saintbletch

I didn't think I hear myself saying this too often, but I agree with Boris too. But I heard the interview with Boris on the radio and I think it's important to see a bit more of that "blinder" quote. He's right. Cameron played a blinder - by negotiating himself into a situation where he had absolutely no allies and no other choice. I'm not sure that matches my definition of playing a blinder though, but there you go.

All the best to your mother. I'm sure this sort of thing will take quite a while for her to fully come to terms with. It appears that Amrani had killed a woman and stashed her body in his shed before he went on his killing spree. I wonder if he simply felt that he had little to lose. Beyond comprehension.

Great post pap. You win the saintbletch award for debating style. Don't always agree with everything you say but I don't think I've never seen you play the man when the ball was there to be won - (and if I can stretch a football metaphor just a little further) despite often being hacked down by the opposition whenever you get the ball. Great post Frank's cousin. There is grey in most of these arguments. I tend not to respect people that don't at least recognise that. But as pap says above, I can respect that some play to the gallery and that some are the antagonistic oil that keep the gears of this forum moving. BTW It was worth my £5 membership to read the line in bold above. Nice turn of phrase. This is a complex issue with subtle and perhaps far-reaching implications. I don't think Cameron had much of a choice. I don't think he could have signed the treaty. But that doesn't make those that say he made the right decision, right. At the instant when the opt-outs he had asked for were not forthcoming his decision was the right one. The problem I have is what he did, or didn't do that led up to that moment. We were obviously ally-less at that point. That is poor diplomacy. His management of the process, as well as his perceived interference in Euro zone affairs was ill-judged, and that is what I have an issue with.

Hmm. Looks like an old Alfa Guilietta Spider but I wouldn't swear to it.

Of course some configurations of socialism don't countenance free market opportunism. But I take your point. An interesting read. But I think it's a little over the top to suggest that the changes in the treaty mean that the Euro zone is now some form of financial sector puppet. The argument that he seems to be making is that there is some form of conspiracy because the new treaty is written to benefit the financial sector as it protects their potential losses if they had bought government debt bonds from a state that fails. I'm not suggesting that the Euro zone isn't a puppet of the financial sector, it plainly is. But that has more to do with investors' concerns over the risk of buying Euro zone governmental debt. Rather than conspiracy, surely the logic behind underwriting such financial sector losses in the treaty is that without risk; lending, borrowing and the government bond market will become less prone to spikes and illiquidity. The corollary of that is that without punitive rates to raise money in the bond market coupled to better budgetary control (that will be enforced centrally), the nation states should each be able to start to bring their debt under control. Given where we are and given the gravity of the situation. I'd say that this is a sensible approach. Whether it will work is another matter.

I agree with most of this Frank's Cousin and especially the piece in bold. I would say though that what has ensured that labour laws haven't unduly affected Germany's economy is an artificially low exchange rate for their exports. Having the Euro's value pegged at some sort of warped mean of powerhouse and basket case economies alike has ensured that Germany's production is exportable in a way that economic feedback would have stifled for other economies. China's manipulation of its currency versus the Dollar has had the same effect. Likewise the Greek's would have an incredible tourist industry right now if we were able to pay for our summer-on-a-li-lo in Drachmas. Having said all that, I agree that German attitudes to work, engineering and commerce in general have played a significant role in their success - despite protective labour laws.

I'd agree that it might be pyrrhic, but you'd have to say that Cameron wanted to stay in the club with some opt outs for the UK, and Sarkozy wanted the UK out of the club. On that basis, it looks like there is a winner and a loser there.

As I said above I don't think Cameron had a position that could be called a 'win' and given that, then he didn't really have a choice. I see the media is reporting this along political lines. The right is saying that Cameron is a hero and that we're best off out of it. The centre-left is painting Cameron as having been 'owned' by Sarkozy. They point out that before the summit Sarkozy told Cameron to shut up and keep out of Euro business. And now after the summit, despite Cameron telling Sarkozy that he wanted a say, here we are now on the outside without a say in Euro zone business. One-nil to Sarkozy.

