politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump and Clinton have double digit leads in first post deb
Comments
-
Not sure I agree with chunks of this, but some interesting points from James Bloodworth
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/corbyn-opposing-camerons-emergency-brake-eu-benefits-political-suicide-labour-15439610 -
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Edit: My €0.02
It is a confection to enable a settlement to be reached. The single rulebook, CRD IV, SSM, SRM, etc (not by any means bonkers per se but which contribute to the erosion of EZ nations' sovereignty) was designed to protect EZ member citizens from nation-specific risks, by pooling those risks and having pooled safeguards.
Like all EU directives, it is unambiguous in wanting ever closer political and economic union. If they are carving out "ever closer union" generally for us then they will perforce carve out this attempt, confected I believe for negotiating purposes, to include us in the single rulebook.0 -
malcolmg said:
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.Casino_Royale said:
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.malcolmg said:
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.Scott_P said:
We get that either way.MarqueeMark said:Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.0 -
Surely as far as SC is concerned it’s the direction of travel of the vote shares. IIRC Sanders has been trailing Hillary by more than 21%, so with a few days to go, plus the effect of a positively newsworthy result in Nevada, he should get a lot closer0
-
A letter:rcs1000 said:
I can't see that site, bizarrely: is the plan to do a codicil to the existing treaties or to leave it as a 'letter'?Indigo said:
Several are quoted in the CityAM article I linked earlier.rcs1000 said:However, my understanding (such that it is), is that it is possible to do a codicil to existing treaties without requiring a full renegotiation and referendum. Are there any constitutional lawyers on here who can help?
http://www.cityam.com/234652/david-camerons-eu-deal-is-in-legal-terms-not-worth-the-paper-its-printed-onEU judges have in any event stated that they will ignore international law where it conflicts with the EU Treaties. In 2008, the ECJ said that “the obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles” of the EU Treaties. This is particularly significant, since the case involved the ECJ refusing to uphold UN Security Council resolutions. Under international law, these have precedence over everything else.
The best the government will get will be a political, not a legal, agreement from the EU. As the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said in December, the UK will obtain “a political declaration because it’s impossible to change the treaty before the referendum”. The ECJ has previously said that such a political declaration “has no legal significance”.0 -
It's a bit as though Gordon hadn't had an unopposed run but had been challenged by a rank outsider (Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps!). Essentially mainstream Democrats thought Clinton was unbeatable for the nomination (and perhaps she is), and didn't want the grief of standing against her with an apparently decent chance and getting blown away. Sanders, at his age and with his distinctive beliefs, had absolutely nothing to lose - even if he's defeated, he's forced her a bit to the left, partially rehabilitated the word "socialist" in the USA (the polling evidence is that it's now seen positively by many people, especially younger ones) and had a lot of fun.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, cheers.
Seems odd that (almost from the start) the Democrats have had a two horse race only.0 -
Today's headline for viewers (and voters) in Scotland.
https://twitter.com/RichardLochhead/status/6995134944844759040 -
Belgian police detain 10 on suspicion of running IS recruitment ring https://t.co/smoZ69eVOa https://t.co/jUjXYNBCg00
-
Morning all,JonathanD said:RobD said:Touched on last thread, but Osborne's jammy git status confirmed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12158954/George-Osborne-to-reap-21bn-windfall-from-UKs-safe-haven-status.html
Let's hope he uses it to pay down the deficit, rather than to lessen the impact of some cut, as the previous bounty was used for.
Its a big week for Osborne - inflation figures today, employment and earnings tomorrow, and then public sector borrowing on Friday.
£20 billion? Should just about cover the NHS short-fall over next few years.0 -
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html0 -
He has plenty of business interests in Scotland and his aircraft are based there , thank you very much. The only nukes we have are from London.MarqueeMark said:
Has Donald Trump nuked it into the seabed already?malcolmg said:
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.Casino_Royale said:
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.malcolmg said:
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.Scott_P said:
We get that either way.MarqueeMark said:Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.0 -
For Democrats, it's eyes on Nevada.
We've had one poll - a tie. I suspect Clinton will come through in the end, but having backed her at 1.4s I am rattled.
0 -
For someone who "couldn't care less what you think about me", you sure do bring this up unprompted rather a lot.Theuniondivvie said:malcolmg said:
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.Casino_Royale said:
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.malcolmg said:
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.Scott_P said:
We get that either way.MarqueeMark said:Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
Perhaps you are a bit more sensitive than I thought.0 -
only coarse unionists would come out with that kind of gutter talk. You expect them to come out with that , common ignorant oafs.Theuniondivvie said:malcolmg said:
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.Casino_Royale said:
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.malcolmg said:
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.Scott_P said:
We get that either way.MarqueeMark said:Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.0 -
FPT:
The number replying as "left the profession" was 0.3%.MP_SE said:
Do you know what % quit the medical profession for good?foxinsoxuk said:
48% was the figure not taking up junior doctor posts after completing the mandatory F2 year. So about half was correct before imposition. It will be worse this August.RobD said:
I'm sure half of the junior doctors are packing their bags as we speak.Chris_A said:Sorry to hark back to the previous thread but Richard N there's not a cat in hell's chance that Hunt will get his way with the new contract without major disruption.
http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/Nearly_half_of_trainees_chose_not_to_progress_straight_to_specialty_training_in_2015
"The remaining trainees had taken a non-service role such as anatomy demonstrator (5.5%), taken a locum appointment for training in the UK (0.5%), or had left the profession (0.3%)"
The rest of the 2015 numbers are:
Straight to speciality training: 52.0%
Seeking employment as a doctor in the UK: 8.6%.
Non-training (service) role in the UK: 9.2%
Career break (travelling, charity I guess): 13.1%
Appointment outside UK: 6%
Seeking Appointment outside UK: 4.3%
Speciality training outside UK: 0.4%
So it looks like we lost just over 10% for however long they stay overseas, and have just over 70% in employment or training or jobhunting in the UK, which will turn into 80% when the career-breakers return, and another 5%+ who are doing roles which are not formally clinical.
The survey should be good, as "The survey received 7168 responses from 7533 foundation doctors who were due to complete their foundation training in August 2015, a 95% response rate."
