Osborne's dividends raid valued upwards of £6bn "The accountancy firm believes that the dividend tax hike – an effective 7.5% increase in rates – will end up “discouraging entrepreneurial activity and enterprise”, reported City AM."
Do the Tories want to encourage small businesses and entrepreneurs?
As a self employed small businessman I'm absolutely furious about this - the lower tax was surely a quid pro quo for the lack of security / other perks of permanent employment. This government cares about no one but big business. Imagine if they'd said before the election they were going to give most small business people a 7.5% tax hike. They'd have been annihilated.
As an IT contractor operating under a Ltd Co, I'm unperturbed over the dividend tax changes. I take a small salary and larger dividends currently, how that will change in the future I'm not yet certain. One thing is clear to me though, something like this has been on the cards for ages. Rightly or wrongly, it is seen as a dodge by many and it is quite hard to counter the arguments. I see your point about the quid-pro-quo for the lack of employment related perks and securities, but where we lose on the swings we gain on the roundabouts.
The changes that to concern me are the travel and subsistence related changes which could force some small consultancies out of business. Oh, and the as yet detail-less review of IR35.
What's amazing about all this is how the EU told Greece time and time again they must keep to prior agreements, even if they have a change of government. Yet the EU just ignores previous agreements it has made without a second thought.
Osborne's dividends raid valued upwards of £6bn "The accountancy firm believes that the dividend tax hike – an effective 7.5% increase in rates – will end up “discouraging entrepreneurial activity and enterprise”, reported City AM."
Do the Tories want to encourage small businesses and entrepreneurs?
As a self employed small businessman I'm absolutely furious about this - the lower tax was surely a quid pro quo for the lack of security / other perks of permanent employment. This government cares about no one but big business. Imagine if they'd said before the election they were going to give most small business people a 7.5% tax hike. They'd have been annihilated.
Because the Labour party is economically illiterate and obsessed with "cuts", even popular ones, it was barely noticed what an aggressively tax raising budget we have just had. Approximately £6bn extra on dividends, £6bn in IPT, £1.5 bn in car tax, several billion in tax avoidance and the treatment of capital gains as income, there was a lot of material in the budget that would have had the tories in outrage mode if Chancellor Balls had done it.
But this was necessary. As it becomes obvious that more and more of our deficit is structural (since it is not just falling away on the back of trend growth) more taxes and more cuts are needed to address it.
Those that use limited companies to trade get a range of benefits including a very low CT rate. The dividend/income substitution racket has gone on for too long and needed to be addressed. Not pleasant for those that benefited from it but necessary, as were the other tax increases.
I should add that my vote is probably the kiss of death. Since joining the party on its formation in 1987 all my votes in leadership elections gave gone to losers.
Osborne's dividends raid valued upwards of £6bn "The accountancy firm believes that the dividend tax hike – an effective 7.5% increase in rates – will end up “discouraging entrepreneurial activity and enterprise”, reported City AM."
Do the Tories want to encourage small businesses and entrepreneurs?
As a self employed small businessman I'm absolutely furious about this - the lower tax was surely a quid pro quo for the lack of security / other perks of permanent employment. This government cares about no one but big business. Imagine if they'd said before the election they were going to give most small business people a 7.5% tax hike. They'd have been annihilated.
Because the Labour party is economically illiterate and obsessed with "cuts", even popular ones, it was barely noticed what an aggressively tax raising budget we have just had. Approximately £6bn extra on dividends, £6bn in IPT, £1.5 bn in car tax, several billion in tax avoidance and the treatment of capital gains as income, there was a lot of material in the budget that would have had the tories in outrage mode if Chancellor Balls had done it.
But this was necessary. As it becomes obvious that more and more of our deficit is structural (since it is not just falling away on the back of trend growth) more taxes and more cuts are needed to address it.
Those that use limited companies to trade get a range of benefits including a very low CT rate. The dividend/income substitution racket has gone on for too long and needed to be addressed. Not pleasant for those that benefited from it but necessary, as were the other tax increases.
So why didn't they have the honesty to say they were going to do it before the election? I can see both sides of the argument to an extent but there must be a lot of Tory voters who are pretty furious as the penny drops. Imagine if they whacked 7.5% on basic rate income tax in one go? There'd be riots. If it had to be introduced, surely an escalator would have been the fairest approach. Of course, Osborne isn't concerned about fairness or impact on the little people, he just wanted to get it out the way early on hoping it'd be forgiven and forgotten by his natural supporters by 2020.
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
I agree with that Richard but it is still a vivid demonstration of how the EZ think they have a right to EU funds and how difficult it is going to be to keep that dividing line. This is the key to Cameron's negotiations: either we get treaty protection by means of some sort of double majority of EZ and non EZ on all financial and major economic decisions or I, for one, will be voting for out.
Now more than half of Syriza MPs will not support the bail-out plans.
Greece is going to be ungovernable.