The implication being that the Euro zone countries would claim that the Tobin tax wouldn't work unilaterally (in the Euro zone) if the UK opted out? So it's win win. Cameron says to the UK financial services sector "I protected you. I want your taxes paid in the UK please (as well as a seat on your board when I retire)" The Euro zone leaders say "We tried to implement the Tobin tax but without those crazy Brits, it's not workable as all FS transactions would be conducted in the UK". I wonder.

I think you've identified the important issues in the argument here Brussels Saint. But I'm not sure that I can quite reconcile your statements in bold. You're sure today was a good day to be British for what reason? Is this a national pride thing? Because you go on to qualify that with the hope that we don't pay too high a price for it. Would it still be a good day to be British if we end up paying too high a price for it? The leaders of the 17+ will be meeting once per month moving forward to decide on priorities. That is a series of meetings ideally I'd like us influencing. This will not happen. And if those 17+ operate on a block vote in non-Euro zone matters, it could make things very difficult for us. Our key national interests are protected by veto but as you outline above, things could get pretty tough. As I just heard a European reformer say "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu"

I'd go along with much of this generalisation too. I feel more at home in France as I have a little of the language. Also I've got friends that have a farm in lower Normandy and we stay with them for a week each year. Fantastic quality of life. Recently did some business in Lyon and had a great time there. First visit to Lyon and I must say I was very impressed. Used to regularly go to Cannes/Nice once a year on business. The climate, food and culture there is very close to ideal. Although I'd have to say that I've also been made to feel pretty unwelcome in some parts of France. Germany and the German people are more of a slow burn. Never outright hostile but can appear cold to us more gregarious Brits. Get to know them though and you make friends for life. I had a boss who lived in Cologne so spent a lot of time there and really enjoyed the culture and the humour too. In a massive generalisation I found the Southern Germans more difficult to gauge at first but great people once you've built some mutual respect. You simply have to do an Oktoberfest once before you die. Gemany wins for me too JUST (Elfmeter shoot out!).

But there is no "right thing" in this incredibly interwoven set of vested interests. A tax on bank transactions might be the right thing if it were global in nature but it isn't so the right thing is not on the table. A more tightly-bound European Union that harmonises its members' fiscal policies in addition to it's unit of currency might be the "right thing" but again that isn't on the table and Cameron couldn't hope to deliver that. The right thing might be staying very close to the heart of Europe so that the UK can capitalise on trade opportunities that present themselves in the 'recovery' but that comes with too many strings attached for Cameron to sell to the public, his party and his financial services sector. So the right thing isn't important here. What's important is the lowest common denominator compromise that Cameron can get away with. And again, anyone that thinks our veto or some historic opt-out sub-clause that was negotiated in a late night jingoistic ****ing contest is going to protect us, think on this. If, on one side of the scale of European justice is existing European law that protects treaty members, and on the other is the potential failure of the Euro and the associated financial Armageddon, I think the 17 will simply say to the UK "if you don't like it, sue us". That's what David Cameron has 'delivered'.

IF the 17 members form a tightly bound group where the members share economic policy decisions, have to present their budgets for approval to the Commission and bring their taxation and budgetary policies into lockstep; do you not think that the 11 members on the fringe will be marginalised? Or do you think that the 17 central members of a more tightly-bound, risk-sharing, economically harmonised group would always be on the lookout for ways that they could help those independent Brits? I'm not arguing against Cameron's move per se. And if I look at all the pressures on him as Prime Minister as well as the leader of the Tory party, I'm not sure he had much choice. But to think this is having your cake and eating it is a little naive in my opinion. Fog in Channel, Continent cut off?

I'm not sure that there would such subterfuge just to hide some special Pompey status. The impression I get is that he knew he had a limited time to clean some of his dirty cash. Liked sports. Invested some of the cash quickly (hence rashly and poorly) and hadn't had a chance to get a return. It looks like he was playing some sort of angel investor role for a number of the smaller companies in the group, presumably with the potential of one day seeing a return. I can see a logic of sorts with a number of the companies. Perhaps I'm being too generous?

