DaveR

"DaveR, I suspect you will spend the rest of your poor existent life trying to prove me wrong with your irrelevant points. I've got far more important things to do like tracking down Worcester sauce favoured Twiglets! But the fact you failed to understand is that a decision can be challenged in court and as a consequence the QC would have made his decision, given his expertise, based on a legal framework. Sorry if you think I failed to understand your points. The point is that I consider them irrelevant or low level detail at the best" UDT, I understand perfectly well how the FA tribunal decision will have been arrived at, and how it might be challenged in court, but I don't care all that much tbh. The only reason I posted was because of your ridiculous patronising attitude towards Otta and others, in circumstances where it is clear that you have no particular knowledge or insight. But that's obviously not going to change.

It's not a question of strategy - devaluation presupposes deliberate action, but I'm talking about market correction, which is what would have happened if Germany and Spain had had independent, floating currencies. You just don't get it, do you? All that pontificating but you have so little understanding of how financial and capital markets actually work.

I usually find common ground with MM, but not on this one. Tax breaks for married couples is a stupid idea; even if there may be a tenuous case for it, it inevitably comes across as nanny stateish and moralistic. I'm also dubious about the power of tax incentives outside a purely commercial environment. Raising the income tax threshold would be a better idea all round.

"It's when you start adding unsubstantiated assertions that it gets all distorted with you DaveR: "Spain and Italy could not have become so anti-competitive vis-a-vis Germany were it not for euro membership, which obviously precluded exchange rate changes " Southern nations became less competitive because they had wage inflation in booming economies, whilst Germany kept this under control." See the words in bold. Wage inflation is a domestic factor, competitiveness is an international one. Spanish workers being paid more pesetas would not have translated into a loss of competitiveness compared to Germany because those pesetas would not have enabled them to buy any more BMWs, because the peseta would have lost value compared to the DM. That's what happened before the euro. H, I'm surprised you don't understand this - don't you run a business?

UDT, the link you posted was to the ACAS code relating to the Employment Act. A public Act of Parliament. Part of the 'law'. Unsurprisingly, the code operates within a legal framework. Suarez's case was decided under the FA Rules and Regulations; you can find them here: The FA These are rules. Of a club. They only apply to you if you join the club. They're not the 'law'. I put it in short sentences. So it would be easy to read. And maybe understand. Damn you Undisputedtruth, you're still wrong. And you have an entirely groundless sense of your own superiority. Merry Xmas!

"It's a bit like climate change denial. The anti-Europe gang make all sorts of specious unsubstantiated claims that don't stand up under analysis. They're then addressed one at a time to expose the myths. The anti-Europe brigade then deny all the facts, poo poo all the evidence and attempt to sow confusion" I laughed out loud at this. Here's the BBC take on the eurozone crisis: BBC Not bad as far as it goes, but misses a few key things; Spain and Italy could not have become so anti-competitive vis-a-vis Germany were it not for euro membership, which obviously precluded exchange rate changes One of the key reasons for the low public and private borrowing costs in Spain, Italy and Greece was that euro membership was (wrongly) understood by the markets to imply some form of sovereign debt guarantee across the entire eurozone In both Italy and Greece government borrowing is at least as big a problem as private borrowing. Italian public debt may not have increased substantially between 2000 and 2010 but it didn't need to; it was already over 100% of GDP Just like climate change denial. My a$se.

Actually UDT, this is what you said: "Also, it seems you're confusing a legal decision to that from a Court. In order for the QC to arrive at his decision he would have to consider all the arguments in a legal framework." The framework is not one of law but of rules, and there is a difference. As you say, any court would be confined to reviewing the process and even there it would depend on whether either a contractual or other private law cause of action could be identified. The disciplinary tribunal's finding involves a determination of whether, on the evidence, a breach of the rules is made out, which is wholly outside the scope of the 'law'. The fact that a QC was involved just means (unsurprisingly) that a lot of money got thrown at it. If you're going to patronise people, get it right. I'm a bit surprised that everyone is banging on about no proof, one man's word against another etc. etc. Lots of court cases are decided on the basis of one man's word against another - you listen to the evidence and decide who you believe. And that is with a higher standard of proof.

The FA's disciplinary procedures are based on its own rules and regulations, and the system is separate and distinct from the legal system, so I wouldn't characterise their findings as legal decisions. You join a club, the club has rules, you break the rules and you suffer whatever consequence the rules provide for. If you don't like it, you leave the club. None of this has legal effect in the way most people understand it. There are a couple of cases that establish that sporting disciplinary proceedings are not reviewable by courts or subject to the HRA. As I've said before on another thread, I see this as essentially an employment matter. If you racially abuse people at work (and that's where Suarez and Evra were) you should expect to get sacked.

