECJ were wrong. The least likely explanation - indeed a completely barmy explanation - is that anyone lied about it.
As for Cameron, you are very confused. Cameron has clearly and consistently said what he would like the EU to be; he laid it out very ably in his Bloomberg speech. Concluding that he was lying, because he hasn't so far been able to persuade 27 other countries to agree exactly with his vision, is bonkers.
Ditto the social chapter bit. You seem to have failed to understand that, in the meantime, Lisbon had been ratified.
Some pretty desperate re writing of history there Richard. I do particularly love the fact that the ECJ ruling that circumvented the treaty agreements was all because our own civil servants were at fault rather than any machinations by the EU itself. Your really are desperately, hopelessly Europhile aren't you.
Not a judgement on the EU per se but I honestly believe that the idea that ANY politician is not a lying charlatan is incredibly naive. That does not necessarily mean that 100% of them are but that honest politicians are so incredibly rare that it is far better just to assume they are all lying every time they move their lips.
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but the point is that an agreement is an agreement. There is no world in which we can do anything without some degree of mutual trust with other friendly countries. For that matter, our EU friends are the ones with the stronger cause for complaint on this score: they have a solemn, formally-ratified treaty with us, and we're trying to change it retrospectively. Indeed, the principal complaint in the UK against Cameron's renegotiation is that he hasn't tried hard enough to welch on the deal.
In terms of new bond. Damien Lewis is again very very good in his new US show, Billions.
I think bond has run its course. The reboot looked promising but it seems to have gone backwards to me.
You might think that, the film execs will be ordering plenty more as they make a boat load of cash.
SPECTRE was fecking awful tho. A truly terrible film. Craig hasn't retired too early, he's retired too late. One movie too late. A blot on his CV. Shame
I didn't like it. But I didn't like the Star War movie either. And seemed to be a minority view for both. And sure as eggs is eggs there are going to be more of both.
SPECTRE got pretty mixed reviews, after the initial euphoria. Consensus was that it was OK.
However it did make shedloads of cash - $900m and counting.
I don't doubt that the franchise will continue and I am sure they will find ways of rebooting it very successfully. Craig was an inspired choice, he just lost interest by the end.
Now I must go back to my own franchise. I have to reread the new S K Tremayne, beginning to end. Big moment. Gulp.
It made $900m in revenue, but how much did SPE/MGM spend to get it there. The production budget alone was $250m because of extensive reshoots and the marketing budget was gigantic. I would be surprised if SPE/MGM made more than a trivial return from SPECTRE after taking into account all of their costs. Not just because of dodgy Hollywood accounting to try and stiff the production team out of their cut.
After reading @DavidL 's comment at the top of the thread, I googled the composition of the UK's supreme court.
Where is the diversity?
Where are the *normal* people?
They are not "normal" people, they are top class lawyers. And that should surely be the criteria for their appointment.
I hope Lord Denning is still offering legal opinion and counsel to the justices from the beyond.
Lord Denning rather disgraced himself with his judgment on the appeal by the Birmingham 6 in relation to the injuries suffered in police custody. He could not countenance the consequences and so found the legal reasoning to justify the outcome he wanted. Very very poor - both legally and morally.
Let justice be done no matter if the heavens fall.
He became too concerned with protecting the reputation of the criminal justice system rather than remembering that it exists for a purpose and that purpose is not the maintenance of its own reputation.
"If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong." - Scalia
If you were advocating Remain what arguments would you use?
I would argue:
That the EU, in or out, is likely to remain the UK's most important market for the foreseeable future. That it is important that we are a part of the rule making process within that market. That to give up our membership of the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament simply cannot be in our best interests. There is a real risk that without the UK the EU will become more protectionist, more insular and less successful with adverse consequences for our prosperity.
That, frustrating as it is at times, there are many, many areas where co-operation with our nearest neighbours makes perfect sense and the EU provides a framework for doing that. I might mention pollution, crime, even the mass immigration that the EU is presently enduring as examples of where working together through the framework of the EU makes sense.
That the world is increasingly made of large trading blocs who negotiate with each other on a supra government level. That it is naïve to think we will be able to negotiate the same terms with these trading blocs that the EU can. That the concept of sovereignty in a 19th century sense is simply redundant in the modern interrelated world.
