On taxes, my view is that income is already heavily taxed. Most people are paying 32% on any significant income and 42% if they are doing well, on top of which they're paying 2-5% gross contributions for pensions.
Most people really struggle to have much left each month over after paying council tax on top (another £1k+) utility bills, food, mortgage/rent and transport costs. I don't think it's fair at all for the State to add to the burden.
That may well be the case. But then people need to realise that if they don't pay more they can't have the public services they appear to want.
Getting it into people's heads that if they want something they will have to pay for it, not expect someone else to do it, is essential if we're not going to go bankrupt as a nation.
That may well mean that they will have to cut back on stuff that is now seen as essential but which were seen as luxuries decades back e.g. lots of foreign holidays, nice cars, phones upgraded every few months, etc etc. We can't keep on paying ourselves more than we earn. At some point, the Micawber rule is going to kick in......
1.From memory of my time toiling for Her Majesty (not at her pleasure, I hasten to add), new entrants to the Civil Service are already on a DC pension. I maybe wrong.
2. I'd like to see some simple mechanisms for inter-generational wealth transfers. Setting up trusts can be expensive, gifting is limited if you have multiple children and so on. It would be nice for me to help my children before I actually shuffle off this mortal coil.
I feel there's a consensus that taxes have to rise. As an affluent early retiree, I'd support the removal of NI and a raising of income tax. Brutally simple.
Piris' point is that the constitutional requirement doesn't apply to the notification; it applies to the act of leaving. Therefore the government can withdraw its application at any time until the treaties lapse. He was the EU's chief law officer, so he should carry some weight.
It's hypothetical because the government won't withdraw its application.
Reading the Article 50 text, something just struck me in this paragraph:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period
There's nothing stopping the withdrawal agreement specifying an exit date LATER than two years after the notification, as long as it's agreed within the timeframe. Has anyone picked up on that?
No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.
The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.
It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.
My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.
Time to vote Labour or Lib Dem then!
Steady on, this isn't a tax proposal from McDonnell's manifesto. It's a NickP post regarding Switzerland's systems ! If Labour's manifesto all looked as sensible as this then I'd consider them for my vote, however this is the party that specifically went to court to discern that their manifesto should NOT be legally binding Wheeler, Regina (on the Application of) v Office of the Prime Minister and Another...
Piris' point is that the constitutional requirement doesn't apply to the notification; it applies to the act of leaving. Therefore the government can withdraw its application at any time until the treaties lapse. He was the EU's chief law officer, so he should carry some weight.
It's hypothetical because the government won't withdraw its application.
Reading the Article 50 text, something just struck me in this paragraph:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period
There's nothing stopping the withdrawal agreement specifying an exit date LATER than two after the notification, as long as it's agreed within the timeframe. Has anyone picked up on that?
No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.
The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.
It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.
My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.
Thats it were all agreed then.
I will ring Jezza
Forget it. It is precisely because Jezza is promising everyone free stuff while pretending that no-one bar a few rich people will pay for it all that the more sensible - and honest - amongst us have come up with these proposals.
And, to be mischievous, when a political party does suggest that people use their assets first to pay for their care you won't be out there shouting "They're stealing Granny's house!" will you?
No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.
The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.
It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.
My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.
Time to vote Labour or Lib Dem then!
If you want a wealth tax on your neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour
I think it is easier to stop or delay Brexit on legal grounds than set out here. The keywords in Article 50 are " in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" JC Piris, former EU Commission Legal Counsel, contends that this condition applies until the Treaties are nullified. In other words, if the UK decides it no longer wants to Brexit, it would no longer accord with its requirements.
However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.
So yes, unlikely not to happen.
No, the text says:
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
That is a one-off action: it decides. There was an exceptionally high-powered court case which determined what the constitutional requirements were. These were then met. Whether or not the government, parliament or people subsequently decide that their *political* requirements have changed does not affect whether or not A50 notification was lawfully given.
Piris' point is that the constitutional requirement doesn't apply to the notification; it applies to the act of leaving. Therefore the government can withdraw its application at any time until the treaties lapse. He was the EU's chief law officer, so he should carry some weight.
It's hypothetical because the government won't withdraw its application.
That was the basis of Lord Docherty's decision in Scotland. An appeal has been contrived and should be heard by the Inner House (effectively the Court of Appeal) next month but the appeal will again be restricted to the question of whether this judicial review can even proceed to a substantive hearing.
On topic, I agree that Yes is the value bet but I don't think it's close to the 1/4 near-certainty that Alastair suggests.
There are at least two potentially large flies in the ointment.
1. Getting a deal. This will likely go well past the October preferred deadline, at least to the December summit and quite possibly well into 2019. None of the governments, or the Commission, will want Britain to leave without a deal but neither will it be quickly settled. There are a lot of interests and there are a lot of details.
2. The European Parliament. i don't expect Westminster to cause serious difficulties. It hasn't so far and come the crunch vote, the stakes are so high that I'd expect virtually all Con MPs to fall into line, together with the DUP. If there are rebels, they'll likely be outnumbered by Labour ones, if Labour chooses to oppose what's been agreed. however, the EP is a different matter and Verhofstadt it a prat. The MEPs don't have the same accountability to their public and with only weeks to go before the EP elections, might do something silly. Sorting that out could necessitate an extension of weeks.
While i don't think that either of these are particularly likely - in the case of the former, a lot can be kicked into the transition phase - I don't think the combined chance (plus failure for any other reason) is less than 20%.
I agree about the EP. But how can they hold the EU election if the UK is still in the EU. Will Guy want to keep Farage for a while longer as he will miss his old adversary?!!
The EU27 will need to hold the election anyway. The difficulty is for the UK. If a delay is less than two months, then the sitting MEPs would continue (and i think it would be for less than that); if it's for more, then either the UK would need to hold new elections or the seats in the EP would become vacant.
There could potentially be some impact on the EU27 in terms of the number of MEPs each country / region was entitled to send.
I think it is easier to stop or delay Brexit on legal grounds than set out here. The keywords in Article 50 are " in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" JC Piris, former EU Commission Legal Counsel, contends that this condition applies until the Treaties are nullified. In other words, if the UK decides it no longer wants to Brexit, it would no longer accord with its requirements.