From my BMA-o-sceptic viewpoint, I think that reinforces the point that this is not an existential crisis and the BMA are massively overplaying their hand propaganda-wise, even if there is a valid point smoewhere underneath.
The straight to speciality training numbers have fallen from 71.6% in 2011, but that was the year of the fees Cleggasm, and I would need to see 10 years of numbers, *and* the details of how the make up of the NHS is changing (eg specialist nurses have far more scope now, especially in GP surgeries).
http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/Nearly_half_of_trainees_chose_not_to_progress_straight_to_specialty_training_in_2015
0 -
Gordon Brown vs Jeremy Corbyn would have been fun.NickPalmer said:
It's a bit as though Gordon hadn't had an unopposed run but had been challenged by a rank outsider (Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps!). Essentially mainstream Democrats thought Clinton was unbeatable for the nomination (and perhaps she is), and didn't want the grief of standing against her with an apparently decent chance and getting blown away. Sanders, at his age and with his distinctive beliefs, had absolutely nothing to lose - even if he's defeated, he's forced her a bit to the left, partially rehabilitated the word "socialist" in the USA (the polling evidence is that it's now seen positively by many people, especially younger ones) and had a lot of fun.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, cheers.
Seems odd that (almost from the start) the Democrats have had a two horse race only.0 -
I see the School Leopard has broken out of its cage.
Ooops...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-355849090 -
Brown was opposed by McDonnell and Meacher. In classic far-left fashion, without the support for one candidate, they tried to run two.NickPalmer said:
It's a bit as though Gordon hadn't had an unopposed run but had been challenged by a rank outsider (Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps!). Essentially mainstream Democrats thought Clinton was unbeatable for the nomination (and perhaps she is), and didn't want the grief of standing against her with an apparently decent chance and getting blown away. Sanders, at his age and with his distinctive beliefs, had absolutely nothing to lose - even if he's defeated, he's forced her a bit to the left, partially rehabilitated the word "socialist" in the USA (the polling evidence is that it's now seen positively by many people, especially younger ones) and had a lot of fun.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, cheers.
Seems odd that (almost from the start) the Democrats have had a two horse race only.
Even so, it's extraordinary that no mainstream saleable Democrat ran against Hillary. Did they not learn the lesson from 2008, when she was a stronger candidate than she is now? For that matter, did they not learn the lesson from 1992, when Bill ran what was perceived to be a suicide mission against an impregnable Bush in the aftermath of the Gulf War?
Any presidential hopeful in his or her forties or fifties will always find value in running a good campaign. Even if it fails on the top-line, it puts them in line both as running mate and as a contender in four or eight years' time.0 -
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Edit: My €0.02
It is a confection to enable a settlement to be reached. The single rulebook, CRD IV, SSM, SRM, etc (not by any means bonkers per se but which contribute to the erosion of EZ nations' sovereignty) was designed to protect EZ member citizens from nation-specific risks, by pooling those risks and having pooled safeguards.
Like all EU directives, it is unambiguous in wanting ever closer political and economic union. If they are carving out "ever closer union" generally for us then they will perforce carve out this attempt, confected I believe for negotiating purposes, to include us in the single rulebook.0 -
'gutter talk'malcolmg said:
only coarse unionists would come out with that kind of gutter talk. You expect them to come out with that , common ignorant oafs.Theuniondivvie said:malcolmg said:
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.Casino_Royale said:
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.malcolmg said:
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.Scott_P said:
We get that either way.MarqueeMark said:Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
Malky does irony. How sweet.0 -
For who?AlastairMeeks said:Leavers are now mocking SNP supporters for their intenseness on politics? Oh what a gift...
0 -
Darren McCaffrey
Well at least EU politics changed a bit! ON THIS DAY IN 1568: death sentence passed on entire Netherlands for heresy by Spanish Inquisition.0 -
It's lining up to be a very significant betting weekend: we should get the referendum date, the declarers for Leave, and the South Carolina primary results.Plato_Says said:There are reports Cameron will announce the EU ref date at a Cabinet meeting on Friday.
I'm unclear about the benefits proposal. It appears to be for new applications only, whilst 34k already here can continue to claim. I don't mind that much. However many seem unhappy about relative reductions and the attraction this may hold for other EU members.
I hope we get this uncertainty resolved in short order.NorfolkTilIDie said:If Cameron loses on single rulebook, it will also show how the lines that were supposedly about ever closer opt out are meaningless. Without any new treaties, way will be clear for UK finance sector to have to follow whatever rules Eurozone sets to deal with Eurocrisis.
0 -
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html0 -
Mr. Die, quite. It's a massive surrender of sovereignty and our ability to govern ourselves.
I still think Remain will win. But I bloody hope not. Cameron's deal is far worse than the status quo would've been.0 -
Twice, I think.Casino_Royale said:
For someone who "couldn't care less what you think about me", you sure do bring this up unprompted rather a lot.Theuniondivvie said:malcolmg said:
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.Casino_Royale said:
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.malcolmg said:
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.Scott_P said:
We get that either way.MarqueeMark said:Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
Perhaps you are a bit more sensitive than I thought.
Nipping a pompous reactionary on a quiet morning passes the time.0 -
Unusual self-awareness.....malcolmg said:
common ignorant oafTheuniondivvie said:malcolmg said:
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.Casino_Royale said:
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.malcolmg said:
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.Scott_P said:
We get that either way.MarqueeMark said:Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.0 -
And a Hissy-fit from Holyrood......Casino_Royale said:
It's lining up to be a very significant betting weekend: we should get the referendum date, the declarers for Leave, and the South Carolina primary results.Plato_Says said:There are reports Cameron will announce the EU ref date at a Cabinet meeting on Friday.
I'm unclear about the benefits proposal. It appears to be for new applications only, whilst 34k already here can continue to claim. I don't mind that much. However many seem unhappy about relative reductions and the attraction this may hold for other EU members.
I hope we get this uncertainty resolved in short order.NorfolkTilIDie said:If Cameron loses on single rulebook, it will also show how the lines that were supposedly about ever closer opt out are meaningless. Without any new treaties, way will be clear for UK finance sector to have to follow whatever rules Eurozone sets to deal with Eurocrisis.