That the EU is far from perfect but it has accepted British exceptionalism to a significant extent already with all the opt outs we have had since Maastricht and that these have been extended (fractionally) even further by Cameron's negotiations. There are reasonable prospects of this continuing and if it doesn't we can leave then.
That the world economy is a particularly fragile state at the present time with a serious risk of a repeat of at least elements of the financial crash. This is not the time to expose the UK to 2 years of uncertainty until the negotiations with the EU are resolved. It will cost inward investment, growth and jobs at the margins.
There are lots of good arguments for Remain, just as there are lots of good arguments for Leave. This is a really complicated and finely balanced decision. It perplexes me that so many can be so sure what the answer is.
-------------------> Good points and accepted if you are talking solely about trading.
What has that got to do with all the other areas they poke their collective noses into like prisoners rights to votes , how we spend welfare, when and where are bins are emptied and all the rest of it? That's nothing to do with trading . If it was just trading we were concerned about here as it was originally intended I would of course go for remain ......but it isn't .........and that's the problem.
1. Lib Dems flirting with extinction but would probably come out with one seat. 2. Lab would still form the govt but would be reliant on active Plaid support; Plaid abstention = Lab defeat. 3. (2) implies another coalition. 4. V tight for 2nd/3rd/4th. 5. Also v tight for whether Lab+Plaid is above 50% of votes, but AMS effects should see them comfortably above 50% of seats even on these figures. 6. Not inconceivable that UKIP could finish second if Con continues to struggle and split re EU.
In terms of new bond. Damien Lewis is again very very good in his new US show, Billions.
I think bond has run its course. The reboot looked promising but it seems to have gone backwards to me.
You might think that, the film execs will be ordering plenty more as they make a boat load of cash.
SPECTRE was fecking awful tho. A truly terrible film. Craig hasn't retired too early, he's retired too late. One movie too late. A blot on his CV. Shame
I didn't like it. But I didn't like the Star War movie either. And seemed to be a minority view for both. And sure as eggs is eggs there are going to be more of both.
SPECTRE got pretty mixed reviews, after the initial euphoria. Consensus was that it was OK.
However it did make shedloads of cash - $900m and counting.
I don't doubt that the franchise will continue and I am sure they will find ways of rebooting it very successfully. Craig was an inspired choice, he just lost interest by the end.
Now I must go back to my own franchise. I have to reread the new S K Tremayne, beginning to end. Big moment. Gulp.
It made $900m in revenue, but how much did SPE/MGM spend to get it there. The production budget alone was $250m because of extensive reshoots and the marketing budget was gigantic. I would be surprised if SPE/MGM made more than a trivial return from SPECTRE after taking into account all of their costs. Not just because of dodgy Hollywood accounting to try and stiff the production team out of their cut.
Product placement and merchandising agreements finance a large part of the production costs. And if they didn't make a large profit, the films wouldn't get made. Studios are very strict, even brutal when it comes to making sequels to pictures that haven't made sufficient returns on investment.
Some pretty desperate re writing of history there Richard. I do particularly love the fact that the ECJ ruling that circumvented the treaty agreements was all because our own civil servants were at fault rather than any machinations by the EU itself. Your really are desperately, hopelessly Europhile aren't you.
In terms of new bond. Damien Lewis is again very very good in his new US show, Billions.
I think bond has run its course. The reboot looked promising but it seems to have gone backwards to me.
You might think that, the film execs will be ordering plenty more as they make a boat load of cash.
SPECTRE was fecking awful tho. A truly terrible film. Craig hasn't retired too early, he's retired too late. One movie too late. A blot on his CV. Shame
I didn't like it. But I didn't like the Star War movie either. And seemed to be a minority view for both. And sure as eggs is eggs there are going to be more of both.
SPECTRE got pretty mixed reviews, after the initial euphoria. Consensus was that it was OK.
However it did make shedloads of cash - $900m and counting.
I don't doubt that the franchise will continue and I am sure they will find ways of rebooting it very successfully. Craig was an inspired choice, he just lost interest by the end.
Now I must go back to my own franchise. I have to reread the new S K Tremayne, beginning to end. Big moment. Gulp.