However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.
So yes, unlikely not to happen.
No, the text says:
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
That is a one-off action: it decides. There was an exceptionally high-powered court case which determined what the constitutional requirements were. These were then met. Whether or not the government, parliament or people subsequently decide that their *political* requirements have changed does not affect whether or not A50 notification was lawfully given.
I don't think that it was ever intended that EU member States could serve and then withdraw A.50 Notices at will. Any member State could then use it as a tactic to obtain concessions from the rest.
I think it is easier to stop or delay Brexit on legal grounds than set out here. The keywords in Article 50 are " in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" JC Piris, former EU Commission Legal Counsel, contends that this condition applies until the Treaties are nullified. In other words, if the UK decides it no longer wants to Brexit, it would no longer accord with its requirements.
However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.
So yes, unlikely not to happen.
No, the text says:
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
That is a one-off action: it decides. There was an exceptionally high-powered court case which determined what the constitutional requirements were. These were then met. Whether or not the government, parliament or people subsequently decide that their *political* requirements have changed does not affect whether or not A50 notification was lawfully given.
I don't think that it was ever intended that EU member States could serve and then withdraw A.50 Notices at will. Any member State could then use it as a tactic to obtain concessions from the rest.
Yeah, but no doubting the UK was making any cynical ploy here.
I think in any event it is moot: the EU would accept us back on previous terms though of course they could never look at our complaints in the same light again
The only thing I disagree with is that I would scrap NI - And raise Income tax to 32%, 42% and 47%. To be fair, I'd overhaul IT completely to be a bit more sensible. The current TRUE bandings are a farce (0%, 12%, 32%, briefly up to 52% (NI band is £45,032 - tax is £45,000), back to 42%, then up to 62% (losing personal allowance) before back to 42% and then finally back up to 47%.
Goodness, having typed that I realise what a mess our tax system is. Where was George Osborne and his 'Tax simplification initiative'? The only thing he did was eliminate form P9D.
And of course, if you're married (and get the Marriage allowance transfer) and claim child benefit like I do, the rates are even more convoluted.
I completely agree that NI should be incorporated into IT now. Those living on rental or dividend income should not pay less tax than those who work for it (I accept of course that obtaining rent and indeed getting dividends from your own company does not mean it has not been worked for but this is all the more reason why this should be treated the same).
That means more tax for the elderly better off. Tough. Many of those who retired on final salary pension schemes have far more disposable income as well as lower outgoings than those with young children trying to buy their first home.
I also think we have reached the limits of taking people in work out of tax. Far too many people are being incentivised to vote for higher taxes in the confident expectation that they will not pay them. There is an attraction to avoiding the complication of taxes for those who are significant recipients of in work benefits but given how far up the income scale these still go we cannot avoid that.
The more I think about the mess that is our tax system the more I want Michael Gove as Chancellor.
I find Gove as Chancellor an intriguing prospect. I think it entirely possible that once there he would horrify many of his supporters.
Is it far fetched to see him raising taxes on wealth significantly? Or slashing taxes on income for high earners? The range of possibilities is large I reckon.
But Gove is about the only person prepared to think the unthinkable, and then spend as long as it takes to defend the policy to the country and the media. The income tax and NI system as a whole is a complete mess, after decades of tinkering by Chancellors of all stripes. It needs throwing in the bin and starting again from scratch.
I think it is easier to stop or delay Brexit on legal grounds than set out here. The keywords in Article 50 are " in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" JC Piris, former EU Commission Legal Counsel, contends that this condition applies until the Treaties are nullified. In other words, if the UK decides it no longer wants to Brexit, it would no longer accord with its requirements.
However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.
So yes, unlikely not to happen.
No, the text says:
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
That is a one-off action: it decides. There was an exceptionally high-powered court case which determined what the constitutional requirements were. These were then met. Whether or not the government, parliament or people subsequently decide that their *political* requirements have changed does not affect whether or not A50 notification was lawfully given.
That's still one person's opinion addressing a different point (though one that Hungary might want to note). No-one is talking about expelling the UK; the point is whether the consequences of decisions *already taken* and notifications *already given* continue to have effect.
And on that point, paragraph 3 is pretty clear:
"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
Shall cease to apply. There is no "unless", apart from the deadline-varying condition within the article. If we give notification, we leave.
Hang on, maybe the market isn't quite so clear cut after all:
14:06 A new political party hoping to halt Brexit and run candidates in all 650 constituencies at the next general election was launched in Westminster today in an optimistic attempt to capitalise on what its leaders said was disenchantment with established political parties.
Renew has no high-profile candidates or donors and is led by three principals who have almost no prior political experience, although the philosopher AC Grayling was present at today’s launch, saying he was “rooting for” the party...
1.From memory of my time toiling for Her Majesty (not at her pleasure, I hasten to add), new entrants to the Civil Service are already on a DC pension. I maybe wrong.
Pretty certain that is wrong. What has changed is that the pension benefits are now based on average earnings across the career rather than final salary. This will have a major impact on the better paid, especially those who contrive promotion to a better paid post very shortly before they retire.
Piris' point is that the constitutional requirement doesn't apply to the notification; it applies to the act of leaving. Therefore the government can withdraw its application at any time until the treaties lapse. He was the EU's chief law officer, so he should carry some weight.
It's hypothetical because the government won't withdraw its application.
Reading the Article 50 text, something just struck me in this paragraph:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period
There's nothing stopping the withdrawal agreement specifying an exit date LATER than two after the notification, as long as it's agreed within the timeframe. Has anyone picked up on that?
Yes, me in the thread header. See "Secondly".
Duh!
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
Hang on, maybe the market isn't quite so clear cut after all:
14:06 A new political party hoping to halt Brexit and run candidates in all 650 constituencies at the next general election was launched in Westminster today in an optimistic attempt to capitalise on what its leaders said was disenchantment with established political parties.
Renew has no high-profile candidates or donors and is led by three principals who have almost no prior political experience, although the philosopher AC Grayling was present at today’s launch, saying he was “rooting for” the party...
