I doubt the silly old fool will get anywhere with it, we’ll see. The composition of the EU parliament is changing, and could change even more in the coming elections. They are the law, not Brussels.
I was under the impression that the Commissioners make the laws, the MEP's just pass them. The was a case earlier in the weel that the order on a voting form had been changed and some MEP's voted for something (Article 13- banning memes) that they were planning on opposing.
The council is made up of a mix of ministers appointed by the elected gvts of member states. One for each. And MEP’s who are elected by directly by the public.
Among the biggest ****ups of Sir John Franklin David Cameron was not specifying that only a 60+% vote for Leave would be sufficient, instead it could be decided by one bloke from Rotherham unhappy that there's so many Muslims on the streets That's the point that so many miss: if those were the criteria, 51.89% voting Leave would have strengthened any hope Franklin Cameron had of being in a position to dictate terms, but because he was too dense to put a minimum vote clause in (and that's before him digging his own grave by promising to trigger Article 50 in the event of a Leave win in an advisory referendum) his plan to nick a few votes off UKIP ended his political career and, by the way, ever so slightly ****ed things up for the rest of us
I have suggested that any future referendum on ANY subject should either have won 2/3 of the votes cast or received more than 50%of those eligible to vote for change to be implemented. i.e. in a high turn out, if everyone voted then 50.1% has to be a victory.
You cannot get the source data to do your own calculations. When the so-called "experts" make their claims, they cannot even present their method so that even the most basic methodology can be done. The delusion and hubris of these people is embarrassing. They think they are the financial/legal classes of the 1800/1900s, whereas the reality is that in the past 60 years they have been equalled/surpassed in intellectual ability by several industry sectors. We don't take sh*t likr "Project fear" from our peers, so we certainly won't take it from them.
That is why I tend to believe the actual experts, like Mervyn King who has been there, done it and been in possession of all of the data for certain. Perhaps he is not allowed to share it, perhaps he's been the victim of one of these gagging orders. I'm sure he will have had to sign non-disclosure agreements to reach his position.
Who he is, definitely moves him to the front of the "listen to" queue ahead of the usual politnik gobshites. But once there, the request is still the same : show me your workings. And if you will/can not, then explain why that is so.
Mervyn King has consistently NOT backed up his Pro-Brexit pronouncements and criticisms of his replacement, Carney, with any 'workings out'. So despite his experience in the BoE - which of course oversaw the worst economic crisis and financial frauds for 70 years - I'm not convinced he's a particularly reliable source. https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...ng-s-defence-brexit-isn-t-worthy-bank-england
Precisely. Not to mention 6 years retired ( not before time!) The present governor has a far better handle on what the economic climate is like.
What gets my goat most is how many times I hear a leading politician make a statement during a live debate or interview that goes completely unchallenged. A prime example is May's claim that "this is the only deal" is total crap when we know full well Tusk offered May a FTA last summer which she flat out refused. That could have paved the way for far more productive negotiations and not this chaos. But no instead, she decided it was best to let Germany write this rotten deal and translate it for us, then claim it to be her own.
Mark Carney is an integral part of the Goldman Sachs mafia. Personally I wouldn't place a shred of faith in his opinions, many of which to date have been woefully off the mark: • 2017 exports down 0.5% when in fact they were up 8.3%. • 2017 business investment down 2%, when in fact ONS figures showed it up by 1.7% • housing investment down 4.75%, when in fact recent data shows it up by 5% • employment growth 0% growth, when in fact it is up 1% A recent FT article stated "The bank’s forecasts were so far adrift as to be embarrassing." It went onto say "...because the Bank of England not only makes predictions but also sets monetary policy, poor forecasting can lead to poor policy. Those errant forecasts provided the rationale for last year’s emergency cut in interest rates and additional quantitative easing that were, with the benefit of hindsight, unnecessary." I could list several articles from many well-respected financial publications that have all said his predictions since his implementation have been poor. So far, I think he's been a pretty dreadful BOE governor. But what do you expect? He was employed by coke-snorting Gideon. You know, that Chancellor who had a history degree. Zero financial sector industry experience and his only real job on his CV was folding towels at Selfridges!
Economists seem to have replaced Bishops in the political arena. They have their bibles and believe they are in possession of a fundamental truth. Events clearly show this not to be the case. Like Bishops we should ignore Economists, their pronouncements are about as useful as forecasts for next years St Leger.
But you’re quite happy to place faith in King as he supports your views? If you know anything about basic economics, precise economic forecasting is next to impossible. Like trying to estimate what something will sell for at auction, you can only give an educated estimate. Carney has done a very good job under extremely difficult circumstances. People spend, companies invest when they feel confident. This ridiculous Brexit farce has swung wildly from no deal to a deal to god knows where. And still almost three years later nobody can say what Brexit actually signifies! With these wild swings People’s views change, and their habits. The FT is entitled to its opinion. But that’s all it is - opinion. The reason exports rose in 2017 was because of the collapse in Sterling. The cost of imports would have risen too. And the UK is a net importer. Business investment covers a wide range of activities. Without looking I’d guess that the small increase would be mainly down to foreign entities picking up UK assets at knock down prices in terms of their own currency. The one thing Carney has been consistent with is that any Brexit will harm the UK economy. A no deal Brexit will damage it far more.
Economics does need to raise its game wrt other sciences. However the fundamental problem is too many "economists" (and much of the financial sector) are affected by what I call the "social disease" . Specifically : 1. Authority without responsibility 2. Acclaim without blame 3. Reward without penalty If your claims/predictions are sh*te, and as a consequence you will suffer badly financially (litigation, unemployable etc) , I guarantee you that the quality of your "works" will improve dramatically.
Can I respectfully suggest that: The next Health Secretary should have at least 10 years experience of working in the NHS The next Transport secretary should be a Civil Engineer with at least 10 years experience in the field of infrastructure. The next Home Secretary should have at least 10 years experience with the emergency services. The next Defence Secretary should have served in the armed forces for at least 10 years. The next Secretary of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport should be a broadcaster with a sporting background. The next Education Secretary should have at least 10 years experience as a Head Teacher The next Foreign Secretary should have at least 10 years experience as a diplomat. etc. etc. see where I'm coming from? Until you get to Chancellor. Give it to someone with proven project management experience over a 20 year period, exclude economists and accountants. By all means employ accountants and economists at middle management levels to count the beans, but do not give them executive powers. Finally, in the real world in industry, one chooses the right man for the job. These positions should be independent of being elected as an MP, i.e. they should be appointed positions, not just given to those elected. It reduces the field of suitable people by about 99%
DCMS entails telecoms. The f**k if you think I am letting a person such as the above have ANYTHING to do with materially affecting my industry. The civil service *** is supposed to have the practical experience of all of this, and the minister is supposed to have the intelligence to cogently present what they are being told to both govt and the electorate. *** They are another bunch seriously infected with the "social disease" .
Why are comms and sport connected? might be better as two separate departments. The point I'm making is that in the real world, you put someone in charge who has at least some experience in what they are trying to achieve. Why is running a country different?
Don't count on it. Hillary won the peoples vote by millions,but some bright sparks decided Trump was the country's savior.....or **** it up!......and the latter has come to pass....and now it's " the Green Goddess" at work in Parliament as our country is put to the test (yet again!) Do you think there is a rumble from Ted Heath somewhere?