It made $900m in revenue, but how much did SPE/MGM spend to get it there. The production budget alone was $250m because of extensive reshoots and the marketing budget was gigantic. I would be surprised if SPE/MGM made more than a trivial return from SPECTRE after taking into account all of their costs. Not just because of dodgy Hollywood accounting to try and stiff the production team out of their cut.
Given that Barbara and Michael (the production team) own the franchise - and I think the back library - I doubt MGM does anything dodgy on the accounting front.
A friend of my wife used to be Michael's archivist and curator & my wife happened to be at Eon's offices when his personal cheque arrived (I think for Goldeneye?). Let's just say it wasn't insignificant.
I hope Lord Denning is still offering legal opinion and counsel to the justices from the beyond.
Lord Denning rather disgraced himself with his judgment on the appeal by the Birmingham 6 in relation to the injuries suffered in police custody. He could not countenance the consequences and so found the legal reasoning to justify the outcome he wanted. Very very poor - both legally and morally.
Let justice be done no matter if the heavens fall.
He became too concerned with protecting the reputation of the criminal justice system rather than remembering that it exists for a purpose and that purpose is not the maintenance of its own reputation.
"If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong." - Scalia
Didn't Scalia also say that proof of innocence was not a ground for appeal against the death penalty?
If you were advocating Remain what arguments would you use?
I would argue:
That the EU, in or out, is likely to remain the UK's most important market for the foreseeable future. That it is important that we are a part of the rule making process within that market. That to give up our membership of the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament simply cannot be in our best interests. There is a real risk that without the UK the EU will become more protectionist, more insular and less successful with adverse consequences for our prosperity.
That, frustrating as it is at times, there are many, many areas where co-operation with our nearest neighbours makes perfect sense and the EU provides a framework for doing that. I might mention pollution, crime, even the mass immigration that the EU is presently enduring as examples of where working together through the framework of the EU makes sense.
That the world is increasingly made of large trading blocs who negotiate with each other on a supra government level. That it is naïve to think we will be able to negotiate the same terms with these trading blocs that the EU can. That the concept of sovereignty in a 19th century sense is simply redundant in the modern interrelated world.
That the EU is far from perfect but it has accepted British exceptionalism to a significant extent already with all the opt outs we have had since Maastricht and that these have been extended (fractionally) even further by Cameron's negotiations. There are reasonable prospects of this continuing and if it doesn't we can leave then.
That the world economy is a particularly fragile state at the present time with a serious risk of a repeat of at least elements of the financial crash. This is not the time to expose the UK to 2 years of uncertainty until the negotiations with the EU are resolved. It will cost inward investment, growth and jobs at the margins.
There are lots of good arguments for Remain, just as there are lots of good arguments for Leave. This is a really complicated and finely balanced decision. It perplexes me that so many can be so sure what the answer is.
-------------------> Good points and accepted if you are talking solely about trading.
What has that got to do with all the other areas they poke their collective noses into like prisoners rights to votes , how we spend welfare, when and where are bins are emptied and all the rest of it? That's nothing to do with trading . If it was just trading we were concerned about here as it was originally intended I would of course go for remain ......but it isn't .........and that's the problem.
Isn’t "prisoner votes" the ECJ and nothing to do with the EU?
1. Lib Dems flirting with extinction but would probably come out with one seat. 2. Lab would still form the govt but would be reliant on active Plaid support; Plaid abstention = Lab defeat. 3. (2) implies another coalition. 4. V tight for 2nd/3rd/4th. 5. Also v tight for whether Lab+Plaid is above 50% of votes, but AMS effects should see them comfortably above 50% of seats even on these figures. 6. Not inconceivable that UKIP could finish second if Con continues to struggle and split re EU.
Juncker added: “It’s a good thing Norway never joined. A Noexit would mean that they were leaving and not leaving simultaneously, stranding them in quantum uncertainty forever.”
1. Lib Dems flirting with extinction but would probably come out with one seat. 2. Lab would still form the govt but would be reliant on active Plaid support; Plaid abstention = Lab defeat. 3. (2) implies another coalition. 4. V tight for 2nd/3rd/4th. 5. Also v tight for whether Lab+Plaid is above 50% of votes, but AMS effects should see them comfortably above 50% of seats even on these figures. 6. Not inconceivable that UKIP could finish second if Con continues to struggle and split re EU.