Piris' point is that the constitutional requirement doesn't apply to the notification; it applies to the act of leaving. Therefore the government can withdraw its application at any time until the treaties lapse. He was the EU's chief law officer, so he should carry some weight.
It's hypothetical because the government won't withdraw its application.
Reading the Article 50 text, something just struck me in this paragraph:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period
There's nothing stopping the withdrawal agreement specifying an exit date LATER than two years after the notification, as long as it's agreed within the timeframe. Has anyone picked up on that?
Interesting point. I'm trying to imagine a scenario where the withdrawal agreement is finalised but the formal exit is deferred.
How about deferring the actual exit to the end of the transition period (i.e. instead of the transition period)? JRM might approve as we would be less of a "vassal state" in a no mans land but the eventual exit would be assured. In this scenario I assume we would give up our right to elect MEPs even though we would still formally be members, but we might retain the right to participate in the rule setting - to be negotiated.
This would be a NO to the 29 March 2019 date.
Incidentally, I see punters have piled in on YES and brought it down from 2.34 to 2.02 at a cost of around £400.
Oh - it's gone back up again to 2.46. Some contrarian thinking.
1.From memory of my time toiling for Her Majesty (not at her pleasure, I hasten to add), new entrants to the Civil Service are already on a DC pension. I maybe wrong.
Pretty certain that is wrong. What has changed is that the pension benefits are now based on average earnings across the career rather than final salary. This will have a major impact on the better paid, especially those who contrive promotion to a better paid post very shortly before they retire.
They don't include the liability for future pension payments in the public debt figures.
Do they not - Jesus, that is simply a trillion pound accounting trick.
Nope, never have done. Public pensions are simply paid for out of current departmental budgets, no pot, no accounting, no formal liabilities....
Given that British Airways are close to having as many retired pilots as current pilots, some government departments must have crossed that threshold by now.
I think it is easier to stop or delay Brexit on legal grounds than set out here. The keywords in Article 50 are " in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" JC Piris, former EU Commission Legal Counsel, contends that this condition applies until the Treaties are nullified. In other words, if the UK decides it no longer wants to Brexit, it would no longer accord with its requirements.
However, we would probably only NOT leave on that date the EU if either the government changes its mind or the process is subject to a legal challenge. Even a technical delay, which is quite likely, will probably be dealt with using an interim version of the Transition Agreement rather than delaying the exit date.
So yes, unlikely not to happen.
No, the text says:
"Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."
That is a one-off action: it decides. There was an exceptionally high-powered court case which determined what the constitutional requirements were. These were then met. Whether or not the government, parliament or people subsequently decide that their *political* requirements have changed does not affect whether or not A50 notification was lawfully given.
The EU Commission has already accepted that the ECJ will be the final arbiter of whether or not the UK could revoke article 50. As such the view of the former head of the EC Legal Council is pretty much worthless.
1.From memory of my time toiling for Her Majesty (not at her pleasure, I hasten to add), new entrants to the Civil Service are already on a DC pension. I maybe wrong.
Pretty certain that is wrong. What has changed is that the pension benefits are now based on average earnings across the career rather than final salary. This will have a major impact on the better paid, especially those who contrive promotion to a better paid post very shortly before they retire.
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.
The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.
It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.
My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.
Thats it were all agreed then.
I will ring Jezza
Forget it. It is precisely because Jezza is promising everyone free stuff while pretending that no-one bar a few rich people will pay for it all that the more sensible - and honest - amongst us have come up with these proposals.
And, to be mischievous, when a political party does suggest that people use their assets first to pay for their care you won't be out there shouting "They're stealing Granny's house!" will you?
I will but at 0.05% of wealth seems like Grannys house is safe from Tory house theft that you support
1.From memory of my time toiling for Her Majesty (not at her pleasure, I hasten to add), new entrants to the Civil Service are already on a DC pension. I maybe wrong.
2. I'd like to see some simple mechanisms for inter-generational wealth transfers. Setting up trusts can be expensive, gifting is limited if you have multiple children and so on. It would be nice for me to help my children before I actually shuffle off this mortal coil.
I feel there's a consensus that taxes have to rise. As an affluent early retiree, I'd support the removal of NI and a raising of income tax. Brutally simple.
The Civil Service in Scotland at least has two schemes. The DB one is only open to new recruits at a relatively high grade
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.
The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.
It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.
My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.
Time to vote Labour or Lib Dem then!
If you want a wealth tax on your neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour
IIRC
What alternative are you in favour of?
Or are you prepared to let Public Services go to rat shit?
I don't think it's likely there will be a significant extension, or Brexit will be halted, or anything like that. But I've always felt the chance of a delay of weeks is pretty high: perhaps as much as 40%.
If you look down each of the previous times that the EU has been engaged in a serious negotiation (TTIP, CETA, the Greek debt crisis), then hard deadlines have repeatedly been blown through.
The EU is an agglomeration of lawyers. We have said we won't sign up to an exit bill without clarity on what we're transitioning too. Brinkmanship and a need to cross i's, and dot t's, mean that a short delay seems eminently likely.
Worth betting on at 6/4? No, definitely not, because there's at least a 10% chance of a disorganised Brexit, and probably a 50% chance that all will be done on time.
But more than a 1/4 shot. It should probably be 4/6.
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Yes. If the transition period is redefined as an A50 extension (and agreed by everyone) then we will have to elect MEPs in May 2019 as we will still be members.
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?
(For the record, getting agreement to extend the deadline during the Greek sovereign debt crisis - to allow for the referendum - was a much contentious decision. And was achieved in about an hour.)
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?
Again you have to remember that the ECJ sees it as its duty to uphold the rights of the citizens of the EU according to the treaties. As such it would certainly respond to any UK citizen who decided to challenge an agreement between the EU and the UK which resulted in the removal of their voting rights whilst the UK was still remained a member of the EU.
1.From memory of my time toiling for Her Majesty (not at her pleasure, I hasten to add), new entrants to the Civil Service are already on a DC pension. I maybe wrong.
Pretty certain that is wrong. What has changed is that the pension benefits are now based on average earnings across the career rather than final salary. This will have a major impact on the better paid, especially those who contrive promotion to a better paid post very shortly before they retire.