With support of opposition parties, the arithmetic still works though. Question is whether Tspiras resigns if he can't carry his own party.
Personally, I think the IMF intervention is a dealbreaker for the vote. They've effectively endorsed a form what Syriza have been asked for and not got from the EZ - meaningful, real debt relief.
So why didn't they have the honesty say they were going to do it before the election? I can see both sides of the argument to an extent but there must be a lot of Tory voters who are pretty furious as the penny drops. Imagine if they whacked 7.5% on income tax in one go? There'd be riots. If it had to be introduced, surely an escalator would have been the fairest approach. Of course, Osborne isn't concerned about fairness or impact on the little people, he just wanted to get it out the way early on hoping it'd be forgiven and forgotten by his natural supporters by 2020.
It's not a 7.5% increase. You've forgotten the new £5K tax-free part.
The net effect depends on how much dividend income you take out. For basic-rate taxpayers it's 3.75% at £10K, 5% at £15K, 5.6% at £20K. Higher-rate taxpayers actually get a net benefit from the new structure, up to just over £20K. At £50K they lose out to the tune of £2,125 (4.25%).
Osborne's dividends raid valued upwards of £6bn "The accountancy firm believes that the dividend tax hike – an effective 7.5% increase in rates – will end up “discouraging entrepreneurial activity and enterprise”, reported City AM."
Do the Tories want to encourage small businesses and entrepreneurs?
As a self employed small businessman I'm absolutely furious about this - the lower tax was surely a quid pro quo for the lack of security / other perks of permanent employment. This government cares about no one but big business. Imagine if they'd said before the election they were going to give most small business people a 7.5% tax hike. They'd have been annihilated.
Because the Labour party is economically illiterate and obsessed with "cuts", even popular ones, it was barely noticed what an aggressively tax raising budget we have just had. Approximately £6bn extra on dividends, £6bn in IPT, £1.5 bn in car tax, several billion in tax avoidance and the treatment of capital gains as income, there was a lot of material in the budget that would have had the tories in outrage mode if Chancellor Balls had done it.
But this was necessary. As it becomes obvious that more and more of our deficit is structural (since it is not just falling away on the back of trend growth) more taxes and more cuts are needed to address it.
Those that use limited companies to trade get a range of benefits including a very low CT rate. The dividend/income substitution racket has gone on for too long and needed to be addressed. Not pleasant for those that benefited from it but necessary, as were the other tax increases.
So why didn't they have the honesty say they were going to do it before the election? I can see both sides of the argument to an extent but there must be a lot of Tory voters who are pretty furious as the penny drops. Imagine if they whacked 7.5% on income tax in one go? There'd be riots. If it had to be introduced, surely an escalator would have been the fairest approach. Of course, Osborne isn't concerned about fairness or impact on the little people, he just wanted to get it out the way early on hoping it'd be forgiven and forgotten by his natural supporters by 2020.
well for a start, it isn't as simple as a 7.5% hike. Corp tax rate is down, personal allowance is up, the 5k dividend allowance is there too. How this means I will need to balance my remuneration, I'm not yet certain. I am sure that I will be paying a bit more to HMRC than I do now, but it won't be 7.5% more than I do currently.
A question for the SNPers on here - how do you feel about a whipped SNP vote on the Assisted Dying Bill when other Parties are allowing a free vote on this highly personal issue of conscience?
Is this a good tactic by Ms Sturgeon to annoy her way to victory for SIndy or a step too far that will alienate SNP voters who don't like an issue like this to be a political football?
Nothing the SNP do will alienate voters who now believe that Independence is in the best interests of Scotland.
As such they have a blank cheque to do anything they can, up to an including making the United Kingdom ungovernable. Every chance they get to defeat a broken, unelected, illegitimate Tory government should be used to embarrass the United Kingdom and destroy it.
That is the only way they can maintain their principled stand of only working for the best interests of Scotland. They are achieving this and achieving it well.
So destroying your biggest trading partner is in your own best interest ?
Only in Natland.
#ZuBefehlHerrSchaeuble
You need to stop relying on Scotland (Germany) to bail out your basket case, debt-ridden, unproductive economy in England (Greece).
Thanks, I spat out my tea at my desk when I read this. Please, you should go into politics.
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
You do yourself absolutely no credit is implying those criticizing theses shenanigans are claiming this is a "conspiracy". The agreement was to not use these funds for a Eurozone bailout. They are now using these funds for a Eurozone bailout. It is clearly breaching the agreement, whatever mollification they try to replace it with.
If it goes through, it makes very clear that any non-treaty agreement the UK strikes with the EU can be breached in future. No doubt, when that breach happens, they will pretend it is ok because they put something else in its stead. And that will last until the thing in its stead also needs to be abrogated.
Every agreement is flexible in the EU, apparently, to be changed whenever it does not serve the EU purposes. And then the Union's defenders will claim whatever replacement to the abrogation means no abrogation has happened.