Also, Lab 34 / Con 22 / Plaid 19 would make for some interesting constituency battles but I don't have the time to work them out.
31% for Labour in Wales is dreadful, almost worse than their Scottish situation (which isn't news). Also the poll showing Leave with a 55/45 lead in Wales after excluding DKs is a bit unexpected.
1. Lib Dems flirting with extinction but would probably come out with one seat. 2. Lab would still form the govt but would be reliant on active Plaid support; Plaid abstention = Lab defeat. 3. (2) implies another coalition. 4. V tight for 2nd/3rd/4th. 5. Also v tight for whether Lab+Plaid is above 50% of votes, but AMS effects should see them comfortably above 50% of seats even on these figures. 6. Not inconceivable that UKIP could finish second if Con continues to struggle and split re EU.
Just how badly do Labour have to do to lose their vice-like grip on Wales?
Juncker added: “It’s a good thing Norway never joined. A Noexit would mean that they were leaving and not leaving simultaneously, stranding them in quantum uncertainty forever.”
I hope Lord Denning is still offering legal opinion and counsel to the justices from the beyond.
Lord Denning rather disgraced himself with his judgment on the appeal by the Birmingham 6 in relation to the injuries suffered in police custody. He could not countenance the consequences and so found the legal reasoning to justify the outcome he wanted. Very very poor - both legally and morally.
Let justice be done no matter if the heavens fall.
He became too concerned with protecting the reputation of the criminal justice system rather than remembering that it exists for a purpose and that purpose is not the maintenance of its own reputation.
"If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong." - Scalia
Didn't Scalia also say that proof of innocence was not a ground for appeal against the death penalty?
Can I get an absolute guarantee that Wales will become independent if the vote is for Remain?
It could sway my vote.
If it's the only UK country that votes Leave, I might move there.
Avoid Wales, it has too many rugby fans with chips on their shoulders about England. Will be an issue until Wales win a World Cup, which might be never.
But the key observation is that it wasn't the Uk parly that decided. So very undemocratic.
A democratically-elected UK government signed up to the treaty. A judgement from the body set up to adjudicate on the treaty went against the UK. In that respect it's no different from an adverse ruling in the ECHR, the WTO, or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
A government that was only elected because it told those voting for them on this issue we would get a referendum. Then signed it without a referendum. Labour on Lisbon. Lib Dems on three million jobs. Tories on massive return of power. They all throw any sense of honesty out window when it comes to EU.
Main reason I am voting to leave is lack of protection from Eurozone integration. But how EU corrupts honest political debate in this country adds to my motivation.
I hope Lord Denning is still offering legal opinion and counsel to the justices from the beyond.
Lord Denning rather disgraced himself with his judgment on the appeal by the Birmingham 6 in relation to the injuries suffered in police custody. He could not countenance the consequences and so found the legal reasoning to justify the outcome he wanted. Very very poor - both legally and morally.
Let justice be done no matter if the heavens fall.
He became too concerned with protecting the reputation of the criminal justice system rather than remembering that it exists for a purpose and that purpose is not the maintenance of its own reputation.
"If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong." - Scalia
Didn't Scalia also say that proof of innocence was not a ground for appeal against the death penalty?
St Peter is currently blocking his entrance to the Pearly Gates, asking him to "run that one by me again....".
I see that Farage will now only debate Salmond as part of a panel and not mono et mono. Sensible man but tells us a great deal about the colour of his liver!
A government that was only elected because it told those voting for them on this issue we would get a referendum. Then signed it without a referendum.
Eh? This was 1996.
My mistake. Thought you meant Lisbon.
On ever closer union, you are still incorrect. It doesn't matter whether not it names any country or not. It accepts that ever closer union should not be used to extend treaties, but is still clear ever closer union applies to every member state. There is no opt out.
@rcs1000 Did Antonin Scalia ever come up with a judgement through legal reasoning that he didn't like ?
Yup. Bush v Gore. He ruled there was an Equal Protection violation.
I think it was the only time he had ever ruled in favour of an Equal Protection violation
Surely that was the opposite: Scalia jumped through hoops to use a device he did not like in order to reach a conclusion he very much did like: that Bush and not Gore should be president.