This only seems to be for additional pension entitlements or the odd crazy who chooses not to join the scheme offered:
"The three defined contribution schemes are: 1.Additional Voluntary Contribution Scheme 2.Partnership Pension Account 3.Stand-alone Stakeholder Account"
And these are all only for the green twentysomethings going in at the bottom, for everyone else there’s still at least 30 years of people on the old final salary schemes still to retire on unaccounted-for pensions.
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?
It would disfranchise the population of the UK.
Yes true. But that's equivalent to the transition period. What would be the potential legal challenge in the courts?
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?
It would disfranchise the population of the UK.
Yes true. But that's equivalent to the transition period. What would be the potential legal challenge in the courts?
Richard's just given one example. I believe the more fundamental objection is that the resulting parliament wouldn't be able to operate lawfully under the treaties if one member state were not represented. It's one thing to be an external 'vassal state', but another to be a member treated the same way.
I don't think it's likely there will be a significant extension, or Brexit will be halted, or anything like that. But I've always felt the chance of a delay of weeks is pretty high: perhaps as much as 40%.
If you look down each of the previous times that the EU has been engaged in a serious negotiation (TTIP, CETA, the Greek debt crisis), then hard deadlines have repeatedly been blown through.
The EU is an agglomeration of lawyers. We have said we won't sign up to an exit bill without clarity on what we're transitioning too. Brinkmanship and a need to cross i's, and dot t's, mean that a short delay seems eminently likely.
Worth betting on at 6/4? No, definitely not, because there's at least a 10% chance of a disorganised Brexit, and probably a 50% chance that all will be done on time.
But more than a 1/4 shot. It should probably be 4/6.
It's not a hard deadline, though, because of the transition period. Everything can be fudged.
Worth betting on at 6/4? No, definitely not, because there's at least a 10% chance of a disorganised Brexit, and probably a 50% chance that all will be done on time.
But more than a 1/4 shot. It should probably be 4/6.
Errm if you back 4-6 shots at 6-4 then long term you'll make wads of cash ?
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?
It would disfranchise the population of the UK.
FPTP already does that in 75% of Westminster seats. So I'll be doubly disenfranchised.
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?
Again you have to remember that the ECJ sees it as its duty to uphold the rights of the citizens of the EU according to the treaties. As such it would certainly respond to any UK citizen who decided to challenge an agreement between the EU and the UK which resulted in the removal of their voting rights whilst the UK was still remained a member of the EU.
OK. I'm just exploring possibilities. What if there was a simple amendment to the treaties agreed by all parties that removed the voting rights of UK citizens? Then that would be part of the treaties the ECJ would refer to. I'm sure a UK citizen would appeal to the ECJ but to what practical effect? The Euro elections would be held and we wouldn't take part.
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?
It would disfranchise the population of the UK.
Yes true. But that's equivalent to the transition period. What would be the potential legal challenge in the courts?
Richard's just given one example. I believe the more fundamental objection is that the resulting parliament wouldn't be able to operate lawfully under the treaties if one member state were not represented. It's one thing to be an external 'vassal state', but another to be a member treated the same way.
An agreed amendment to existing treaties that says "Replace EU members" with "EU members excluding the UK" in sections .... and we sign on the dotted line. Could be agreed in an hour.
Can you imagine the media running a story of Hague or Cameron being a paid informer for a neo-Nazi group, Bad Al would have summoned the forces of darkness from every corner of the earth and the outriders would be slipping this into every single media appearance. The media wouldn't need to ask Tony for a quote, Bad Al would have every Labourite crow barring it into every answer to every question on every subject.
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?
It would disfranchise the population of the UK.
Yes true. But that's equivalent to the transition period. What would be the potential legal challenge in the courts?
Richard's just given one example. I believe the more fundamental objection is that the resulting parliament wouldn't be able to operate lawfully under the treaties if one member state were not represented. It's one thing to be an external 'vassal state', but another to be a member treated the same way.
An agreed amendment to existing treaties that says "Replace EU members" with "EU members excluding the UK" in sections .... and we sign on the dotted line. Could be agreed in an hour.
I think it would be considered the equivalent of the UK Parliament passing an act abolishing elections. It might be legal within the context of Parliament but the courts would certainly strike it down.
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.
There was a carefully hedged allegation in the ST that he might have received a payment of £10K for his services to them. We also know that the diplomat was expelled by the UK government as a spy. If it were established that a UK MP had received money from a hostile foreign government to disclose information or even insight that he obtained as an MP I think we are getting perilously close to treason.
But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.
No time to do a proper reply to Cyclefree's interesting post, but I'd throw in a modest wealth tax on Swiss lines (http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ID/Switzerland-Individual-Other-taxes) - essentially you pay 0.05% (i.e. one two thousandth) on £30,000-£140,000) rising to 0.3% over £1.7 million.
The effect is to raise money almost imperceptibly from people who are well off (yes if you have £100 million you'll pay nearly £300,000, but on that bank balance you'll say meh), in a way that's harder to evade than income tax (because if you live here you have visible property here too that you can't move to the Cayman Islands); it also discourages people from just leaving wealth piled up in a current account and vacant property/unused land and nudges them into doing something with it, if only making it available for borrowing by someone else. I never met anyone in Switzerland, even rock-ribbed conservatives, who felt this unfair.
It worries me that as a right-winger I am struggling to disagree with that.
My redlines would be: no-one turfed out of their family home, or property, against their will. I would baseline such a tax to a property value index, reviewed annually. I want to see the super-rich and "tax-efficient" investment portfolios paying more tax, not ordinary families.
Time to vote Labour or Lib Dem then!
If you want a wealth tax on your neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour
IIRC
What alternative are you in favour of?
Or are you prepared to let Public Services go to rat shit?
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.
Aren't the right wing press getting Jezza mixed up with Ray Mawby MP (codename - LAVAL)
Worth betting on at 6/4? No, definitely not, because there's at least a 10% chance of a disorganised Brexit, and probably a 50% chance that all will be done on time.
But more than a 1/4 shot. It should probably be 4/6.
Errm if you back 4-6 shots at 6-4 then long term you'll make wads of cash ?