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
I agree that Telegraph reportage of the EU does not necessarily reflect reality. Or even sanity. I also agree that the need to come up with billions in Euros in cash in a week necessitates something like this. However, an "...arrangement to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid..." will not be enough. The point of the guarantee was that UK fund not be used, which is different from "will be used, but with a proper backstop, honest". Using my room deposit to buy your mum a new telly is still an abuse of my deposit, even if you give me a guarantee. I would hope that they transfer the funds back ASAP: if I was a state instead of a person I'd demand interest as well. I understand why they're doing this, which is why I'm not so quick to condemn as the others. But that doesn't mean it's right nor tenable.
As a self employed small businessman I'm absolutely furious about this - the lower tax was surely a quid pro quo for the lack of security / other perks of permanent employment. This government cares about no one but big business. Imagine if they'd said before the election they were going to give most small business people a 7.5% tax hike. They'd have been annihilated.
Because the Labour party is economically illiterate and obsessed with "cuts", even popular ones, it was barely noticed what an aggressively tax raising budget we have just had. Approximately £6bn extra on dividends, £6bn in IPT, £1.5 bn in car tax, several billion in tax avoidance and the treatment of capital gains as income, there was a lot of material in the budget that would have had the tories in outrage mode if Chancellor Balls had done it.
But this was necessary. As it becomes obvious that more and more of our deficit is structural (since it is not just falling away on the back of trend growth) more taxes and more cuts are needed to address it.
Those that use limited companies to trade get a range of benefits including a very low CT rate. The dividend/income substitution racket has gone on for too long and needed to be addressed. Not pleasant for those that benefited from it but necessary, as were the other tax increases.
So why didn't they have the honesty to say they were going to do it before the election? I can see both sides of the argument to an extent but there must be a lot of Tory voters who are pretty furious as the penny drops. Imagine if they whacked 7.5% on basic rate income tax in one go? There'd be riots. If it had to be introduced, surely an escalator would have been the fairest approach. Of course, Osborne isn't concerned about fairness or impact on the little people, he just wanted to get it out the way early on hoping it'd be forgiven and forgotten by his natural supporters by 2020.
They were very clear that they would prioritise the deficit. Once again Labour's incompetence meant that all of the focus went on one side of the P&L account, namely spending cuts. But it was frankly obvious that taxes were going to have to rise to pay for the promised increase in NHS spending, infrastructure and defence. True tories know that money does not come out of thin air and bills have to be paid.
This budget, as sole trader, didn't do me much harm but in the last government I lost all of my personal allowance, my child benefit and found more of my income subject to 40% tax. I'm not complaining. I accept bills have to be paid.
I agree with that Richard but it is still a vivid demonstration of how the EZ think they have a right to EU funds and how difficult it is going to be to keep that dividing line. This is the key to Cameron's negotiations: either we get treaty protection by means of some sort of double majority of EZ and non EZ on all financial and major economic decisions or I, for one, will be voting for out.
Yes, I very much agree. The current EU/Eurozone confusion is a mess and it's absolutely imperative that we negotiate a more formal set of protections. It will become even more important if, as seems inevitable, the Eurozone integrates further. That, and the related matter of protection of the City, are the two key issues of the renegotiation in my view.
Having said that, one also has to be realistic about the alternative. If we leave the EU, we will still be very much subject to Eurozone decisions in practice. I think that staying in, with formal safeguards, is likely to be safer and more reliable than leaving and therefore giving up any hope of safeguards. Obviously we'll have to see how the negotiation pans out.
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
I agree with that Richard but it is still a vivid demonstration of how the EZ think they have a right to EU funds and how difficult it is going to be to keep that dividing line. This is the key to Cameron's negotiations: either we get treaty protection by means of some sort of double majority of EZ and non EZ on all financial and major economic decisions or I, for one, will be voting for out.
Will most other people make sensible informed decisions like you, David, or just be spooked into voting Yes by the '3 million jobs' lobby?
I hope the former, but the governance of the EU is fiendishly difficult to understand. If that is the way it goes, No will need to find an equally understandable and powerful counter to the latter, and highlights the problem of the EZ ability to screw us over very transparently.
Good to see the LibDems most powerful group of politicians in action, no doubt their unelected group is about to bolstered up even further in the dis hon list - the irony :
Now more than half of Syriza MPs will not support the bail-out plans.
Greece is going to be ungovernable.
I may have misunderstood the various reports so appols if wrong, , but think you may have confused Syriza committee members with MPs – Presently there are 201 C’ members, of which 108 are against accepting the new proposals. However, of that 108, only 15 are Members of Parliment.
Now more than half of Syriza MPs will not support the bail-out plans.
Greece is going to be ungovernable.