1. Lib Dems flirting with extinction but would probably come out with one seat. 2. Lab would still form the govt but would be reliant on active Plaid support; Plaid abstention = Lab defeat. 3. (2) implies another coalition. 4. V tight for 2nd/3rd/4th. 5. Also v tight for whether Lab+Plaid is above 50% of votes, but AMS effects should see them comfortably above 50% of seats even on these figures. 6. Not inconceivable that UKIP could finish second if Con continues to struggle and split re EU.
Just how badly do Labour have to do to lose their vice-like grip on Wales?
I can't see Labour not running Wales while:
1. Plaid are: a. Not strong enough to form a government b. Not prepared to work with Con.
2. Con+UKIP are sub-31 seats.
3. LDs are more likely to back Lab over Con if push came to shove, particularly if backing Con implicitly meant backing UKIP too.
Comments
If its not in a treaty, its worthless, the ECJ has overturned even codicils to treaties before never mind "legally binding" documents.
I don't share many of his views, but he's no flake. And is willing to get involved, unlike many armchair generals.
Being pissed on by some no name silly narcissistic NUSer is hilariously sad.
A few days back Casino paid me the (dubious) compliment of being labelled a 'swing' Tory activist who was until very recently a likely strong yes voter, but dismayed at Cameron's current terms to being 50-50. I am still perching uneasily on the fence awaiting the results of this week's summit and the campaign. But you are doing wonderfully in pushing me back to REMAIN, though the blissful irony is I may be joining you there.
http://www.listal.com/list/band-of-brother-brits
26 in total including Simon Pegg, Tom Hardy, James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender
After reading @DavidL 's comment at the top of the thread, I googled the composition of the UK's supreme court.
Where is the diversity?
Where are the *normal* people?
They addressed this a few days ago: there is a deal at the moment that the EU is negotiating with Mercosur. The trade-off the EU is proposing is opening up Mercosur for high tech engineering (which will mainly benefit Germany and Northern Italy) in return for opening the EU for high grade beef (which will mainly hit Scotland, Northern England and Ireland (North & South). If we were independent we can optimise deals for our own needs.
Re: trade barriers with the EU I thought a basic WTO principle was that no new trade barriers can be erected. I'm not sure the EU *can* whack up tarrifs on the UK just because we leave.
From their point of view, European integration means peace and democracy. These arguments cut very little ice with us, but both points of view are held quite sincerely, and make sense from the perspective of different countries. We have been a partial democracy since 1832, a full democracy since 1918, and governed by the rule of law since long before then, so the EU gives us nothing that we don't already have. But, for a country that has been ruled by fascists or communists, the EU does look like a guarantor of their freedoms.
As to the rest:-
1. Voting Leave or Remain, because you don't look some of the people making the arguments, is silly. Leave will have Nigel Farage and the Right of the Conservative Party. Remain will have Martin McGuinness, Natalie Bennet, and John McDonnell. One should decide how to vote on the merits of the issue.
2. It's entirely reasonable for soft supporters of Leave to say what kinds of arguments from Remain they would find convincing. So far, Remain have made a terrible case, (as have Leave) combining hyperbole, insults, and threatening of the terrors of the Earth. Polling is shifting towards Leave, and that is down to bad arguments being made by Remain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35579767.
This provides a potential insight into why Martin writes the most unbelievable rubbish on Scotland. His views on Britain and Europe were clearly defined by The Hotspur , his views on America by Dan Dare, his views on Scotland by Brigadoon while his early career was mentored by Andrew Neil.
God help him.
If your argument is simply that you think all EU leaders are a bunch of lying charlatans who can't be trusted to implement agreements they sign up to, then I expect you'll vote Leave. That has nothing to do with the point I was addressing, which was to answer @NorfolkTilIDie.
The hold French farmers have is stunning.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185906/locations
FWIW, I think Remain will win, and possibly quite clearly. My point was that I wouldn't believe Leave would win until people like your good self - a longstanding pro-EU Tory, and leadership loyalist, on the left of the party - felt there was no serious alternative but to vote Leave.
So, in that sense, I felt (and still do feel) you are a useful litmus test. No pressure.