Oops: I mean it's about a 40% chance that Brexit is delayed a few weeks, and therefore there is no value to be had here.
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
Perhaps she has one eye on the likelihood of British figures being indicted by Robert Mueller.
Why? I mean its nice of you to be looking for excuses for her complete incompetence as a politician but why would one stop her from wanting to make political capital out of the other?
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.
There was a carefully hedged allegation in the ST that he might have received a payment of £10K for his services to them. We also know that the diplomat was expelled by the UK government as a spy. If it were established that a UK MP had received money from a hostile foreign government to disclose information or even insight that he obtained as an MP I think we are getting perilously close to treason.
But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.
The same source claims that he organised Live Aid. A shovel full of salt required:
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.
Aren't the right wing press getting Jezza mixed up with Ray Mawby MP (codename - LAVAL)
More likely to be confused with John Stonehouse...but of course they only tell you about Ray Mawby on Skwawkbox...which of course shock horror their leading story today.
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?
It would disfranchise the population of the UK.
Yes true. But that's equivalent to the transition period. What would be the potential legal challenge in the courts?
Richard's just given one example. I believe the more fundamental objection is that the resulting parliament wouldn't be able to operate lawfully under the treaties if one member state were not represented. It's one thing to be an external 'vassal state', but another to be a member treated the same way.
An agreed amendment to existing treaties that says "Replace EU members" with "EU members excluding the UK" in sections .... and we sign on the dotted line. Could be agreed in an hour.
I think it would be considered the equivalent of the UK Parliament passing an act abolishing elections. It might be legal within the context of Parliament but the courts would certainly strike it down.
Although there is the question of timing. The ECJ is not quick to schedule cases. And once we'd left, then any ECJ decision would be moot.
That being said, absent some momentous international event (such as Russia invading Estonia), I can't see any delay stretching beyond the EU elections. And I suspect the EU elections are the real hard cut off point for negotiations.
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.
Aren't the right wing press getting Jezza mixed up with Ray Mawby MP (codename - LAVAL)
More likely to be confused with John Stonehouse...
On the subject with political leaders receiving money from communist countries, can I point out that there is some evidence that Churchill was personally bailed out by the Soviet Union.
He went on to be the greatest of Prime Ministers.
There are other similarities between the two. Both spent years in the wilderness. Neither went to University. I could go on. (Albeit with ever more tenuous connections.)
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.
There was a carefully hedged allegation in the ST that he might have received a payment of £10K for his services to them. We also know that the diplomat was expelled by the UK government as a spy. If it were established that a UK MP had received money from a hostile foreign government to disclose information or even insight that he obtained as an MP I think we are getting perilously close to treason.
But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
They don't include the liability for future pension payments in the public debt figures.
Do they not - Jesus, that is simply a trillion pound accounting trick.
Nope, never have done. Public pensions are simply paid for out of current departmental budgets, no pot, no accounting, no formal liabilities....
Given that British Airways are close to having as many retired pilots as current pilots, some government departments must have crossed that threshold by now.
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
The thing is, though, he's not trying to become our next PM. A rather big difference, doncha think?
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.
There was a carefully hedged allegation in the ST that he might have received a payment of £10K for his services to them. We also know that the diplomat was expelled by the UK government as a spy. If it were established that a UK MP had received money from a hostile foreign government to disclose information or even insight that he obtained as an MP I think we are getting perilously close to treason.
But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
The thing is, though, he's not trying to become our next PM. A rather big difference, doncha think?
Good try, though.
He is only repeating Sqkwawkbox's best efforts....
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
I think Piris has addressed this in the past too. It's not possible because if we remain a full member, the EU would be unable to pass legislation lawfully without our representation so everything would grind to a halt.
... unless all parties agree otherwise?
I don't think so. We could maybe abstain in the Council by default, but by what right would our 73 seats in the parliament be left vacant? If we're full members we would need to hold elections.
Surely it would be possible for the UK government to formally agree with the EU that we would not hold elections for MEPs and not take up our seats. What would be the legal challenge to that?
It would disfranchise the population of the UK.
Yes true. But that's equivalent to the transition period. What would be the potential legal challenge in the courts?
Richard's just given one example. I believe the more fundamental objection is that the resulting parliament wouldn't be able to operate lawfully under the treaties if one member state were not represented. It's one thing to be an external 'vassal state', but another to be a member treated the same way.
An agreed amendment to existing treaties that says "Replace EU members" with "EU members excluding the UK" in sections .... and we sign on the dotted line. Could be agreed in an hour.
I think it would be considered the equivalent of the UK Parliament passing an act abolishing elections. It might be legal within the context of Parliament but the courts would certainly strike it down.
Although there is the question of timing. The ECJ is not quick to schedule cases. And once we'd left, then any ECJ decision would be moot.
That being said, absent some momentous international event (such as Russia invading Estonia), I can't see any delay stretching beyond the EU elections. And I suspect the EU elections are the real hard cut off point for negotiations.
Yes - that is where I am. But sometimes creative lawyers closeted together under pressure can produce surprising rabbits. Just exploring.
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
The thing is, though, he's not trying to become our next PM. A rather big difference, doncha think?
Good try, though.
He is only repeating Sqkwawkbox's best efforts....
The Corbyn groupies do seem quite rattled by the revelations about Agent Cob.
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.
There was a carefully hedged allegation in the ST that he might have received a payment of £10K for his services to them. We also know that the diplomat was expelled by the UK government as a spy. If it were established that a UK MP had received money from a hostile foreign government to disclose information or even insight that he obtained as an MP I think we are getting perilously close to treason.
But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
So the fact that one scumbag of a Tory MP was a traitor makes what Corbyn allegedly did alright? Is that your argument?
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.
There was a carefully hedged allegation in the ST that he might have received a payment of £10K for his services to them. We also know that the diplomat was expelled by the UK government as a spy. If it were established that a UK MP had received money from a hostile foreign government to disclose information or even insight that he obtained as an MP I think we are getting perilously close to treason.
But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor pl
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
So the fact that one scumbag of a Tory MP was a traitor makes what Corbyn allegedly did alright? Is that your argument?