Well, it hasn't got a competent government, its laws are optional, its police are corrupt, its polity is all over the place, and all the smart people have left. Might as well go for the trifecta...:-(
You do yourself absolutely no credit is implying those criticizing theses shenanigans are claiming this is a "conspiracy". The agreement was to not use these funds for a Eurozone bailout. They are now using these funds for a Eurozone bailout. It is clearly breaching the agreement, whatever mollification they try to replace it with.
If it goes through, it makes very clear that any non-treaty agreement the UK strikes with the EU can be breached in future. No doubt, when that breach happens, they will pretend it is ok because they put something else in its stead. And that will last until the thing in its stead also needs to be abrogated.
Every agreement is flexible in the EU, apparently, to be changed whenever it does not serve the EU purposes. And then the Union's defenders will claim whatever replacement to the abrogation means no abrogation has happened.
They will do this by agreement with us. There are many things to criticise the EU for, but this really isn't one of them. They are trying to find a way through.
You do yourself absolutely no credit is implying those criticizing theses shenanigans are claiming this is a "conspiracy". The agreement was to not use these funds for a Eurozone bailout. They are now using these funds for a Eurozone bailout. It is clearly breaching the agreement, whatever mollification they try to replace it with.
If it goes through, it makes very clear that any non-treaty agreement the UK strikes with the EU can be breached in future. No doubt, when that breach happens, they will pretend it is ok because they put something else in its stead. And that will last until the thing in its stead also needs to be abrogated.
Every agreement is flexible in the EU, apparently, to be changed whenever it does not serve the EU purposes. And then the Union's defenders will claim whatever replacement to the abrogation means no abrogation has happened.
They will do this by agreement with us. There are many things to criticise the EU for, but this really isn't one of them. They are trying to find a way through.
"Agreement with us" seems to increasingly mean the EU tells us what's watch, and the government goes along with it publicly so as to pretend it hasn't been defeated.
was anyone seriously expecting anything different ?
No, because I have very little confidence in Cameron when it comes to the EU. But even so its a bit blatant. They know its going to be controversial in the UK, and in EU terms its not like 850m is a lot of money, so its a conspicuous slap in the face, that is to say a political action to embarrass the UK.
No disrespect intended to the UK but when they came up with this at 4 in the morning after five months of playing chicken and a night of yelling at each other while 11 million people were unable to get their money out of the bank, I doubt British domestic politics were the main consideration.
So ?
We should have had a man round the table if anything was to involve us. It was not an EU meeting, it was a Eurogroup. The fast lane of the 2 speed Europe if you like. Money that ourselves and the Danes have put in amongst a couple of others should not be used for this purpose.
I agree, but Indigo's suggestion was that it was a deliberate action to embarrass the UK, which doesn't seem plausible.
They couldn't care less what the impact on the UK is.
was anyone seriously expecting anything different ?
No, because I have very little confidence in Cameron when it comes to the EU. But even so its a bit blatant. They know its going to be controversial in the UK, and in EU terms its not like 850m is a lot of money, so its a conspicuous slap in the face, that is to say a political action to embarrass the UK.
No disrespect intended to the UK but when they came up with this at 4 in the morning after five months of playing chicken and a night of yelling at each other while 11 million people were unable to get their money out of the bank, I doubt British domestic politics were the main consideration.
So ?
We should have had a man round the table if anything was to involve us. It was not an EU meeting, it was a Eurogroup. The fast lane of the 2 speed Europe if you like. Money that ourselves and the Danes have put in amongst a couple of others should not be used for this purpose.
I agree, but Indigo's suggestion was that it was a deliberate action to embarrass the UK, which doesn't seem plausible.
They couldn't care less what the impact on the UK is.
Nor the need to stick to previous agreements, showing their utter hypocrisy given their attitude to the Greek negotiations. Agreements are just for other people to stick to.
You do yourself absolutely no credit is implying those criticizing theses shenanigans are claiming this is a "conspiracy". The agreement was to not use these funds for a Eurozone bailout. They are now using these funds for a Eurozone bailout. It is clearly breaching the agreement, whatever mollification they try to replace it with.
If it goes through, it makes very clear that any non-treaty agreement the UK strikes with the EU can be breached in future. No doubt, when that breach happens, they will pretend it is ok because they put something else in its stead. And that will last until the thing in its stead also needs to be abrogated.
Every agreement is flexible in the EU, apparently, to be changed whenever it does not serve the EU purposes. And then the Union's defenders will claim whatever replacement to the abrogation means no abrogation has happened.
They will do this by agreement with us. There are many things to criticise the EU for, but this really isn't one of them. They are trying to find a way through.
You really are not winning that many votes for the IN campaign with this line of reasoning. The PRESIDENT of the EU announced last night that he was disregarding that agreement, before they had even got around to asking the government, its wasn't legally binding he said, so it doesn't count. What has happened since there is arse covering. I think the OUT campaign should hire FoxinsocksEu and your good self, you are doing a find job
The ECB has just finished printing a trillion new Euros for its QE program, and we are supposed to believe it cant find another 850m down the back of the sofa, its stretches credulity frankly.
