Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To mark the massive Central European Bank’s massive QE prog
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To mark the massive Central European Bank’s massive QE programme a Marf cartoon
As the Central European Bank moves to go ahead with a massive QE Politicalbetting's, Marf, gives her take pic.twitter.com/GprXSkVcWl
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
One of the less than bright presenters on R5 was interviewing someone from the Mint the other day about some commemorative coin. She asked if he was ever tempted to make one for himself. He gently explained that was called counterfeiting
Ah, printing money. Worked so well during the last economic crisis in Europe.
On a more (probably) serious note, the Germans want the government bonds held by national governments, not centrally by the ECB. That could be a bone of contention:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30915210
It could also mark the shifting of power from eurozone nation-states towards the amorphous mass of mewling eunuchs and meddlesome bureaucrats that is central power in the eurozone, and EU.
Sunflower seeds are probably OK because they are not money - unless this new QE goes massively wrong, of course.
The latest GE Seats update from http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/ has the Tories leading by the narowest margin:
Conservatives ......... 282
Labour ................... 281
SNP .........................34
Liberal Democrats .... 28
UKIP ..........................3
Others (incl N.I.) ....... 22
Total ...................... 650
Majority = 326
Labour + Lib Dem + SNP = 343
Labour + SNP = 315
Con + Lib Dem = 310
Labour + Lib Dem = 309
Con + UKIP + DUP = 293
Sinn Fein abstentions, De facto majority 323
Lib Dem abstentions set the bar to 310
SNP abstentions set the bar to 306
Anyone prepared to speculate on what the £ Euro rate likely to be in 6 months and end of year?
Euro 1.40-1.50 to £1 seems conservative.
Unless you're very unlucky you never get approached by any candidate at all these days.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11346512/Europes-imperial-court-is-a-threat-to-all-our-democracies.html
I think not somehow.
How about Communists?
Spot the mistake.
Ever since the Factortame case it has been clear that EU legislation can require an English Court to overrule an Act of Parliament and find it illegal. It is a mystery to me why and how the German Constitutional Court have maintained that they are different.
What is a more interesting question is whether the ability to create additional currency is indeed within the current powers of the ECB. I personally don't see how it is unless you read their duties to stabilise the system as the power to do whatever they want.
If there is a court challenge to this it is more likely to be in the ECJ than the German Courts but personally I would not waste my time with that lot. The idea that they would find that a major EU institution had exceeded its powers in such an important way is fantastical.
It amounts to the same thing for most cases.
"Unlike the Court's judgments, the written opinions of the Advocates General are the works of a single author and are consequently generally more readable and deal with the legal issues more comprehensively than the Court, which is limited to the particular matters at hand. The opinions of the Advocates General are advisory and do not bind the Court, but they are nonetheless very influential and are followed in the majority of cases."
The man really is an idiot. And ignorant with it too.
"Unlike the Court's judgments, the written opinions of the Advocates General are the works of a single author and are consequently generally more readable and deal with the legal issues more comprehensively than the Court, which is limited to the particular matters at hand. The opinions of the Advocates General are advisory and do not bind the Court, but they are nonetheless very influential and are followed in the majority of cases."
So in other words, the ECJ hasn't so much as looked at this case yet. Thank you for confirming the lamentable factual error in AEP's original article.
Well QE is starting, so presumably it got given the go ahead by someone.
'He said he would not join a coalition including Ukip. Asked if he said he would serve in a cabinet with Nigel Farage, he said no. And he came close to ruling out being in a coalition involving the SNP. Asked if he would sit in a cabinet with them, he said he would “find it very difficult to imagine the circumstances” in which he could do that.'
If only he'd made a pledge or a vow to dispel any doubt.
Germany is obliged to submit to the decisions of the ECJ. That has, and always will be the case, as long as Germany remains part of the EU. Of course Germany can leave, but it can't unilaterally set aside the judgments of the ECJ without doing so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-30919679
That doesnt appear to be how the Germans see it, from the same article
Where the Advocate-General is potentially breaking new ground is in arguing that EU law overrides domestic constitutional laws. Since the UK has no formal single coherent constitutional document, this seems to make the square root of f all's difference to the UK. Though I suppose it might conceivably affect the operation of the Act of Union.
Exactly so. They can leave, as can we of course.