Not sure if you don't follow the point or whether you're pointing out that this isn't ironic. The irony here is that we know something that the woman doesn't. We see her lambasting immigrants and at the same time we know that she probably hails from immigrant stock herself - a fact that is apparently not understood by the woman. That's ironic. The point is that we are all highly likely to have found ourselves on these islands through some form of migration. As such we should probably recognise that the same process is bringing people that look considerably different from "ourselves" to these shores. If we believe that this is a problem, we should probably fight to change the process that allows this to happen rather than attacking those people.

Agreed. According to CoversSports Initiatives' web site, So as long as either a) there's a big wadge of cash or a non-parent secured line of credit available to Portsmouth FC or b) Portsmouth FC is operating as a profitable, cash-generating business; then there is no problem at all. What's that? Oh!

And despite the "inextricably linked" comments in this thread, I could see a case being made that Convers is different to Southampton Leisure Holdings. There isn't the same one to one relationship. That said, surely the writing is on the wall for the football club.

That article suggests this rule is an aspiration - it's described as a proposal. Is there a link to the rule(s) that was created from the proposal?

Agreed doddisalegend. Irish in mine all the way back. In fact, if I recall correctly, my mother (County Wexford) was in the UK 'illegally' and had to apply to the Home Office for formal citizen status. The double Irony is that if the Great British Empire had not spread its arms around the world in the way it did and firstly enslave and latterly invite its subjects to come here, then, as an island we would have a very different ethnic balance. If we had stayed a passive little Island group, and had never looked to gain from other country's resources to the point where we felt that as an Empire we were a true world power, we really would have a very different outlook and cultural mix. I'm not sure you can have one without the other. We are where we are largely because of what we did.

I was in Ken Russell's Tommy. I met Roger Daltrey, Pete Townshend and Oliver Reed. To be fair I was only and extra and I was only 7 so I don't remember much about it. But my sister who was 10 years older than me (still is as a matter of fact), also met them all and says that Ken Russell was a proper eccentric and properly mad. To be honest I can't make my mind up on his work. I think I'm jaundiced by watching Tommy at too young an age and just not being able to fathom out what on earth it was all about.

He has a real talent. I've not seen that before. Unfortunately I feel the notion of selfishness which these words explore and others have clumsily hung around Speed's neck, rely on sentience and logic. The only time that a potential suicide 'victim' would be able to process the selfishness of the act they are contemplating, is when they are not seriously contemplating suicide. If they are seriously contemplating suicide then surely by implication they are lost to logic and persuasion. RIP Gary Speed. I can't believe how profound an effect your death has had on me and the people I know.

Well done.

I suspect you a right but I fear you are wrong. The woman was obviously off her face so alcohol (or perhaps amphetamine judging by her odd mouth movements) played a roll in removing her inhibitions. I wonder how many other people hold similar views to those she 'shared', but keep their council due to societal pressure. As our economic situation pushes the self-perceived bread line higher up the old social order, I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more people blaming immigrants for some or all Great Britain's ills.

Powerful words Tony13579.

Good question. Back when the coalition took control and we first started to hear that public spending would be cut, I thought that the obvious consequence of that would be poorer public services. But I heard politician after politician state that they firmly believed that services could be maintained through 'efficiency' savings. This to me was alchemy of the highest order. I naively had thought that if we dramatically slashed people and budget from public services there would be no way that we could maintain the standard of services. I thought that if we cut police budgets dramatically we would ultimately have more undetected crime. Had I thought about it at that time, I would also have assumed that if we cut the border control budgets, we would have less control over our borders. In the specific instance you talk about, I assume Brodie Clark was given the task of achieving immigration alchemy. He was asked to manage the same number of visitors with reduced budgets whist ensuring health and safety standards were met and that aeroplanes and ferries were not waiting an undue amount of time to deliver all the potential illegal immigrants and terrorists to our shores. He had pressure from everywhere and made a difficult choice which has resulted in him apparently being hung out to dry. To be even more specific, he resigned to attempt to stop his name from being sullied further because as a serving civil servant he felt that he was not able to defend himself properly as that would mean criticising the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary apparently had no such qualms as she trashed his reputation in parliament before the results of an investigation into his actions had completed. Whilst I don't know all the facts, Clark should at least win the constructive dismissal claim he has made.