You really are not winning that many votes for the IN campaign with this line of reasoning. The PRESIDENT of the EU announced last night that he was disregarding that agreement, before they had even got around to asking the government, its wasn't legally binding he said, so it doesn't count.
Oh, for heaven's sake. You lot really are conspiracy nuts. He didn't say he was disregarding the agreement. Quite apart from anything else, it's not his decision.
I do enjoy the way Richard N poses as a mild sceptic while actually defending the EU at every turn, no matter how incompetent, damaging or mendacious it is.
I can quite image him telling us back in 1992 how Maastricht 'puts the break on federalism' alongside divers brainless Tory backbenchers who were put up for that purpose at the time.
Osborne's dividends raid valued upwards of £6bn "The accountancy firm believes that the dividend tax hike – an effective 7.5% increase in rates – will end up “discouraging entrepreneurial activity and enterprise”, reported City AM."
Do the Tories want to encourage small businesses and entrepreneurs?
As a self employed small businessman I'm absolutely furious about this - the lower tax was surely a quid pro quo for the lack of security / other perks of permanent employment. This government cares about no one but big business. Imagine if they'd said before the election they were going to give most small business people a 7.5% tax hike. They'd have been annihilated.
Though Osborne did impose a levy on large businesses to fund apprenticeships
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
I agree that Telegraph reportage of the EU does not necessarily reflect reality. Or even sanity. I also agree that the need to come up with billions in Euros in cash in a week necessitates something like this. However, an "...arrangement to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid..." will not be enough. The point of the guarantee was that UK fund not be used, which is different from "will be used, but with a proper backstop, honest". Using my room deposit to buy your mum a new telly is still an abuse of my deposit, even if you give me a guarantee. I would hope that they transfer the funds back ASAP: if I was a state instead of a person I'd demand interest as well. I understand why they're doing this, which is why I'm not so quick to condemn as the others. But that doesn't mean it's right nor tenable.
The issue is the EU's credibility. Whatever "concessions" the UK may get (and I don't have much faith in Cameron to begin with) they are dependant on promises by the EU. So the credibility of the EU matters a very great deal.
And, I'm afraid, past experience (whatever happened to those promises on CAP?) and how they are dealing with this erode what little credibility the EU has left. Unless their feet are nailed to the floor, I simply think it is too risky to believe them.
We will suffer pain if we leave, of that I'm certain. But we can survive and prosper and we will govern ourselves. Better that than be taken for fools by an institution which does not value integrity and which treats one of its major funders with contempt.
I have been very uncertain about which way I might vote. Instinctively I feel that "In" is probably the better, more economically sensible choice but I have very serious reservations about the direction of travel of the EU. Then stuff like this happens and the general clusterf*ck that has been the way it has handled Greece and I think: "No. Enough already. I wouldn't vote to join this lot."
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
I agree with that Richard but it is still a vivid demonstration of how the EZ think they have a right to EU funds and how difficult it is going to be to keep that dividing line. This is the key to Cameron's negotiations: either we get treaty protection by means of some sort of double majority of EZ and non EZ on all financial and major economic decisions or I, for one, will be voting for out.
Will most other people make sensible informed decisions like you, David, or just be spooked into voting Yes by the '3 million jobs' lobby?
I hope the former, but the governance of the EU is fiendishly difficult to understand. If that is the way it goes, No will need to find an equally understandable and powerful counter to the latter, and highlights the problem of the EZ ability to screw us over very transparently.
BOO need to learn from the incompetence of the Nats and agree on a single, viable alternative which gives specific answers to legitimate questions. Membership of the EEA is one possibility as is a bespoke agreement like Switzerland although that of course would be more subject to negotiation.
If they indulge in some free trade fantasy where we are bound to negotiate great deals with everyone which all work to our advantage they will have fallen into the same trap.
I do enjoy the way Richard N poses as a mild sceptic while actually defending the EU at every turn, no matter how incompetent, damaging or mendacious it is.
I can quite image him telling us back in 1992 how Maastricht 'puts the break on federalism' alongside divers brainless Tory backbenchers who were put up for that purpose at the time.
He does himself no favours by ridiculing the other side of the argument as "conspiracy nuts" for simply stating what is happening quite clearly in full view.
I agree with that Richard but it is still a vivid demonstration of how the EZ think they have a right to EU funds and how difficult it is going to be to keep that dividing line. This is the key to Cameron's negotiations: either we get treaty protection by means of some sort of double majority of EZ and non EZ on all financial and major economic decisions or I, for one, will be voting for out.
Yes, I very much agree. The current EU/Eurozone confusion is a mess and it's absolutely imperative that we negotiate a more formal set of protections. It will become even more important if, as seems inevitable, the Eurozone integrates further. That, and the related matter of protection of the City, are the two key issues of the renegotiation in my view.