If so they have substantial retail banking operations in a Eurozone country and I could well imagine they would see the need to have a lead regulator, at least for that part of the operations, in France. That would probably account for most of the jobs. The corporate banking division will stay in London and be regulated by the BoE not the ECB.
We're on the edge of Europe, only Ireland is further West. We weren't invaded and Ireland was neutral in WW2. Our history and islands status make us quite different as national personalites.
I could imagine Ireland following us out given our trading links and shared migration.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/06/eu.politics
our immigration level would in 10s of thousands (no ifs, no buts)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6961675/David-Cameron-net-immigration-will-be-capped-at-tens-of-thousands.html
and we would have renegotiated a fundamentally new sort of relationship with the EU
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg
and we would not have had all the bullshit this week about refugee camps in Kent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/migrant-refugee-camp-calais-britain-brexit-eu-exit-david-cameron-kent-a6860466.html
So if Cameron lies to us all the time, what makes you think that his EU colleagues are some how paragons of truth ? Especially when we know they are not. Consider John Major's opt out from the Social Chapter, and how the EU suddenly decided that the Working Time Directive was employment law and not social law, and we didn't have an opt out on employment law.
When this whole agreement gets ignored after the referendum, and probably struck down by the ECJ, I would love to gloat at the naivety of people that campaigned for it, but it will be too depressing. People who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Returning power from EU Institutions to national institutions is certainly not on the agenda, rather the reverse.
I admire your optimism. Others might call it naivety. I am somewhat more cynical - or realistic - about how this will end up. I think these words are mere flim flam designed to give Cameron the appearance of something rather than anything concrete and bankable and with real effects in the real world.
(Ps I'm the child of petit bourgeois, who won't be taking over the business, & it has zero bearing on my views on the referendum)
As for Cameron, you are very confused. Cameron has clearly and consistently said what he would like the EU to be; he laid it out very ably in his Bloomberg speech. Concluding that he was lying, because he hasn't so far been able to persuade 27 other countries to agree exactly with his vision, is bonkers.
Ditto the social chapter bit. You seem to have failed to understand that, in the meantime, Lisbon had been ratified.
Although I'm a member of a Party strongly committed to REMAIN, I'm actually quite relaxed about LEAVE winning and see some potential positives in a Brexit.
Nobody is suggesting we turn our backs on the world or even Europe - if we vote to LEAVE, we will still have an economic and political relationship with the EU and indeed with other countries through NATO, the UN and a host of other multi-lateral bodies.
Indeed, there are aspects of EU membership such as the single market which work well for us and, in truth, we would still be facing a European crisis in terms of migration whether the EU existed or not.
A lot of the campaign rhetoric (or scare-mongering if you want) is just that - for the campaign. The world won't end if we vote to LEAVE and the identity of Britain won't end if we choose to REMAIN. It will be in everyone's interests to make the best of whichever option is chosen so the rhetoric will be replaced by the reality of sensible negotiation and compromise and indeed it may turn out that it won't matter very much whether we are in the EU or not.
On the other hand, leaving the EU does provide an opportunity for that for which I think LEAVE should be arguing - not a negative anti-European view but a positive alternative - namely, a return to EFTA and that organisation's transformation into an alternative model for economic multi-lateral co-operation. EFTA is irrelevant now but with Britain back in the fold and becoming its leader, it has the potential to be re-invented as the alternative model.
EFTA would be a loose economically-based federation of autonomous states with a minimal central structure wholly subservient to national Governments. Yes, EFTA members would form a free market but beyond that, social, political and cultural policy would be the preserve of national Parliaments. The new EFTA would be in a stronger position to negotiate economic relationships with the EU, NAFTA and others but without the political integration and in-fighting.
Indeed, it would be the Chancellor would be the main representative of HMG at EFTA rather than the Prime Minister and while we would contribute a small amount to the running of the new EFTA (perhaps offering it a home in a redundant HMG office building), such a contribution would be miniscule compared to what we contribute now to the EU.
As with YES in the Scottish Referendum, it is the inability of one side to craft a coherent and credible view of the future that leaves the field open to the status quo. I recognise there are many strands to LEAVE - they have to come up with a common view otherwise REMAIN wins by default or fear if you prefer.