0 -
Turnout favours Clinton she will have GOTV operation that Sanders lacks.TheWhiteRabbit said:For Democrats, it's eyes on Nevada.
We've had one poll - a tie. I suspect Clinton will come through in the end, but having backed her at 1.4s I am rattled.0 -
Apparently it's tough in Nevada which isn't used to caucuses. Not sure who that favours (enthusiasm v utilising what there is).NorfolkTilIDie said:
Turnout favours Clinton she will have GOTV operation that Sanders lacks.TheWhiteRabbit said:For Democrats, it's eyes on Nevada.
We've had one poll - a tie. I suspect Clinton will come through in the end, but having backed her at 1.4s I am rattled.0 -
We'll of course have to wait and see but I can't see it happening.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Edit: My €0.02
It is a confection to enable a settlement to be reached. The single rulebook, CRD IV, SSM, SRM, etc (not by any means bonkers per se but which contribute to the erosion of EZ nations' sovereignty) was designed to protect EZ member citizens from nation-specific risks, by pooling those risks and having pooled safeguards.
Like all EU directives, it is unambiguous in wanting ever closer political and economic union. If they are carving out "ever closer union" generally for us then they will perforce carve out this attempt, confected I believe for negotiating purposes, to include us in the single rulebook.0 -
You'll get the GOP primary results; you'll get the Democrat Nevada caucus results. Both significant though.Casino_Royale said:
It's lining up to be a very significant betting weekend: we should get the referendum date, the declarers for Leave, and the South Carolina primary results.Plato_Says said:There are reports Cameron will announce the EU ref date at a Cabinet meeting on Friday.
I'm unclear about the benefits proposal. It appears to be for new applications only, whilst 34k already here can continue to claim. I don't mind that much. However many seem unhappy about relative reductions and the attraction this may hold for other EU members.
I hope we get this uncertainty resolved in short order.NorfolkTilIDie said:If Cameron loses on single rulebook, it will also show how the lines that were supposedly about ever closer opt out are meaningless. Without any new treaties, way will be clear for UK finance sector to have to follow whatever rules Eurozone sets to deal with Eurocrisis.
There is a decent chance we won't get a referendum date. The deal still has to be done in the EU. We'll only get the date if the rest agree. Cameron must be desperate for it though as the pressure that will build, both within the EU and within his party, if he doesn't will be immense.0 -
On the basis that PB has had countless, convoluted spasms about various bucks stopping with the SNP government, I look forward to an in-depth discussion on government responsibility in this case.
'Social services cuts could be 'largest factor' in biggest annual rise in deaths for almost 50 years'
http://tinyurl.com/jfa3cdd
0 -
O/T Interesting survey question on You Gov this morning.
Which of the following would you rather have named after you?
A mountain
A theory
A grandchild
I chose theory.0 -
How is it worse than status quo - Ultimately it will be a case of being in favour of the EU even with its many flaws or to leave with a very uncertain knowledge of whether anything will be better than staying inMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Die, quite. It's a massive surrender of sovereignty and our ability to govern ourselves.
I still think Remain will win. But I bloody hope not. Cameron's deal is far worse than the status quo would've been.0 -
In all the claim and counter claim nonsense the heart of the debate is being lost.
Our PM is begging 27 other countries to allow us to decide how much money we give to visitors.
I defy anybody to tell me that is a good thing.0 -
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot. I do not know anything about him other than he is fixated like you on his hatred of the SNP and Scotland in general , and seems to spend an awful lot of his time twittering on about it.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
People in tax exile seem to have feverous imaginations, you are obsessed with a second referendum and for some bizarre reason ask me about it. Seek help.-2 -
Mr. NorthWales, if you don't think the UK being obliged to follow rules passed by the eurozone, for the eurozone is worse than the status quo then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you
Mr. Pubgoer, maybe a mountain.
Mount Morris sounds like a fun diversion, doesn't it?0 -
World First
*U.K. JAN. CORE INFLATION RATE SLOWS TO 1.2%; EST. 1.3%0 -
They should have included an 'ism', though I guess that could cross over with 'theory'.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:O/T Interesting survey question on You Gov this morning.
Which of the following would you rather have named after you?
A mountain
A theory
A grandchild
I chose theory.0 -
Should we now refer to you as Mr "Hairy Ball" or Mr "Tachyonic Antitelephone" from now on?Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:O/T Interesting survey question on You Gov this morning.
Which of the following would you rather have named after you?
A mountain
A theory
A grandchild
I chose theory.
http://www.livescience.com/33628-funny-physics-theorems-names.html0 -
What is on today, the loons are extremely touchy this morning , maybe Dave has another deal agreed with EU to be promoted.Theuniondivvie said:
Twice, I think.Casino_Royale said:
For someone who "couldn't care less what you think about me", you sure do bring this up unprompted rather a lot.Theuniondivvie said:malcolmg said:
Loser, get an education. You could not pick Scotland out on a map.Casino_Royale said:
The SNP deserve everything they get over their disgraceful behaviour on the hunting act last year.malcolmg said:
Sick as a parrot today Scott, your hero heading for a drubbing , your surge gone , more sad lonely twittering for the only Tory in the village.Scott_P said:
We get that either way.MarqueeMark said:Aaah, but for the extra 0.04%, we get to see the SNP worm squirm on the Hook of Hypocrisy....
Without the 0.04% the SNP argument is "we walked away from Smith because we didn't want to give up the massive subsidies from UK we said we weren't getting"...
Throwing further tantrums won't get them anything.
Now, off you go down to Stirling job centre to collect your giro; hope you enjoy your whisky and irn bru on the sofa, you massive turnip.
Careful now, you don't want PB's very own Cicero deploying the 'dickstain' option.
Perhaps you are a bit more sensitive than I thought.
Nipping a pompous reactionary on a quiet morning passes the time.0 -
btw I have no knowledge of US politics but I do enjoy the irony of this from the thread header
The 74 year old Vermont socialist is currently out spending Clinton0 -
You know the loons will be on with SNPBAD in no time.Theuniondivvie said:On the basis that PB has had countless, convoluted spasms about various bucks stopping with the SNP government, I look forward to an in-depth discussion on government responsibility in this case.