No its the fact one did it and one didnt that matters
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
What do you expect? So far the only known facts about Corbyn is that he chatted about his pet dogs and fish with a Czech "diplomat" and mentioned he didn't like Thatcher and Reagan, and he went on a cycling holiday in East Germany with his wife. A Czech former spy has made vague claims about Corbyn working for the Soviets as well as the Czechs. The latter is contradicted by the official archivist for the Czech spy agency. There were plenty of people who definitely were spies, including the last elected Czech Prime Minister, so it's not as if it's all hidden.
There was a carefully hedged allegation in the ST that he might have received a payment of £10K for his services to them. We also know that the diplomat was expelled by the UK government as a spy. If it were established that a UK MP had received money from a hostile foreign government to disclose information or even insight that he obtained as an MP I think we are getting perilously close to treason.
But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.
The same source claims that he organised Live Aid. A shovel full of salt required:
Don't see that in the google translate. The one problem with this story is it is hard to imagine Corbyn either knowing or saying anything useful. I mean, why would he break the habit of a lifetime for the Czechoslovakian Secret police?
Can you imagine the media running a story of Hague or Cameron being a paid informer for a neo-Nazi group, Bad Al would have summoned the forces of darkness from every corner of the earth and the outriders would be slipping this into every single media appearance. The media wouldn't need to ask Tony for a quote, Bad Al would have every Labourite crow barring it into every answer to every question on every subject.
To be honest, while it's more omission by accident (or inability to do politics, if you prefer), I still think it's the right decision. Fact is, these sort of stories were run pre-2017GE and gained very little traction. It's all a long time ago and those for whom it matters are already in the Con camp. The media have kept the story live and that should help to reinforce the determination of that anti-Corbyn group to stick where they are. The government doesn't need to try to use it - too many people will feel it to be of little importance to today's challenges.
FWIW, I very much doubt that Corbyn was an agent of any nature for the Czechs or anyone else. I do think that they might well have been scoping him out as a potential useful idiot who could spout their propaganda as a "voice for peace and understanding in Europe".
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
The thing is, though, he's not trying to become our next PM. A rather big difference, doncha think?
Good try, though.
He is only repeating Sqkwawkbox's best efforts....
The Corbyn groupies do seem quite rattled by the revelations about Agent Cob.
Do you seriously believe the allegations?
Same to you DavidL I thought you were a sensible chap do you honestly believe "Corbyn and the Commie Spy"?
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
The thing is, though, he's not trying to become our next PM. A rather big difference, doncha think?
Good try, though.
He is only repeating Sqkwawkbox's best efforts....
The Corbyn groupies do seem quite rattled by the revelations about Agent Cob.
Do you seriously believe the allegations?
Same to you DavidL I thought you were a sensible chap do you honestly believe "Corbyn and the Commie Spy"?
ISTR you believed the 'Cameron and the pig' story, which had a heck of a lot less basis in reality or likelihood.
Don't see that in the google translate. The one problem with this story is it is hard to imagine Corbyn either knowing or saying anything useful. I mean, why would he break the habit of a lifetime for the Czechoslovakian Secret police?
It's clear from the archive material that Corbyn was completely useless to the Czech agency. It was this agent's job to work with activists from the hard left, so he found some. The only thing that might damage Corbyn is if he was found to have been given a retainer. This ex-spy implies Corbyn was paid, but there is no evidence so far, and the ex-spy, whose word is doubtful anyway, only implies a payment was made - he doesn't seem to know.
Can you imagine the media running a story of Hague or Cameron being a paid informer for a neo-Nazi group, Bad Al would have summoned the forces of darkness from every corner of the earth and the outriders would be slipping this into every single media appearance. The media wouldn't need to ask Tony for a quote, Bad Al would have every Labourite crow barring it into every answer to every question on every subject.
To be honest, while it's more omission by accident (or inability to do politics, if you prefer), I still think it's the right decision. Fact is, these sort of stories were run pre-2017GE and gained very little traction. It's all a long time ago and those for whom it matters are already in the Con camp. The media have kept the story live and that should help to reinforce the determination of that anti-Corbyn group to stick where they are. The government doesn't need to try to use it - too many people will feel it to be of little importance to today's challenges.
FWIW, I very much doubt that Corbyn was an agent of any nature for the Czechs or anyone else. I do think that they might well have been scoping him out as a potential useful idiot who could spout their propaganda as a "voice for peace and understanding in Europe".
Many believed Harold Wilson was a Soviet spy.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theories , even though MI5 investigated and found to be false.If you are a complete partisan , you want it to be be true, I guess , and any reason goes out of the window.
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
The thing is, though, he's not trying to become our next PM. A rather big difference, doncha think?
Good try, though.
He is only repeating Sqkwawkbox's best efforts....
The Corbyn groupies do seem quite rattled by the revelations about Agent Cob.
Do you seriously believe the allegations?
Same to you DavidL I thought you were a sensible chap do you honestly believe "Corbyn and the Commie Spy"?
I believe that he was (and is) deluded, that he was willing to be friends with anyone who opposed the Imperialist powers (ie us) no matter how repulsive, something he showed with Iran, Hamas, the IRA, various South American psychopaths and Communist governments in Eastern Europe, no matter what these various scum did to their own people. Do I believe he was sneaking around bugging the HoC or even privy to anything secret? No. Would he take money to help some organisation that he was a part of promote "peace"? Maybe.
Can you imagine the media running a story of Hague or Cameron being a paid informer for a neo-Nazi group, Bad Al would have summoned the forces of darkness from every corner of the earth and the outriders would be slipping this into every single media appearance. The media wouldn't need to ask Tony for a quote, Bad Al would have every Labourite crow barring it into every answer to every question on every subject.
To be honest, while it's more omission by accident (or inability to do politics, if you prefer), I still think it's the right decision. Fact is, these sort of stories were run pre-2017GE and gained very little traction. It's all a long time ago and those for whom it matters are already in the Con camp. The media have kept the story live and that should help to reinforce the determination of that anti-Corbyn group to stick where they are. The government doesn't need to try to use it - too many people will feel it to be of little importance to today's challenges.