Having said that, one also has to be realistic about the alternative. If we leave the EU, we will still be very much subject to Eurozone decisions in practice. I think that staying in, with formal safeguards, is likely to be safer and more reliable than leaving and therefore giving up any hope of safeguards. Obviously we'll have to see how the negotiation pans out.
Which begs the question of a) what safeguards would be sufficient, and b) what safeguards are being sought. There is an unremarked tension on the aim of the reforms - are they intended to reform the EU per se, or UK's relationship with the EU: two different things. If a lock to prevent the EZ dominating[1] the EU is not even being sought, then we are in a world of shit.
And on that scatological note, lunch ends and I must go back to work...
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
I agree with that Richard but it is still a vivid demonstration of how the EZ think they have a right to EU funds and how difficult it is going to be to keep that dividing line. This is the key to Cameron's negotiations: either we get treaty protection by means of some sort of double majority of EZ and non EZ on all financial and major economic decisions or I, for one, will be voting for out.
Will most other people make sensible informed decisions like you, David, or just be spooked into voting Yes by the '3 million jobs' lobby?
I hope the former, but the governance of the EU is fiendishly difficult to understand. If that is the way it goes, No will need to find an equally understandable and powerful counter to the latter, and highlights the problem of the EZ ability to screw us over very transparently.
BOO need to learn from the incompetence of the Nats and agree on a single, viable alternative which gives specific answers to legitimate questions. Membership of the EEA is one possibility as is a bespoke agreement like Switzerland although that of course would be more subject to negotiation.
If they indulge in some free trade fantasy where we are bound to negotiate great deals with everyone which all work to our advantage they will have fallen into the same trap.
IMHO, right wing eurosceptics and left wing eurosceptics will have to sell different arguments to their respective constituencies.
I do enjoy the way Richard N poses as a mild sceptic while actually defending the EU at every turn, no matter how incompetent, damaging or mendacious it is.
I can quite image him telling us back in 1992 how Maastricht 'puts the break on federalism' alongside divers brainless Tory backbenchers who were put up for that purpose at the time.
No, you misunderstand. I'm reacting to the conspiracy lunacy which seems to be all too prevalent, in order to restore a sense of balance. If we had anyone here arguing that the EU was entirely wonderful, I'd argue on the other side.
What we are seeing at the moment is the bureaucrats scrabbling around to solve a problem (a problem which, ultimately, rises from the fact that the Eurozone is dominant in the EU but that it is not the same as the EU). There's nothing dishonest about it, it's a structural flaw in the EU (and, to be fair to them, one they recognised all along - which is why they tried to make Euro membership compulsory),
I agree with that Richard but it is still a vivid demonstration of how the EZ think they have a right to EU funds and how difficult it is going to be to keep that dividing line. This is the key to Cameron's negotiations: either we get treaty protection by means of some sort of double majority of EZ and non EZ on all financial and major economic decisions or I, for one, will be voting for out.
Yes, I very much agree. The current EU/Eurozone confusion is a mess and it's absolutely imperative that we negotiate a more formal set of protections. It will become even more important if, as seems inevitable, the Eurozone integrates further. That, and the related matter of protection of the City, are the two key issues of the renegotiation in my view.
Having said that, one also has to be realistic about the alternative. If we leave the EU, we will still be very much subject to Eurozone decisions in practice. I think that staying in, with formal safeguards, is likely to be safer and more reliable than leaving and therefore giving up any hope of safeguards. Obviously we'll have to see how the negotiation pans out.
If the negotiation fails to deliver that would you vote out, Richard? And would a scrap of paper with a commitment to do something about it at some point in the future be good enough for you?
Words like "safeguards" are often used to have a line to trot out to the media regardless of the actual content. The only safeguard that truly protects the UK to the same extent as not using the fund is for the Eurozone members to make a payment to the UK of the difference. Somehow I doubt that is happening. I'm sure it will be some sort of financial doublespeak akin to George Osborne "halving the bill" for the EU payment a little while back.
You really are not winning that many votes for the IN campaign with this line of reasoning. The PRESIDENT of the EU announced last night that he was disregarding that agreement, before they had even got around to asking the government, its wasn't legally binding he said, so it doesn't count.
Oh, for heaven's sake. You lot really are conspiracy nuts. He didn't say he was disregarding the agreement. Quite apart from anything else, it's not his decision.
You might want to consider page 72 of the 2015 Conservative Manifesto
We took Britain out of Eurozone bailouts, including for Greece – the first ever return of powers from Brussels
Another promise to the public bites the dust, its getting to be a habit.
Asked about the British deal, a senior EU official said: “The council decision is a political agreement, and it can be argued that it does not prevent the activation of mechanism.” A Downing Street spokesman said: "Leaders from across the EU agreed in 2010 that the EFSM would not be used again for those Euro area, and that remains the Prime Minister's view."