'Social services cuts could be 'largest factor' in biggest annual rise in deaths for almost 50 years'
http://tinyurl.com/jfa3cdd0 -
Someone's been on the hooch a bit early.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot. I do not know anything about him other than he is fixated like you on his hatred of the SNP and Scotland in general , and seems to spend an awful lot of his time twittering on about it.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
People in tax exile seem to have feverous imaginations, you are obsessed with a second referendum and for some bizarre reason ask me about it. Seek help.
Why not email him direct Malky, with your concerns -
https://www.linkedin.com/in/khague0 -
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that. (Not sure why it hasn't gone up already).SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.0 -
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.0 -
Nick Cohen really isn't happy
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the British Labour party: Putin, Assad and Hezbollah abroad. Pedophilia at home.
https://t.co/1JRRN9Q0YN0 -
Pressure on the NHS and social care almost certainly a contributing factor.Theuniondivvie said:On the basis that PB has had countless, convoluted spasms about various bucks stopping with the SNP government, I look forward to an in-depth discussion on government responsibility in this case.
'Social services cuts could be 'largest factor' in biggest annual rise in deaths for almost 50 years'
http://tinyurl.com/jfa3cdd
Only question is how to resolve the problems.0 -
One pony trick turns up with his usual intelligent addition to the topic.watford30 said:
Someone's been on the hooch a bit early.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot. I do not know anything about him other than he is fixated like you on his hatred of the SNP and Scotland in general , and seems to spend an awful lot of his time twittering on about it.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
People in tax exile seem to have feverous imaginations, you are obsessed with a second referendum and for some bizarre reason ask me about it. Seek help.
Why not email him direct Malky, with your concerns -
https://www.linkedin.com/in/khague
Why would I be interested in some loony unionist and his pathetic twitterings you cretin, other than fact that some other loon used them as being "real".
PS: Is Tuesday not JSA day , thought you would be out buying sweeties by now.0 -
Plenty on here try to pretend he got a great deal from his begging work that one out.blackburn63 said:In all the claim and counter claim nonsense the heart of the debate is being lost.
Our PM is begging 27 other countries to allow us to decide how much money we give to visitors.
I defy anybody to tell me that is a good thing.0 -
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.CarlottaVance said:
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.0 -
Last night's Comres already had the Tory vote favouring leave.
A summer of migration plus a poor deal will only see further drift in that direction.
I believe we are generally a sceptical nation who are very distrustful of politicians so unless Cameron has a watertight deal that is a resounding success, we will do the job for him at the ballot box and tell the EU where to go.0 -
Cameron's tragedy was losing the LibDems. They were the fig leaf behind which he could hide his minute manhood. Now all is exposed to public ridicule.SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.0 -
Agreed.david_herdson said:
You'll get the GOP primary results; you'll get the Democrat Nevada caucus results. Both significant though.Casino_Royale said:
It's lining up to be a very significant betting weekend: we should get the referendum date, the declarers for Leave, and the South Carolina primary results.Plato_Says said:There are reports Cameron will announce the EU ref date at a Cabinet meeting on Friday.
I'm unclear about the benefits proposal. It appears to be for new applications only, whilst 34k already here can continue to claim. I don't mind that much. However many seem unhappy about relative reductions and the attraction this may hold for other EU members.
I hope we get this uncertainty resolved in short order.NorfolkTilIDie said:If Cameron loses on single rulebook, it will also show how the lines that were supposedly about ever closer opt out are meaningless. Without any new treaties, way will be clear for UK finance sector to have to follow whatever rules Eurozone sets to deal with Eurocrisis.
There is a decent chance we won't get a referendum date. The deal still has to be done in the EU. We'll only get the date if the rest agree. Cameron must be desperate for it though as the pressure that will build, both within the EU and within his party, if he doesn't will be immense.0 -
I suspect that's the least worst option - either that or a mahoosive (genuine) 'rabbit out of the hat' - but by now he should be aware that it'll be put under a scanning electron microscope.....SeanT said:
There's no great option, but I think his best bet is to collapse the deal. It will look tough-on-Brussels, which Britons always like. He can then show the polls to Merkel and Hollande and say, Give me more or the UK will quit. Aim for a referendum next Spring.david_herdson said:
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that. (Not sure why it hasn't gone up already).SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
It's fraught with danger but so is pressing ahead now, when all the trends say he's losing.0 -
Sanders gets given the money by ordinary people, he then spends it for them.
Bush/Clinton get given money by lobbyists & special interests, they then spend it.
Trump spends his own money.
The rest run out of money.
Everyone giving the money hopes to benefit in the long run.
Whoever is giving money to Jeb! is probably not going to benefit.0 -
Ignoring the first and third sentences, I agree, although with the utter pigs ear that Cameron is making of the situation I’m beginning to fear that Leave might win. I shan’t emigrate if we do leave, but I strongly suspect that life might become more difficult for me and mine.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Die, quite. It's a massive surrender of sovereignty and our ability to govern ourselves.
I still think Remain will win. But I bloody hope not. Cameron's deal is far worse than the status quo would've been.0 -
This is good, right?
(and terrible for Scotland obvs)
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/6995295228452618240 -
True, but I'm not sure there is a workable solution. The Oliver Twist option, brought out at the first sitting goes completely against EU culture and with the migration crisis also on the agenda (literally), would likely provoke a very hostile response from the other leaders. That's fine for domestic consumption but takes him further away from getting a deal he can sell.SeanT said:
There's no great option, but I think his best bet is to collapse the deal. It will look tough-on-Brussels, which Britons always like. He can then show the polls to Merkel and Hollande and say, Give me more or the UK will quit. Aim for a referendum next Spring.david_herdson said:
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that. (Not sure why it hasn't gone up already).SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:[snip].
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
It's fraught with danger but so is pressing ahead now, when all the trends say he's losing.