1. A legally binding agreement that the financial rules which the eurozone adopt for themselves do not apply to the non-eurozone states. This gives the eurozone the ability to do whatever they want to do to make the euro work. Crucially, the quid pro quo is that they cannot impose these rules on states outside the eurozone.
2. They can apply to such states but only if the states agree and to the extent they agree. If this is to be the case, non-eurozone states must be fully involved in the discussions and votes at all stages.
3. There can be no discrimination against states or companies / legal entities based in non-eurozone states. In short, the eurozone can seek to make it more attractive for banks, say, to be based in the eurozone but what it cannot do is seek to make it more unattractive to be based outside it by imposing penalties or harsher rules or limiting or forbidding access to markets on such states or people within them.
This gives the eurozone what they say they want i.e. faster integration but does not discriminate against the UK as a member of the EU, the principle of non-discrimination being so very important to the EU (at least sometimes, anyway).
Anyway, the sun is shining so off to walk the hound shortly........
YouGov announces that Peter Kellner will step down as president on 31 March after 15 years as chairman/pres.
Population of Bulgaria, July 2015 7,186,893
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bu.html
Gives total combined population of 28 853 243
So Lord Hodge, who is brilliant, ruled that if the contract says that the Bank is not giving any advice to the hard pressed company who can't get credit elsewhere then that is the contract and the reality of them being "persuaded" that they should enter into an interest rate swop deal that they don't understand is simply inadmissible. I really don't believe Denning would have found his hands so tied.
Let justice be done no matter if the heavens fall.
He became too concerned with protecting the reputation of the criminal justice system rather than remembering that it exists for a purpose and that purpose is not the maintenance of its own reputation.
At worst ... Remain - we'll lose fifty million jobs and all starve to death. Leave - it's those foreigners trying to take over our governance.
I suspect Remain will win because of inertia.
There's little doubt that ever closer political union is the intent, and I suspect a Remain vote will encourage that. But I'm on the Leave side now, because we can make our own mistakes, thank you very much.
Welsh EU referendum poll:
Remain 37% (-3)
Leave: 45% (+3)
(via YouGov / 09 - 11 Feb)
Remain = Ronda Roussey.
Taking Moral Foundations Theory to GOP primaries: good stuff from @JonHaidt & @emilyekins https://t.co/fYalEU2GO3 https://t.co/gRfRRPTtRo
@DanHannanMEP
If the EU needs to threaten us to discourage others from walking away, then it's less a club than a mafia racket. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3446576/Foreign-Secretary-Philip-Hammond-warns-EU-fall-apart-Britain-quits-new-poll-finds-Brits-no-faith-David-Cameron-s-ability-good-deal.html …
If you were advocating Remain what arguments would you use?
I would argue:
That the EU, in or out, is likely to remain the UK's most important market for the foreseeable future. That it is important that we are a part of the rule making process within that market. That to give up our membership of the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament simply cannot be in our best interests. There is a real risk that without the UK the EU will become more protectionist, more insular and less successful with adverse consequences for our prosperity.
That, frustrating as it is at times, there are many, many areas where co-operation with our nearest neighbours makes perfect sense and the EU provides a framework for doing that. I might mention pollution, crime, even the mass immigration that the EU is presently enduring as examples of where working together through the framework of the EU makes sense.
That the world is increasingly made of large trading blocs who negotiate with each other on a supra government level. That it is naïve to think we will be able to negotiate the same terms with these trading blocs that the EU can. That the concept of sovereignty in a 19th century sense is simply redundant in the modern interrelated world.
That the EU is far from perfect but it has accepted British exceptionalism to a significant extent already with all the opt outs we have had since Maastricht and that these have been extended (fractionally) even further by Cameron's negotiations. There are reasonable prospects of this continuing and if it doesn't we can leave then.
That the world economy is a particularly fragile state at the present time with a serious risk of a repeat of at least elements of the financial crash. This is not the time to expose the UK to 2 years of uncertainty until the negotiations with the EU are resolved. It will cost inward investment, growth and jobs at the margins.
There are lots of good arguments for Remain, just as there are lots of good arguments for Leave. This is a really complicated and finely balanced decision. It perplexes me that so many can be so sure what the answer is.