But whilst you are in the club you are bound by the rules of the club. AEP has been promoting this fantasy for years on the back of jurists who have lost every case they have brought. The legitimacy of the actions of EU institutions and the ultimate interpretation of the EU treaties is a matter for the ECJ and no one else.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/rother-valley/winning-party
With 104 days to go that works out as a just over 4% return on your money.
"It is in the national interest and in order to regain financial stability that the Lib Dems have agreed to join a coalition of the Labour Party and the SNP which would otherwise not have a government majority in parliament."
If QE for the Eurozone "works" then wouldn't you expect the € to strengthen against the £, as the Eurozone economy picked itself up off the floor.
If the Conservatives win, you see me with Mr Hodges in Westminster....
Where the Advocate-General is potentially breaking new ground is in arguing that EU law overrides domestic constitutional laws. Since the UK has no formal single coherent constitutional document, this seems to make the square root of f all's difference to the UK. Though I suppose it might conceivably affect the operation of the Act of Union.
That was the relatively clear judgment of the ECJ in the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] case, which drove the Germans to their own "Solange" judgment. Putting a rule of national law in constitutional rather than primary legislation cannot elevate it above the law of the ECJ. It would, frankly, be strange if it did - a national "sandwich" with the ECJ in the middle.
Where the Advocate-General is potentially breaking new ground is in arguing that EU law overrides domestic constitutional laws. Since the UK has no formal single coherent constitutional document, this seems to make the square root of f all's difference to the UK. Though I suppose it might conceivably affect the operation of the Act of Union.
Its very bizarre, the EU Law as I understand it has its influence on British Law by virtue of the European Communities Act (1972) and presumably a similar Act in German Law. It logically follows that the repeal of that Act, stops any further such authority, it must therefore be within the competency of certainly the government, possibly the constitutional court to attach limitations to that initial enabling act, that might present a political problem, but would presumably solve the legal problem.
I don't know the wording of the equivalent enabling act in Germany, perhaps it places their constitutional court above the ECJ, in the same way as Cameron is proposing to do with his British Bill of Rights.
I don't know the wording of the equivalent enabling act in Germany, perhaps it places their constitutional court above the ECJ, in the same way as Cameron is proposing to do with his British Bill of Rights.
It's Article 23 of the Basic Law that is Germany's enabling law.
All it can achieve is to enable to the German Constitutional Court to effect a withdrawal (or risk it, in the hope the EU backs down) of Germany from the EU.
It cannot hope to elevate particular laws above EU law, because this would fracture the application of any EU law across the Member States. In other words, we'd have a different body of EU law for each of the member states, which would defeat the point of a common law-making body.
This is clear from the limited conditions in which it can put its foot down, vis, a lack of respect for German citizens' fundamental rights.
PS mods - is there any way to prevent twitter links auto-expanding?
https://twitter.com/Thatchersrise/status/558223147133337600
'Dennis Canavan backs SNP candidate John McNally in Falkirk election battle'
http://tinyurl.com/o268oqc
"Your father says if it's good enough for Gordon Brown, it's good enough for him."
It would be almost identical as the UK. The Chancellor would make an empassioned speech about how the EU had left him or her with no other choice, about how the impact on German citizens was too great, how Germany had an important constitutional history and how unilateral withdrawal was the appropriate response.
The circumstances that would prompt that in Germany would almost certainly prompt a similar move in the UK.
Isam, like the banned Tim before him, has a tiresome habit of responding to anything he doesn't like by the playground 'betcha.'
Pb.com works best when we use the existing professional markets, and keep friendly tips between posters on a relatively occasional basis. I don't think Mike's intention in founding this site in 2004 was to rival 365.com or WillHill, do you? Rather, in the words of wiki:
'The focus [of pb.com] is on political betting opportunities, but the focus is rather broader, in the sense that political issues of the day have an impact on the various betting markets.'
Isam I'm sorry you have reneged on your double up offer simply because I suggested you stop 'betcha' responses to me for the next four months. If it makes you happy to do that whenever I challenge some of your comments then that's fine. It's funny that you accuse others of trolling. A friend of mine once remarked that often those who dish out criticism are the ones least capable of taking it.
Generally speaking this site is being spoilt by a handful of rabids on the right. They post incessantly, probably because they don't work, and it's usually the same tired regurgitated spiel from previous posts, lacking any original thought and little short of ranting. It's a shame as generally speaking for 9 out of 10 years this has been a brilliant place for debate, even in the days of Tim.
It will change when the country switches into election mode as we will be drowned out by a new wave of people who might actually have something useful to contribute.