There is another European Council in March but that's likely to be dominated by migration (Tusk has said the EU has two months to get to grips with the problem, which I read as diplomatic-speak for 'we don't need to sort it in February'), so the earliest scheduled meeting would then be June. Unless there's an extraordinary meeting in, say, April, then a summer referendum goes out of the window. That is your Option 1, but keeping the Tory cabinet and backbenches on side will be extremely tricky. Yes, he will look tough, which they'll like, but he's also ratcheting up expectations for when a deal is done. If a deal can be done after withdrawing what's on the table now.
If I had to guess, I think he'll go with '3' and trust to his star.0 -
There surely is un grand lapin about to be produced... Cameron and his team are canny operators and this deliberate fail only to be rescued by a spectacular finale would be the shrewd moveCarlottaVance said:
I suspect that's the least worst option - either that or a mahoosive (genuine) 'rabbit out of the hat' - but by now he should be aware that it'll be put under a scanning electron microscope.....SeanT said:
There's no great option, but I think his best bet is to collapse the deal. It will look tough-on-Brussels, which Britons always like. He can then show the polls to Merkel and Hollande and say, Give me more or the UK will quit. Aim for a referendum next Spring.david_herdson said:
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that. (Not sure why it hasn't gone up already).SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
It's fraught with danger but so is pressing ahead now, when all the trends say he's losing.0 -
You're right. The figures suggest that people want to live in London, but not Scotland.Theuniondivvie said:This is good, right?
(and terrible for Scotland obvs)
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/699529522845261824
Why might that be?0 -
Retract your libelmalcolmg said:
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.CarlottaVance said:
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.
0 -
Malcolmg is a bit of a dick but, I must confess, I quite like him: he is quite funny and has made me chuckle out loud more than once with his comedy insults. I don't take it too seriously and view it as fairly harmless.CarlottaVance said:
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.
There are OTOH other nat posters who are totally joyless.0 -
But credit to Hollande. He might be able to use the renegotiation to do what Napoleon failed to do with the continental system: bring the City of London to heel.SeanT said:I mean, see here:
@tarapalmeri 42s42 seconds ago Brussels, Belgium
.@MartinSchulz: EP can give "no guarantee" that they will pass UK's migration reforms after referendum #UKinEU #brexit
It's falling apart. Cameron is in deep shit.0 -
They already did it with the BRRD, it is an EMU solution that has been applied to the whole EU so as not to create safe-havens for cash within the EU. The UK has no need for the BRRD, we are well capitalised and the BoE can backstop any bank which hits the buffers without putting unsecured depositors at risk. Under the BRRD the government and BoE would be prevented from bailing out any UK bank which goes bankrupt before unsecured depositors are given a massive haircut. So it's not a case of wait and see because it has already happened. There is no way the EU will allow the City to escape from new regulations which are for EMU nations.TOPPING said:
We'll of course have to wait and see but I can't see it happening.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
Edit: My €0.02
It is a confection to enable a settlement to be reached. The single rulebook, CRD IV, SSM, SRM, etc (not by any means bonkers per se but which contribute to the erosion of EZ nations' sovereignty) was designed to protect EZ member citizens from nation-specific risks, by pooling those risks and having pooled safeguards.
Like all EU directives, it is unambiguous in wanting ever closer political and economic union. If they are carving out "ever closer union" generally for us then they will perforce carve out this attempt, confected I believe for negotiating purposes, to include us in the single rulebook.0 -
Repent ye sinners!CarlottaVance said:
Retract your libelmalcolmg said:
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.CarlottaVance said:
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.0 -
GET A LIFECarlottaVance said:
Retract your libelmalcolmg said:
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.CarlottaVance said:
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.0 -
Dame Fortune has a nasty habit of turning her face away at a crucial moment.david_herdson said:
True, but I'm not sure there is a workable solution. The Oliver Twist option, brought out at the first sitting goes completely against EU culture and with the migration crisis also on the agenda (literally), would likely provoke a very hostile response from the other leaders. That's fine for domestic consumption but takes him further away from getting a deal he can sell.SeanT said:
There's no great option, but I think his best bet is to collapse the deal. It will look tough-on-Brussels, which Britons always like. He can then show the polls to Merkel and Hollande and say, Give me more or the UK will quit. Aim for a referendum next Spring.david_herdson said:
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that. (Not sure why it hasn't gone up already).SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:[snip].
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
It's fraught with danger but so is pressing ahead now, when all the trends say he's losing.
There is another European Council in March but that's likely to be dominated by migration (Tusk has said the EU has two months to get to grips with the problem, which I read as diplomatic-speak for 'we don't need to sort it in February'), so the earliest scheduled meeting would then be June. Unless there's an extraordinary meeting in, say, April, then a summer referendum goes out of the window. That is your Option 1, but keeping the Tory cabinet and backbenches on side will be extremely tricky. Yes, he will look tough, which they'll like, but he's also ratcheting up expectations for when a deal is done. If a deal can be done after withdrawing what's on the table now.
If I had to guess, I think he'll go with '3' and trust to his star.0 -
You can't say you weren't warned....Theuniondivvie said:This is good, right?
(and terrible for Scotland obvs)
SCOTLAND'S new property tax could spark a housing market crash by squeezing sales of luxury homes, leading estate agents have warned.
Property experts said the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax could dramatically reduce sales of homes worth more than £500,000.
They warned the whole housing market could stagnate as a result - halving the expected revenue from the new tax.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13199068.Swinney_s_new_property_tax_could_cause_housing_market_crash__estate_agents_warn/0 -
I have one thank you.malcolmg said:
GET A LIFECarlottaVance said:
Retract your libelmalcolmg said:
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.CarlottaVance said:
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.
It doesn't require either SHOUTING or libelling people....0 -
Thank you Casino , like you I have a life and only a few saddo's on here cannot tell the difference between real life and the internet. I am pretty sure we could enjoy a pint together and have a perfectly intelligent discussion. Same could not be said of a few of the embittered fanatics on here.Casino_Royale said:
Malcolmg is a bit of a dick but, I must confess, I quite like him: he is quite funny and has made me chuckle out loud more than once with his comedy insults. I don't take it too seriously and view it as fairly harmless.CarlottaVance said:
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.