------------------->
Good points and accepted if you are talking solely about trading.
What has that got to do with all the other areas they poke their collective noses into like prisoners rights to votes , how we spend welfare, when and where are bins are emptied and all the rest of it? That's nothing to do with trading . If it was just trading we were concerned about here as it was originally intended I would of course go for remain ......but it isn't .........and that's the problem.
Portugal?
Iceland?
There are other European countries within 50 miles of us south, west and east. Hardly at the edge.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/699211427568054276
Some points to note.
1. Lib Dems flirting with extinction but would probably come out with one seat.
2. Lab would still form the govt but would be reliant on active Plaid support; Plaid abstention = Lab defeat.
3. (2) implies another coalition.
4. V tight for 2nd/3rd/4th.
5. Also v tight for whether Lab+Plaid is above 50% of votes, but AMS effects should see them comfortably above 50% of seats even on these figures.
6. Not inconceivable that UKIP could finish second if Con continues to struggle and split re EU.
A friend of my wife used to be Michael's archivist and curator & my wife happened to be at Eon's offices when his personal cheque arrived (I think for Goldeneye?). Let's just say it wasn't insignificant.
It could sway my vote.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35577913
I would argue:
That the EU, in or out, is likely to remain the UK's most important market for the foreseeable future. That it is important that we are a part of the rule making process within that market. That to give up our membership of the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament simply cannot be in our best interests. There is a real risk that without the UK the EU will become more protectionist, more insular and less successful with adverse consequences for our prosperity.
That, frustrating as it is at times, there are many, many areas where co-operation with our nearest neighbours makes perfect sense and the EU provides a framework for doing that. I might mention pollution, crime, even the mass immigration that the EU is presently enduring as examples of where working together through the framework of the EU makes sense.
That the world is increasingly made of large trading blocs who negotiate with each other on a supra government level. That it is naïve to think we will be able to negotiate the same terms with these trading blocs that the EU can. That the concept of sovereignty in a 19th century sense is simply redundant in the modern interrelated world.
That the EU is far from perfect but it has accepted British exceptionalism to a significant extent already with all the opt outs we have had since Maastricht and that these have been extended (fractionally) even further by Cameron's negotiations. There are reasonable prospects of this continuing and if it doesn't we can leave then.
That the world economy is a particularly fragile state at the present time with a serious risk of a repeat of at least elements of the financial crash. This is not the time to expose the UK to 2 years of uncertainty until the negotiations with the EU are resolved. It will cost inward investment, growth and jobs at the margins.
There are lots of good arguments for Remain, just as there are lots of good arguments for Leave. This is a really complicated and finely balanced decision. It perplexes me that so many can be so sure what the answer is.
------------------->
Good points and accepted if you are talking solely about trading.
What has that got to do with all the other areas they poke their collective noses into like prisoners rights to votes , how we spend welfare, when and where are bins are emptied and all the rest of it? That's nothing to do with trading . If it was just trading we were concerned about here as it was originally intended I would of course go for remain ......but it isn't .........and that's the problem.
Isn’t "prisoner votes" the ECJ and nothing to do with the EU?
D/k’s +2.
Classic MASH!
Main reason I am voting to leave is lack of protection from Eurozone integration. But how EU corrupts honest political debate in this country adds to my motivation.
Or the US or Canada?
Canada is particularly easy to emigrate to. Most of the natives speak passable English, and attempt politeness.
I think it was the only time he had ever ruled in favour of an Equal Protection violation
France -8%
UK -8%
US -9%
Switzerland -9%
Netherlands -9%
Australia -10%
Japan -11%
Germany -11%
I don't think I've ever seen such tight grouping, with just 3% between the best performer (France), and the worst (Germany).
On ever closer union, you are still incorrect. It doesn't matter whether not it names any country or not. It accepts that ever closer union should not be used to extend treaties, but is still clear ever closer union applies to every member state. There is no opt out.
Edit on checking . No it isn’t. Falling back a bit. Don’t go there.
1. Plaid are:
a. Not strong enough to form a government
b. Not prepared to work with Con.
2. Con+UKIP are sub-31 seats.
3. LDs are more likely to back Lab over Con if push came to shove, particularly if backing Con implicitly meant backing UKIP too.