Seems the Prime Minister's view has changed since last night.
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
I agree with that Richard but it is still a vivid demonstration of how the EZ think they have a right to EU funds and how difficult it is going to be to keep that dividing line. This is the key to Cameron's negotiations: either we get treaty protection by means of some sort of double majority of EZ and non EZ on all financial and major economic decisions or I, for one, will be voting for out.
Will most other people make sensible informed decisions like you, David, or just be spooked into voting Yes by the '3 million jobs' lobby?
I hope the former, but the governance of the EU is fiendishly difficult to understand. If that is the way it goes, No will need to find an equally understandable and powerful counter to the latter, and highlights the problem of the EZ ability to screw us over very transparently.
BOO need to learn from the incompetence of the Nats and agree on a single, viable alternative which gives specific answers to legitimate questions. Membership of the EEA is one possibility as is a bespoke agreement like Switzerland although that of course would be more subject to negotiation.
If they indulge in some free trade fantasy where we are bound to negotiate great deals with everyone which all work to our advantage they will have fallen into the same trap.
IMHO, right wing eurosceptics and left wing eurosceptics will have to sell different arguments to their respective constituencies.
Louise Bours and Owen Jones sharing the same platform. What joy!
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
I agree that Telegraph reportage of the EU does not necessarily reflect reality. Or even sanity. I also agree that the need to come up with billions in Euros in cash in a week necessitates something like this. However, an "...arrangement to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid..." will not be enough. The point of the guarantee was that UK fund not be used, which is different from "will be used, but with a proper backstop, honest". Using my room deposit to buy your mum a new telly is stilif I was a state instead of a person I'd demand interest as well. I understand why
The issue is the EU's credibility. Whatever "concessions" the UK may get (and I don't have much faith in Cameron to begin with) they are dependant on promises by the EU. So the credibility of the EU matters a very great deal.
And, I'm afraid, past experience (whatever happened to those promises on CAP?) and how they are dealing with this erode what little credibility the EU has left. Unless their feet are nailed to the floor, I simply think it is too risky to believe them.
We will suffer pain if we leave, of that I'm certain. But we can survive and prosper and we will govern ourselves. Better that than be taken for fools by an institution which does not value integrity and which treats one of its major funders with contempt.
I have been very uncertain about which way I might vote. Instinctively I feel that "In" is probably the better, more economically sensible choice but I have very serious reservations about the direction of travel of the EU. Then stuff like this happens and the general clusterf*ck that has been the way it has handled Greece and I think: "No. Enough already. I wouldn't vote to join this lot."
I think the EU think we're a difficult squad, but full of hot air and when push comes to shove we'll vote IN.
They will offer us something very minor, but otherwise believe they can call our bluff, IMHO.
If the negotiation fails to deliver that would you vote out, Richard? And would a scrap of paper with a commitment to do something about it at some point in the future be good enough for you?
Yes, in that circumstance I would vote Out, provided obviously that there was some sane and credible alternative being put forward. I wouldn't vote Out if the alternative was the EEA, which seems to me to be the worst of all worlds.
A scrap of paper? Well, that's difficult. As I've said before, there will inevitably be uncertainty on what exactly the renegotiation has achieved. But this is a false argument by the Out side, because, no matter how much uncertainty there is about what staying In would mean, there's going to be massively more uncertainty about what leaving would mean - there's not going to be a done-and-dusted trade agreement for us to sign up to. We'll just have to weigh up the uncertainties as part of the decision.
If £850m is annexed to pay for Greek bailouts - that will almost certainly cement me as a BOOer.
In the same way that Labour has no credibility dealing with the economy after effing it up everytime it gets its mitts on HMT, the EU are apparently trying to misuse our EU contributions to cover their own bankrupt sibling - despite promising not to do so. Being untrustworthy isn't a vote winner.
EZers should be sorting their own piggybank out - their bed, they lie in it.
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
The issue is the EU's credibility. Whatever "concessions" the UK may get (and I don't have much faith in Cameron to begin with) they are dependant on promises by the EU. So the credibility of the EU matters a very great deal.
And, I'm afraid, past experience (whatever happened to those promises on CAP?) and how they are dealing with this erode what little credibility the EU has left. Unless their feet are nailed to the floor, I simply think it is too risky to believe them.
We will suffer pain if we leave, of that I'm certain. But we can survive and prosper and we will govern ourselves. Better that than be taken for fools by an institution which does not value integrity and which treats one of its major funders with contempt.
I have been very uncertain about which way I might vote. Instinctively I feel that "In" is probably the better, more economically sensible choice but I have very serious reservations about the direction of travel of the EU. Then stuff like this happens and the general clusterf*ck that has been the way it has handled Greece and I think: "No. Enough already. I wouldn't vote to join this lot."