FWIW, I very much doubt that Corbyn was an agent of any nature for the Czechs or anyone else. I do think that they might well have been scoping him out as a potential useful idiot who could spout their propaganda as a "voice for peace and understanding in Europe".
A willing useful idiot....which is actually worse than a spy in some ways, because a) made him as thick as pigshit and b) his loyalties lay with oppressive communists regimes.
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
The thing is, though, he's not trying to become our next PM. A rather big difference, doncha think?
Good try, though.
He is only repeating Sqkwawkbox's best efforts....
The Corbyn groupies do seem quite rattled by the revelations about Agent Cob.
Do you seriously believe the allegations?
Same to you DavidL I thought you were a sensible chap do you honestly believe "Corbyn and the Commie Spy"?
ISTR you believed the 'Cameron and the pig' story, which had a heck of a lot less basis in reality or likelihood.
They don't include the liability for future pension payments in the public debt figures.
Do they not - Jesus, that is simply a trillion pound accounting trick.
Nope, never have done. Public pensions are simply paid for out of current departmental budgets, no pot, no accounting, no formal liabilities....
Given that British Airways are close to having as many retired pilots as current pilots, some government departments must have crossed that threshold by now.
I think the LGPS is different, but don’t know enough about it to comment. I believe that there’s a long legacy of unfunded pensions still payable by councils, the LGPS being a relatively new idea.
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
So the fact that one scumbag of a Tory MP was a traitor makes what Corbyn allegedly did alright? Is that your argument?
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
The thing is, though, he's not trying to become our next PM. A rather big difference, doncha think?
Good try, though.
He is only repeating Sqkwawkbox's best efforts....
The Corbyn groupies do seem quite rattled by the revelations about Agent Cob.
Do you seriously believe the allegations?
Same to you DavidL I thought you were a sensible chap do you honestly believe "Corbyn and the Commie Spy"?
Which allegations? Certainly there's no doubt that Czech intelligence had contacts with him, and documented him as a source. The Sun published all the original documents from the Czech archives. There doesn't seem any substantive evidence that Corbyn was paid, however, so effectively this is just further evidence of what we already knew, that Corbyn was a Soviet-block stooge who hated (and probably still does hate) the West.
Can you imagine the media running a story of Hague or Cameron being a paid informer for a neo-Nazi group, Bad Al would have summoned the forces of darkness from every corner of the earth and the outriders would be slipping this into every single media appearance. The media wouldn't need to ask Tony for a quote, Bad Al would have every Labourite crow barring it into every answer to every question on every subject.
To be honest, while it's more omission by accident (or inability to do politics, if you prefer), I still think it's the right decision. Fact is, these sort of stories were run pre-2017GE and gained very little traction. It's all a long time ago and those for whom it matters are already in the Con camp. The media have kept the story live and that should help to reinforce the determination of that anti-Corbyn group to stick where they are. The government doesn't need to try to use it - too many people will feel it to be of little importance to today's challenges.
FWIW, I very much doubt that Corbyn was an agent of any nature for the Czechs or anyone else. I do think that they might well have been scoping him out as a potential useful idiot who could spout their propaganda as a "voice for peace and understanding in Europe".
A willing useful idiot....which is actually worse than a spy in some ways, because a) made him as thick as pigshit and b) his loyalties lay with oppressive communists regimes.
Leopards dont change their spots. Corbynistas arrogantly assume that nothing, no matter what their hero did in the past can damage him. In the end he will do something that reveals him for the low life that he is.
Apparently you can't be a member of both the Bullingdon and the Piers Gaveston, Cameron was clearly Bullingdon material, the Piers Gaveston Society is for oiks who think they are posh boys.
Can you imagine the media running a story of Hague or Cameron being a paid informer for a neo-Nazi group, Bad Al would have summoned the forces of darkness from every corner of the earth and the outriders would be slipping this into every single media appearance. The media wouldn't need to ask Tony for a quote, Bad Al would have every Labourite crow barring it into every answer to every question on every subject.
To be honest, while it's more omission by accident (or inability to do politics, if you prefer), I still think it's the right decision. Fact is, these sort of stories were run pre-2017GE and gained very little traction. It's all a long time ago and those for whom it matters are already in the Con camp. The media have kept the story live and that should help to reinforce the determination of that anti-Corbyn group to stick where they are. The government doesn't need to try to use it - too many people will feel it to be of little importance to today's challenges.
FWIW, I very much doubt that Corbyn was an agent of any nature for the Czechs or anyone else. I do think that they might well have been scoping him out as a potential useful idiot who could spout their propaganda as a "voice for peace and understanding in Europe".
b) his loyalties lay with oppressive communists regimes.
On taxes, my view is that income is already heavily taxed. Most people are paying 32% on any significant income and 42% if they are doing well, on top of which they're paying 2-5% gross contributions for pensions.
Most people really struggle to have much left each month over after paying council tax on top (another £1k+) utility bills, food, mortgage/rent and transport costs. I don't think it's fair at all for the State to add to the burden.
That may well be the case. But then people need to realise that if they don't pay more they can't have the public services they appear to want.
Getting it into people's heads that if they want something they will have to pay for it, not expect someone else to do it, is essential if we're not going to go bankrupt as a nation.
That may well mean that they will have to cut back on stuff that is now seen as essential but which were seen as luxuries decades back e.g. lots of foreign holidays, nice cars, phones upgraded every few months, etc etc. We can't keep on paying ourselves more than we earn. At some point, the Micawber rule is going to kick in......
Maybe it's time to make the generation who need all the healthcare and social care services pay for it? Just a suggestion. At the moment we have a generation of above average earners aged between 24 and 40 unable to buy their own homes, paying rent to parasite landlords who are usually 55+ and now the parasite generation is looking to raise tax on the working population to pay for their old age care and healthcare. At some point the working classes will decide they've had enough of being a punching bag for their parents generation.
Comments
Getting it into people's heads that if they want something they will have to pay for it, not expect someone else to do it, is essential if we're not going to go bankrupt as a nation.
That may well mean that they will have to cut back on stuff that is now seen as essential but which were seen as luxuries decades back e.g. lots of foreign holidays, nice cars, phones upgraded every few months, etc etc. We can't keep on paying ourselves more than we earn. At some point, the Micawber rule is going to kick in......