There are OTOH other nat posters who are totally joyless.0 -
King Cole, happened to Alexander, and Caesar.
Hannibal just had rubbish luck, practically from Saguntum until his death, but he never suffered sudden mortal woe until he chose his own demise.
I do hope we Leave.0 -
MODS can you get this loony to stop stalking me, getting scary now.CarlottaVance said:
I have one thank you.malcolmg said:
GET A LIFECarlottaVance said:
Retract your libelmalcolmg said:
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.CarlottaVance said:
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.
It doesn't require either SHOUTING or libelling people....0 -
How mental would it be to call the Referendum for June after Friday's Cabinet meeting - only for the EP to then say "Nah....."??? Surely Cameron can't call any referendum before the EP has given its blessing - or otherwise. And what happens when the EP's list of their own demands for approving gets put forward?SeanT said:I mean, see here:
@tarapalmeri 42s42 seconds ago Brussels, Belgium
.@MartinSchulz: EP can give "no guarantee" that they will pass UK's migration reforms after referendum #UKinEU #brexit
It's falling apart. Cameron is in deep shit.
Deep, deep shit. But Cameron has chosen to take the lid off the septic tank and jump in feet first...0 -
http://order-order.com/2016/02/16/sadiq-pulls-out-of-two-appearances-in-three-days/
Luckily the likes of the BBC don't seem very interested in Sadiq's friends and acquaintances.0 -
I think 3 is the only real option for him. He's used to electoral gambles and is probably more sanguine about the possibility of losing than people think.SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
And he hasn't lost yet. I think his approach will be: finalise the deal, call the vote, get a grip on the campaign and win. And if he loses - well, he's had a better run than any Tory for a generation.0 -
Quite right. I look forward to that pint together!malcolmg said:
Thank you Casino , like you I have a life and only a few saddo's on here cannot tell the difference between real life and the internet. I am pretty sure we could enjoy a pint together and have a perfectly intelligent discussion. Same could not be said of a few of the embittered fanatics on here.Casino_Royale said:
Malcolmg is a bit of a dick but, I must confess, I quite like him: he is quite funny and has made me chuckle out loud more than once with his comedy insults. I don't take it too seriously and view it as fairly harmless.CarlottaVance said:
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.
There are OTOH other nat posters who are totally joyless.0 -
You can easily see how UK could be hurt by single rulebook in similar fashion. Imagine UK continues to churn along nicely, while our banks have healthy loanbooks, but the Eurozone is still racked with volatility and latest Greek tremors cause their banking system to be in question. The Eurozone puts up capital limits to increase confidence in banking sector, with forced bail-ins if necessary. UK doesn't need to as its healthy, but France doesn't like our banks getting unfair advantage and demands we have to raise limits too, hitting UK growth. As rest of Eurozone is doing it, they back up France and we have to do as we're told.MaxPB said:
They already did it with the BRRD, it is an EMU solution that has been applied to the whole EU so as not to create safe-havens for cash within the EU. The UK has no need for the BRRD, we are well capitalised and the BoE can backstop any bank which hits the buffers without putting unsecured depositors at risk. Under the BRRD the government and BoE would be prevented from bailing out any UK bank which goes bankrupt before unsecured depositors are given a massive haircut. So it's not a case of wait and see because it has already happened. There is no way the EU will allow the City to escape from new regulations which are for EMU nations.TOPPING said:
We'll of course have to wait and see but I can't see it happening.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
Like all EU directives, it is unambiguous in wanting ever closer political and economic union. If they are carving out "ever closer union" generally for us then they will perforce carve out this attempt, confected I believe for negotiating purposes, to include us in the single rulebook.NorfolkTilIDie said:
Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
0 -
I suppose an inflationary housing market is a successful housing market in Yoonworld. Gotta pump up those assets!CarlottaVance said:
You can't say you weren't warned....Theuniondivvie said:This is good, right?
(and terrible for Scotland obvs)
SCOTLAND'S new property tax could spark a housing market crash by squeezing sales of luxury homes, leading estate agents have warned.
Property experts said the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax could dramatically reduce sales of homes worth more than £500,000.
They warned the whole housing market could stagnate as a result - halving the expected revenue from the new tax.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13199068.Swinney_s_new_property_tax_could_cause_housing_market_crash__estate_agents_warn/
'Scottish house sales high seven-year high'
http://tinyurl.com/jqe8558
'Registers of Scotland reports surge in house sales'
http://tinyurl.com/gsrorrx0 -
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that.SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
Edit - and here it is:
http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/456831/david-cameron-is-entering-last-chance-saloon-territory-with-eu-leaders.thtml0 -
Thanks to Hillary's weakness as a candidate this election is the best chance since 1980 to get a real conservative elected: http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2016/02/thank-liberal-media-bias-for-hillary.html0
-
Last refuge of a scoundrel... Go cry to the mods, if you post a load of SNP nonsense, expect to be challenged on it.malcolmg said:
MODS can you get this loony to stop stalking me, getting scary now.CarlottaVance said:
I have one thank you.malcolmg said:
GET A LIFECarlottaVance said:
Retract your libelmalcolmg said:
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.CarlottaVance said:
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.
It doesn't require either SHOUTING or libelling people....0 -
I wondered who had the PB mirror...malcolmg said:
YAWN, jog on loser.CarlottaVance said:
I won't repeat your libel but note you admit "I do not know anything about him" yet chose to libel him - as usual, NAT caught making stuff up, blusters when confronted.malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:
You are the one who is going to get OGH in trouble by posting unsubstantiated allegations - typical NAT - make stuff up, then bluster when challenged - so when's SINDYREF2?malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:
Either post a link to substantiate your potential libel - or MODS - please remove it.malcolmg said:
Ha Ha Ha , Kevin Hague , failed businessman Tory who cannot count you mean.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
To sum up where we now stand;
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html
The bully down the ages.