H, you have no data to support your position because it is incapable of being supported by data. Your position is: "One is a group of visionary, inclusive, capable politicians who recognise that the long term security of Europe relies upon the creation of a united region with sound political and economic strategies that can negotiate effectively in a world of shrinking energy reserves and mineral resources. The other is a group of short-sighted financial carpet baggers, ably supported by narrowminded xenophobes and competitive economic blocs who would try and bring the European economy to its knees. They will attempt to do this in piecemeal fashion, by rolling Greece, rolling Italy, then Spain or Ireland until there is nothing left." and you have maintained this ridiculous blinkered position throughout. You are the narrow-minded zealot, blinding yourself to reality, to the sheer desperation of those 'visionary' politicians as they fight like rats in a sack to reconcile the irreconcilable. The supreme irony, of course, is that you live in Singapore, where the evidence of the idiocy of your views is in your face at every turn. Anyhow, when that European superpower emerges from the ruins we'll all be too old to care.

H, I asked the question to give you a chance to retreat to a more rational place rather than maintain your current level of delusion, but obviously it's up to you. Way, way back on this thread (I can't be bothered to look it up) I said that literally no-one agrees with you on this - not just on this forum, but in the world - and that should give you pause for thought. That's more true now than it was then. There's no point in 'debating' this with you - it's like trying to explain calculus to a teapot.

"the powerhouses of Europe are creating a superpower on our doorstep" recognise the quote? So, H, with the benefit of a few days calm analysis and an opportunity to see what the wider world thinks of the summit and the 'agreement', would you still describe this in the same terms?

You don't eat meat, you don't get gravy. Simple as that.

Nobody is not discussing it for fear of anything. You point out that Jews are over-represented in parliament. As others have observed, that's likely to be consequence of Jews being over-represented in the professions and social strata that tend to supply our MPs. I any event, this is only an issue if, as a consequence, decisions are made that are in the 'Jewish interest' rather than the national interest i.e. Jewish MPs are representing Jews, not their constituents and party. That prospect seems a little far-fetched, particularly when there isn't really a single Jewish interest at all. For example, opposition to anti-semitism is not the unique preserve of Jews, and opposition to Zionism (of the more extreme variety) is not the unique preserve of non-Jews. That's the serious answer. "Why is it that the indigenous population cannot find someone with a common heritage worthy of their vote? Do they really have such little faith in their own leadership capabilities?" There is no serious answer to this, because once you start talking about the 'indigenous population' and 'common heritage' you put youself firmly in the camp of the EDL/NF/whatever other bunch of idiots are currently holding the banner for brutish and ignorant fascists. Whether you like it or not, I'm afraid.

H, I'm not going to address your unintentional but hilarious grandiosity ("I generate the research...") Boringly, I will just be factual. 2 Qs were asked in 2010 (at a time when 50% of people thought the worst of the crisis was over) - do you think the euro is a good thing? 2/3 in favour. No surprise there. - do you think stronger co-ordination of economic policy is likely to be effective in tackling the crisis? Unsurprisingly 80% said yes, and they were right. What's more, dial forward a year or so and it is perfectly obvious that it is the only way of tackling the euro crisis. However, to equate these answers with widespread support for a federal europe is just wrong, but that's not really the point. That's not what this argument is about. You started off by saying criticism of the euro = xenophobia. I said that's crap. Then you said the euro crisis was precipitated by financial speculation. And I said that's crap too. And now you seem to be saying that not signing up to fiscal union (which may or may not actually materialise) will threaten the UK's trading position with the euro zone. And I'm saying that is also crap. For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever I am saying that you are terminally full of sh!t on this topic.

"Current anti-Europe sentiment in the UK is entirely predicated on a confusion between the Euro and the EU, and an externalisation of British woes upon some dangerous European interlopers." H, I think your muddle-headedness is predicated on an inability to distinguish between the Euro, the EU as currently constituted, and the 'European project' referred to by Le Monde. The 'European project' is the belief that the EU will lead inevitably to political union and a European federal state. Fiscal union is a big step towards this because fiscal policy is a key political issue in most countries. There is not and never has been any UK support for the project, and tbh there is precious little support across the EU outside of the narrow political class and a thin seam of Euro idealists. That's why it has taken the mother of all crises for the Italians and Spaniards, for example, to sign up for it. On the other hand, there is no real widespread anti-European sentiment in the UK other than the odd bit of tabloid generated nonsense and the extreme wing of the Tory party. Cameron knows that and will (I predict) resist calls from IDS etc. for repatriation of powers and the like. You mention tariffs; what do you mean? If you are suggesting that a new Euro zone is going to suddenly tear up the founding EC treaty and start imposing import taxes on UK goods then you're even more barking than I thought.

An editorial in the French newspaper, Le Monde, is not surprised by Britain's position: "Let's be fair. The British have nothing to do with the euro crisis. They are not responsible for the inability of the eurozone leaders to resolve their sovereign debt problems. It makes sense that the British resist a move towards greater economic and budgetary integration. They don't believe in it. They do not believe in the idea of the European Union. Britain, which joined the then European Economic Community in 1973, is interested just in one thing: the single market. They [the British] are indifferent about the rest of the European project, when they are not hostile to it." I couldn't have put it better myself. The single market will live on. There is no reason to think the UK will suffer from being outside a fiscal union any more than it has suffered being outside Schengen.