1.From memory of my time toiling for Her Majesty (not at her pleasure, I hasten to add), new entrants to the Civil Service are already on a DC pension. I maybe wrong.
2. I'd like to see some simple mechanisms for inter-generational wealth transfers. Setting up trusts can be expensive, gifting is limited if you have multiple children and so on. It would be nice for me to help my children before I actually shuffle off this mortal coil.
I feel there's a consensus that taxes have to rise. As an affluent early retiree, I'd support the removal of NI and a raising of income tax. Brutally simple.
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period
There's nothing stopping the withdrawal agreement specifying an exit date LATER than two years after the notification, as long as it's agreed within the timeframe. Has anyone picked up on that?
If Labour's manifesto all looked as sensible as this then I'd consider them for my vote, however this is the party that specifically went to court to discern that their manifesto should NOT be legally binding Wheeler, Regina (on the Application of) v Office of the Prime Minister and Another...
And, to be mischievous, when a political party does suggest that people use their assets first to pay for their care you won't be out there shouting "They're stealing Granny's house!" will you?
IIRC
There could potentially be some impact on the EU27 in terms of the number of MEPs each country / region was entitled to send.
I think in any event it is moot: the EU would accept us back on previous terms though of course they could never look at our complaints in the same light again
And on that point, paragraph 3 is pretty clear:
"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
Shall cease to apply. There is no "unless", apart from the deadline-varying condition within the article. If we give notification, we leave.
I could see this addressing concerns about the legality of the transition agreement. It might also help shore up our own third party arrangements. The treaties would still apply but we would voluntarily through the Withdrawal Agreement stop our participation in decision making.
How about deferring the actual exit to the end of the transition period (i.e. instead of the transition period)? JRM might approve as we would be less of a "vassal state" in a no mans land but the eventual exit would be assured. In this scenario I assume we would give up our right to elect MEPs even though we would still formally be members, but we might retain the right to participate in the rule setting - to be negotiated.
This would be a NO to the 29 March 2019 date.
Incidentally, I see punters have piled in on YES and brought it down from 2.34 to 2.02 at a cost of around £400.
Oh - it's gone back up again to 2.46. Some contrarian thinking.
It's a lazy word to describe something happening you don't agree with.
http://www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/members/appointment-of-a-new-defined-contribution-pension-provider-for-civil-service-pensions/
Given that British Airways are close to having as many retired pilots as current pilots, some government departments must have crossed that threshold by now.
"The three defined contribution schemes are:
1.Additional Voluntary Contribution Scheme
2.Partnership Pension Account
3.Stand-alone Stakeholder Account"
Or are you prepared to let Public Services go to rat shit?
But I disagree that 1/4 is value.
I don't think it's likely there will be a significant extension, or Brexit will be halted, or anything like that. But I've always felt the chance of a delay of weeks is pretty high: perhaps as much as 40%.
If you look down each of the previous times that the EU has been engaged in a serious negotiation (TTIP, CETA, the Greek debt crisis), then hard deadlines have repeatedly been blown through.
The EU is an agglomeration of lawyers. We have said we won't sign up to an exit bill without clarity on what we're transitioning too. Brinkmanship and a need to cross i's, and dot t's, mean that a short delay seems eminently likely.
Worth betting on at 6/4? No, definitely not, because there's at least a 10% chance of a disorganised Brexit, and probably a 50% chance that all will be done on time.
But more than a 1/4 shot. It should probably be 4/6.
Is it too much to hope that she knows there is more to come on this and doesn't want to jump the gun just yet? You know, like a charge of treason?
Probably.
(Although, I'm not sure anyone will vote for her again; surely she retires at the next election?)
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/feb/19/uk-millennials-second-worst-hit-financially-in-developed-world-says-study
If there is dampness it was probably a dream!!
But the point TSE was making was that even if we are not in that territory it really wasn't an occasion for one of Mrs May's non answers. She just can't help herself.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/965020548592996357
That being said, absent some momentous international event (such as Russia invading Estonia), I can't see any delay stretching beyond the EU elections. And I suspect the EU elections are the real hard cut off point for negotiations.
Jezza is no Lord Lucan lookalike though
He went on to be the greatest of Prime Ministers.
There are other similarities between the two. Both spent years in the wilderness. Neither went to University. I could go on. (Albeit with ever more tenuous connections.)
According to Wiki this Tory MP was definitely a Commie Spy source
Following access by the BBC to previously secret files held by the current Czech Republic security services, it was revealed on 28 June 2012 that Mawby, who was given the code name "Laval", had spied for the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic during the Cold War. He received £100 (approx. £1,530 at 2012 prices) per nugget of information, and even signed a receipt for one payment.[4] He handed over handwritten floor plans of the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons, and details of who provided security at the office. He also promised to ask questions in the House on behalf of his paymasters.
During the decade that Mawby supplied information he handed over lists of parliamentary committees, and details about his fellow politicians, including a supposedly confidential parliamentary investigation into a Conservative peer. Meetings sometimes took place three or four times in a month, although this greatly decreased by the end of the 1960s, and ended completely in November 1971.
There is no indication in MI5's authorised history that they knew of Mawby's spying activities, and he is the only Conservative MP known to have spied for a Communist government.
Good try, though.
FWIW, I very much doubt that Corbyn was an agent of any nature for the Czechs or anyone else. I do think that they might well have been scoping him out as a potential useful idiot who could spout their propaganda as a "voice for peace and understanding in Europe".
Same to you DavidL I thought you were a sensible chap do you honestly believe "Corbyn and the Commie Spy"?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/16/historys-greatest-conspiracy-theories/harold-wilson-was-a-soviet-agent/
https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/19/this-is-whats-in-a-real-czech-moles-file-a-tory-one/
Wilson was a Commie agent, just like Trump.
Plus Wilson, like Driberg went to that nest of traitors, Oxford University.
You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God! the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.
Apparently you can't be a member of both the Bullingdon and the Piers Gaveston, Cameron was clearly Bullingdon material, the Piers Gaveston Society is for oiks who think they are posh boys.