0 -
So many people in politics are very small c conservative. As you say like Gordo not being challenged points to widespread evidence of that in the Labour party.NickPalmer said:
It's a bit as though Gordon hadn't had an unopposed run but had been challenged by a rank outsider (Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps!). Essentially mainstream Democrats thought Clinton was unbeatable for the nomination (and perhaps she is), and didn't want the grief of standing against her with an apparently decent chance and getting blown away. Sanders, at his age and with his distinctive beliefs, had absolutely nothing to lose - even if he's defeated, he's forced her a bit to the left, partially rehabilitated the word "socialist" in the USA (the polling evidence is that it's now seen positively by many people, especially younger ones) and had a lot of fun.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, cheers.
Seems odd that (almost from the start) the Democrats have had a two horse race only.
Sanders in challenging the HRC machine - when her position is as at least as dominant as Gordon's was is a welcome break from that... she could have easily run uncontested.
Trump on the republican side. Well, from skipping a debate to burning a bonfire, and slaying sacred republican cows (He pretty much sounded like Michael Moore at some points in the REP debate)... those are NOT moves any political strategist would recommend. His campaign is full of huge risks and goes against all logic currently of a front runner playing it safe.
Kudos to both Trump and Sanders for livening up the races.0 -
I do wonder if Yes types might see this as an opportunity to create a real possibility of a second vote on membership of the UK. Be interesting to see if that's the case.
Wales, surprisingly, might vote to Leave, but they're only 3% or so of the population. I think Scotland's about 8-9%. London's likely to be Remain, which must be (total city) about 12% or so.0 -
People are selling up and fleeing Sturgeon's hell. Why is that good news for Scotland ?Theuniondivvie said:
I suppose an inflationary housing market is a successful housing market in Yoonworld. Gotta pump up those assets!CarlottaVance said:
You can't say you weren't warned....Theuniondivvie said:This is good, right?
(and terrible for Scotland obvs)
SCOTLAND'S new property tax could spark a housing market crash by squeezing sales of luxury homes, leading estate agents have warned.
Property experts said the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax could dramatically reduce sales of homes worth more than £500,000.
They warned the whole housing market could stagnate as a result - halving the expected revenue from the new tax.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13199068.Swinney_s_new_property_tax_could_cause_housing_market_crash__estate_agents_warn/
'Scottish house sales high seven-year high'
http://tinyurl.com/jqe8558
'Registers of Scotland reports surge in house sales'
http://tinyurl.com/gsrorrx0 -
Michelle Thompson's been busy back-to-backing.Theuniondivvie said:
I suppose an inflationary housing market is a successful housing market in Yoonworld. Gotta pump up those assets!CarlottaVance said:
You can't say you weren't warned....Theuniondivvie said:This is good, right?
(and terrible for Scotland obvs)
SCOTLAND'S new property tax could spark a housing market crash by squeezing sales of luxury homes, leading estate agents have warned.
Property experts said the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax could dramatically reduce sales of homes worth more than £500,000.
They warned the whole housing market could stagnate as a result - halving the expected revenue from the new tax.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13199068.Swinney_s_new_property_tax_could_cause_housing_market_crash__estate_agents_warn/
'Scottish house sales high seven-year high'
http://tinyurl.com/jqe8558
'Registers of Scotland reports surge in house sales'
http://tinyurl.com/gsrorrx0 -
How's Swinney's tax take doing?Theuniondivvie said:
I suppose an inflationary housing market is a successful housing market in Yoonworld.CarlottaVance said:
You can't say you weren't warned....Theuniondivvie said:This is good, right?
(and terrible for Scotland obvs)
SCOTLAND'S new property tax could spark a housing market crash by squeezing sales of luxury homes, leading estate agents have warned.
Property experts said the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax could dramatically reduce sales of homes worth more than £500,000.
They warned the whole housing market could stagnate as a result - halving the expected revenue from the new tax.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13199068.Swinney_s_new_property_tax_could_cause_housing_market_crash__estate_agents_warn/
Of course, differential population growth may also be a factor....why don't more people want to live in the SNP Nirvana than Tory Hell?
0 -
Great article. You don't sound very impressed with the EU.david_herdson said:
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that.SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
Edit - and here it is:
http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/456831/david-cameron-is-entering-last-chance-saloon-territory-with-eu-leaders.thtml
What would it take, if anything, for you to vote Leave, David?0 -
@Theuniondivvie Can Scotland continue the house price deflation for the next 30 years ? Might be nice to retire with a few acres up there.0
-
A promise from Alastair Meeks not to constantly troll him?Casino_Royale said:
Great article. You don't sound very impressed with the EU.david_herdson said:
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that.SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
Edit - and here it is:
http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/456831/david-cameron-is-entering-last-chance-saloon-territory-with-eu-leaders.thtml
What would it take, if anything, for you to vote Leave, David?0 -
You do realise a 'sale' means that someone has bought the sold-up house? I'm sure the influx of junior doctors will find the choice of housing most congenial.MonikerDiCanio said:
People are selling up and fleeing Sturgeon's hell. Why is that good news for Scotland ?Theuniondivvie said:
I suppose an inflationary housing market is a successful housing market in Yoonworld. Gotta pump up those assets!CarlottaVance said:
You can't say you weren't warned....Theuniondivvie said:This is good, right?
(and terrible for Scotland obvs)
SCOTLAND'S new property tax could spark a housing market crash by squeezing sales of luxury homes, leading estate agents have warned.
Property experts said the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax could dramatically reduce sales of homes worth more than £500,000.
They warned the whole housing market could stagnate as a result - halving the expected revenue from the new tax.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13199068.Swinney_s_new_property_tax_could_cause_housing_market_crash__estate_agents_warn/
'Scottish house sales high seven-year high'
http://tinyurl.com/jqe8558
'Registers of Scotland reports surge in house sales'
http://tinyurl.com/gsrorrx0 -
Didn't Cameron say that he would recommend 'LEAVE' if he couldn't get a deal?Wanderer said:
I think 3 is the only real option for him. He's used to electoral gambles and is probably more sanguine about the possibility of losing than people think.SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
And he hasn't lost yet. I think his approach will be: finalise the deal, call the vote, get a grip on the campaign and win. And if he loses - well, he's had a better run than any Tory for a generation.0 -
The ABs, graduates and students, London and the south-east are the core constituencies for Remain. Basically, those who do well economically out of the status quo. Scotland and Irish nationalists tend the same way for identity reasons.Morris_Dancer said:I do wonder if Yes types might see this as an opportunity to create a real possibility of a second vote on membership of the UK. Be interesting to see if that's the case.