"No posturing required from me - the Tories have done it all for themselves: the UK is effectively now in the slow lane whilst the powerhouses of Europe are creating a superpower on our doorstep. We've excluded ourselves from a conversation that will define the economic strength of the UK for the foreseeable future." So no posturing, just cliches that are so tired I'm surprised they haven't been humanely killed. "The slow lane". "Powerhouses of Europe". It's laughable. You seem to imagine that the proposed deal is all part of a grand scheme for european economic hegemony when in fact it's a last, desparate roll of the dice to save the euro. Make no mistake - deep down everybody hates this deal except the Germans (who think they might finally get fiscal control over the euro zone) and the French (who reckon that everybody else hates the Germans enough that, when the dust clears, they can resume their traditional role as the real political leaders in the EU).

PS - when H is struggling to make sense he always accuses people of xenophobia. It's like a nervous tic.

"The UK clearly would not accept European financial controls designed for a currency it doesn't use (neither would other members in the same situation) - hence there is no way on earth a Eurozone would introduce a barrier to agreement by making it reliant on all members." Yeah, except France and Germany are saying they want a 27 state treaty. The reason for that, as I understand, is that they want a euro treaty that will bind (for example) the ECJ and the ECB and that can only be achieved by agreement of all the member states. Otherwise you have a euro treaty that is not an EC treaty - a slightly odd outcome that looks like just a fancy version of the Stability Pact, and we all know how effective that was.

What's your point, H? Either its an all member state treaty, in which case UK signature would be required, or it's euro members only in which case it's 17 out of 27. It's not clear whether a 17 state treaty could (for example) bind the ECJ to take any particular steps in the event of breaches of the stability rules, which appears to be crucial to the plan, so it may be that all 27 are needed. There's a long way to go yet.

Back on topic, do we agree that Merkel has played her hand beautifully? After Berlusconi was sacrificed everyone expected her to bite the bullet and sign up to one form or another of 'big bazooka', but she is keeping everybody dangling just long enough to ensure that the future eurozone will effectively be run by the Bundesbank. The real poliitcal loser here is Sarkozy, who has been kidding himself that he is leading (or at least co-leading) the process, when in truth to the Germans he's just another fiscally indisciplined Southern European.

I found the Murphy paper quite interesting. Characterising pension tax relief as a subsidy is pretty stupid, but his criticism of pension fund investment strategies has some force. I don't think the answer is to legislate, but it is undoubtedly the case that pension fund managers need to take some responsibility for the governance and strategy of the huge swathes of British business that they effectively own.

Buy next weekend or the weekend after, get a Nordman or Fraser Fir, saw an inch off the end and put it in a stand that holds plenty of water, and keep filling it up. It should get you through to New Year and still look OK. I got mine last year from Plantnation on Upland Road, and will be going there again this year.

"They were acquitted of all charges! Hence, they aren't guilty" To be all picky and technical about it, this isn't accurate. An acquittal in a criminal trial is not in all circumstances a final factual determination, and the old double jeopardy rule (which still exists in very large part) was never predicated on this idea. There are lots of good reasons for maintaining a pretty firm line on double jeopardy (incentivising proper investigations being just one of them) but when scientific advances lead to new evidence being available the system is undermined by not taking that into account. There have actually been a number of cases where cold case reviews with new forensic techniques have led to suspects who were identified at the time of the crime being tried many years later.

d_c, I specifically said that it doesn't make me an expert - just expert enough to call you out on cheap sloganeering. So your position is: - the strike is not just about pay and conditions but you have to pretend that it is - you recognise that changes to pension arrangements are needed, but not now, because we're in a recession - the strikers position is reasonable because it involves reasonable people - you believe that the governments plans for the public sector are (i) ideologically motivated rather than economically driven and (ii) not likely to be effective in economic policy terms. It's helpful when you set it out clearly because then we can ignore the first three points, which are essentially irrelevant to the issues, and just deal with the last one (in two parts). On the first, I would say that it is one of those happy coincidences where ideology and necessity are in harmony. As has already been pointed out, Conservative ideology is inherently more likely to favour small government, and all they are doing is reversing in some part the huge expansion in the public sector 'payroll vote' that successive Labour governments presided over. All those public sector jobs in Northern cities didn't get there by accident, you know. On the second part, I disagree. The reason why borrowing will still be rising has b*gger all to do with public sector job cuts and a whole load to do with problems in the Eurozone, the UK's biggest export market, and the associated and ongoing credit squeeze. I notice that Ed Balls appeared to suggest that future borrowing should be both higher and lower - nice and clear. You appear to be saying the same.