The problem for those like Germany with written Constitutional safeguards is that they have decided to place limits on the power of politicians. Something to do with a plebiscite that had a sub optimal outcome in the 1930s, I believe.
What the German Constitutional Court has been saying, AIUI, is that the politicians cannot get around those limitations by agreeing an EU treaty that removes those safeguards. The problem is not really a question of the supremacy of laws but the power of the politicians of the day to agree something that they do not have the power to agree.
The consequences for Germany would be, hypothetically, that if the German Constitutional Court found some of the provisions in the Lisbon Treaty incompatible with that Basic law the ratification of that treaty would be invalid and it would therefore be of no effect. Where we would go from there is anyone's guess.
What the ECJ is saying is something slightly different. They are saying that no one but them have the power to determine whether a particular course of action is lawful in terms of the Treaties or not. In this they are clearly correct and I don't think the German Court would claim otherwise. Of course they might take the view that the Treaty, as interpreted by the ECJ, does breach the Basic law even if it were possible to come to a construction that did not.
I am not sure if AEP just does not get this or whether he is trying to stir things up for the benefit of his paper. I suspect the former.
I don't rate your opinion and don't care what you think
If I think you are talking rubbish I will challenge you to a bet if I feel like it.. .if you don't want to bet, you can say no.
I am happy to double the amount we have bet but I wont accept any conditions if I do so
The Staggers @TheStaggers 33m33 minutes ago
New TNS poll: Lab 31% (-4), Con 31% (+3), Ukip 16% (-2), Lib Dems 8% (+2), Greens 7% (+2).
What in God's name is Prince Andrew doing anywhere near the World Economic Forum in Davos?
He's hardly renowned as a towering intellectual is he?
http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/21/whatsapp-comes-to-the-desktop/
Now Dave will have to start banning stuff from desktops as well (good luck with that), he always was going to have to if it was going to be more than a cosmetic change, but now he would have to even for a cosmetic change.
Selling guns to the eskimos and women to the Chinese.
twitter.com/Thatchersrise/status/558223147133337600
(or TinyURL the link)
Off topic, those bloody Aussies, trying to ruin our chance to win the World Cup
Eoin Morgan targeted by alleged blackmailer ahead of Australia match
• ECB said it received demand for £35,000 from Hobart man
• England captain said to have had affair five years ago
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/22/eoin-morgan-england-blackmail-attempt?CMP=share_btn_tw
...and now our Irish captain is the centre of a scandal
Copy the main text of the tweet, like thus
News in brief – Broxtowe does its bit to save fuel. Eric Varley would be proud.
Then right click over the image, and open image in new tab and copy that URL
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B780_mpCEAA9dHE.jpg:large
http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Winston-McKenzie-steps-branch-chairman-stand-Ukip/story-25887957-detail/story.html
When UK bodies are applying EU law, or laws that fall within the scope of EU regulations, then they must ensure their actions are compatible with EU fundamental rights law. So potentially if the Bill of Rights had a lower standard then in some cases the EU would replace it with a higher one. Equally if we're still a signatory to the ECHR then the individual could petition Strassbourg.
Where the Bill of Rights gave a higher standard, then the EU might be in a position to substitute a lower standard, if the application of the British standard conflicted with the Treaty freedoms (goods, services, workers/people, capital). That is relatively unlikely by comparison.
In each case it would require a careful application of the relevant test to understand how the two (or three) regimes would overlap. Thus the Bill of Rights would have its wings clipped more than being entirely superfluous.
Edit: Have you got a link to their data tables, their website is an arse, and they haven't sent me an embargoed copy.
The gits.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30935857
Before it used to automatically minimise them, but they did something recently, and they all appear now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-30918677
Some text which is also a link to youtube
Works for twitter too
"Here’s some news just in. His publisher – Random House Penguin – is launching a new Al Murray product to coincide with the election publicity campaign. Given the long gestation period of a book, this must have been months in planning."
Not only got the tour, he has also written a book.....
Labour's Firewall
LATEST:Cilla Black, Peter Andre, Darren Day and EastEnders star Jessie Wallace settle phone-hacking claims, High Court told
LATEST:Jury in case of Sun journalists accused of paying officials for stories discharged after failing to reach verdict
Now what is missing from the first headline? It was another NOTW pay out right....right...that is what everybody seeing the ticker will think...but it was the MIRROR.