Wales, surprisingly, might vote to Leave, but they're only 3% or so of the population. I think Scotland's about 8-9%. London's likely to be Remain, which must be (total city) about 12% or so.
I don't know if the rest of the UK will be enough to tip it. Depends who turns out.0 -
How can a key UK representative visit a foreign rich country and write about the deplorable state some of its occupants are living under without chastising the rich country for its actions? Why does he blame the UK?
http://www.libdemvoice.org/britain-must-once-again-become-a-great-humanitarian-nation-49445.html
France 2016. "many children too, are living in miserable conditions in shanty towns resembling some of the worst parts of the Nairobi slums I visited last year"0 -
Very droll:david_herdson said:
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that.SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
Edit - and here it is:
http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/456831/david-cameron-is-entering-last-chance-saloon-territory-with-eu-leaders.thtml
The way the dynamics of the campaign are going, there can be only one outcome: to add another instance to history whereby a former elite is left scratching its collective head and wondering ‘how did that happen?’. Maybe they could schedule the question for a future meeting.0 -
Congrats on the article.david_herdson said:
There should be a TotalPolitics article going up today saying pretty much exactly that.SeanT said:
Reading the eurorunes, Cameron's "deal" seems to be getting WORSE, not better. From finreg to benefits, it is being watered down. Of course much of this is theatre, but much of it is real: especially the threat of the entire thing being unstitched by Strasbourg after the vote. That is simply the case.NorfolkTilIDie said:
But if France gets her way, it will show that she will fight UK being exempted from single rulebook when rules actually come in, and France has backing from other Eurozone members to make it happen. Especially if this memo confirns the precedent. The City of London, whose liberties have been protected for centuries in UK constitution, would have to submit to European Banking Authority.TOPPING said:
My$0.02?NorfolkTilIDie said:
To date it has been proposed to be voluntary, which is why is such a major loss if this memo sets the terms for all members to abide by it. This was the difference between first memo and second memo. If Cameron goes along with it, it would then only take Eurozone to pass it through Council and Parliament and ot applies to us.TOPPING said:
Adherance to the single rulebook is voluntary for non EZ countries that is a red herring.NorfolkTilIDie said:A lot of the reporting on the EU negotiations is so vague. Key question is: will the UK be included in the single banking rulebook or not? Have the French won the day over British concerns or not??
poses, to include us in the single rulebook.
Given that Cameron's initial deal went down like a magnum of vomit, how can he go out and sell an even worse deal, and a deal which, moreover, can be simply overturned when the EU decides?
This is literally unsellable. If he tries, I think he will lose.
What are his options?
1. Postpone the referendum
2. Campaign for OUT
3. Go ahead and call the vote, and risk the very strong possibility of Brexit
2 is clearly out of the question. 1 is politically perilous. 3 is deeply unpalatable.
Cameron is in trouble.
Edit - and here it is:
http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/456831/david-cameron-is-entering-last-chance-saloon-territory-with-eu-leaders.thtml0 -
Michelle Thomson - we know.Theuniondivvie said:
You do realise a 'sale' means that someone has bought the sold-up house?MonikerDiCanio said:
People are selling up and fleeing Sturgeon's hell. Why is that good news for Scotland ?Theuniondivvie said:
I suppose an inflationary housing market is a successful housing market in Yoonworld. Gotta pump up those assets!CarlottaVance said:
You can't say you weren't warned....Theuniondivvie said:This is good, right?
(and terrible for Scotland obvs)
SCOTLAND'S new property tax could spark a housing market crash by squeezing sales of luxury homes, leading estate agents have warned.
Property experts said the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax could dramatically reduce sales of homes worth more than £500,000.
They warned the whole housing market could stagnate as a result - halving the expected revenue from the new tax.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13199068.Swinney_s_new_property_tax_could_cause_housing_market_crash__estate_agents_warn/
'Scottish house sales high seven-year high'
http://tinyurl.com/jqe8558
'Registers of Scotland reports surge in house sales'
http://tinyurl.com/gsrorrx
Given the prices I wonder how many were distressed sales?
0 -
The pitchfork mob are out , this dummy does not even understand that the blog is to discuss politics , how dense can one get.SquareRoot said:
Last refuge of a scoundrel... Go cry to the mods, if you post a load of SNP nonsense, expect to be challenged on it.malcolmg said:
MODS can you get this loony to stop stalking me, getting scary now.CarlottaVance said:
I have one thank you.malcolmg said:
GET A LIFECarlottaVance said:
Retract your libelmalcolmg said:
YAWN, jog on loser. You could bore for Britain , starting to make 30Watts and Scott look intelligent. Stop stalking me.CarlottaVance said:malcolmg said:
LOL, you really are a halfwit , "allegations" my arse. I said the guy could not count beyond his fingers, he will either be loaded and not care a jot or he will be skint and not care a jot.CarlottaVance said:malcolmg said:
Go get a life you halfwit, neither of us know who the idiot is other than your usual unionist balloon on twitter.CarlottaVance said:malcolmg said:
.CarlottaVance said:Kevin Hague - a Unionist blogger who delights in torturing Nats with facts sums it up well:
The SNP's negotiating position is unreasonable - they are attempting to appropriate the "no detriment" clause and apply it in a way it was never intended to apply.
The SNP's negotiating position is hypocritical - they are arguing to retain some of the benefits of pooling and sharing that they've spent their political lives claiming are non-existent.
The SNP's negotiating position is nevertheless appropriate - it's a negotiation and their job is to get the best deal for Scotland; being unreasonable (and hypocritical) is probably necessary to achieve that
Of course the SNP can't lose here. If no agreement is reached they can unreasonably (but credibly) accuse the UK Government of reneging on the Smith Agreement; if they succeed in getting an unreasonable deal it will be in Scotland's best interests
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/unreasonable-negotiation.html0