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
I agree with that Richard but it is still a vivid demonstration of how the EZ think they have a right to EU funds and how difficult it is going to be to keep that dividing line. This is the key to Cameron's negotiations: either we get treaty protection by means of some sort of double majority of EZ and non EZ on all financial and major economic decisions or I, for one, will be voting for out.
Will most other people make sensible informed decisions like you, David, or just be spooked into voting Yes by the '3 million jobs' lobby?
I hope the former, but the governance of the EU is fiendishly difficult to understand. If that is the way it goes, No will need to find an equally understandable and powerful counter to the latter, and highlights the problem of the EZ ability to screw us over very transparently.
BOO need to learn from the incompetence of the Nats and agree on a single, viable alternative which gives specific answers to legitimate questions. Membership of the EEA is one possibility as is a bespoke agreement like Switzerland although that of course would be more subject to negotiation.
If they indulge in some free trade fantasy where we are bound to negotiate great deals with everyone which all work to our advantage they will have fallen into the same trap.
IMHO, right wing eurosceptics and left wing eurosceptics will have to sell different arguments to their respective constituencies.
I haven't finalised my thinking on this yet, but think it's a bit of both.
The BOO critique of the EU needs to be joined up and fairly consistent to be a coherent campaign. That needs to include emphasising the benefits of self-governance.
It would then be up to the left/right wings of the BOO campaign to explain how and what they'd respectively exercise that self-governance for, in practice.
Which begs the question of a) what safeguards would be sufficient, and b) what safeguards are being sought. There is an unremarked tension on the aim of the reforms - are they intended to reform the EU per se, or UK's relationship with the EU: two different things. If a lock to prevent the EZ dominating[1] the EU is not even being sought, then we are in a world of shit.
And on that scatological note, lunch ends and I must go back to work...
[1] a battle that may already have been lost...
The obvious way to do it would be to have a little mini-QMV for the non-Eurozone members, so you couldn't have a block of Euro members stitching stuff up among themselves and locking out the non-Euro-members. I'm not usually particularly sympathetic to the UK's demands for EU process but I think this sounds reasonable, and may well be acceptable to other member states.
The practical problem is how you actually write a rule for "The Eurozone shouldn't act as a block to stitch up the non-Eurozone members" that stands the test of time. Euro membership may stay as it is for a long time (or shrink slightly) but it could also well grow to take in everyone except Britain, and they certainly won't want to give the British a veto on their own, since British politicians can't resist grandstanding for domestic reasons when everybody's trying to get something important done.
But we all know that whatever the outcome of the negotiations, you will call them a success Richard.
I think for most of us it's also pretty clear that the government isn't serious about achieving anything other than a cosmetic set of changes that can be used to try to shut down the whole debate on EU membership permanently - just like 1976.
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
I agree with that Richard but it is still a vivid demonstration of how the EZ think they have a right to EU funds and how difficult it is going to be to keep that dividing line. This is the key to Cameron's negotiations: either we get treaty protection by means of some sort of double majority of EZ and non EZ on all financial and major economic decisions or I, for one, will be voting for out.
Will most other people make sensible informed decisions like you, David, or just be spooked into voting Yes by the '3 million jobs' lobby?
I hope the former, but the governance of the EU is fiendishly difficult to understand. If that is the way it goes, No will need to find an equally understandable and powerful counter to the latter, and highlights the problem of the EZ ability to screw us over very transparently.
BOO need to learn from the incompetence of the Nats and agree on a single, viable alternative which gives specific answers to legitimate questions. Membership of the EEA is one possibility as is a bespoke agreement like Switzerland although that of course would be more subject to negotiation.
If they indulge in some free trade fantasy where we are bound to negotiate great deals with everyone which all work to our advantage they will have fallen into the same trap.
I doubt most of the voters are going to think about it that deeply. GE2015 wasn't won on detail, it was won on competence, and scare stories. The EuRef will be the same, Cameron might still seem competent then, but the edges are fraying already. The EU looks badly incompetent after the Greece fiasco. Big business is going to be making scare stories about 3m jobs, but will have a hard time making it stand up to scrutiny. BOO will be making scare stories about pissing away our money and making up rules on the hoof, both of which will have recent evidence to support them, plus "ever closer union" and the example of riding rough shod over the Greeks, the facts aren't going to get much of a look in.
If the negotiation fails to deliver that would you vote out, Richard? And would a scrap of paper with a commitment to do something about it at some point in the future be good enough for you?
Yes, in that circumstance I would vote Out, provided obviously that there was some sane and credible alternative being put forward. I wouldn't vote Out if the alternative was the EEA, which seems to me to be the worst of all worlds.
A scrap of paper? Well, that's difficult. As I've said before, there will inevitably be uncertainty on what exactly the renegotiation has achieved. But this is a false argument by the Out side, because, no matter how much uncertainty there is about what staying In would mean, there's going to be massively more uncertainty about what leaving would mean - there's not going to be a done-and-dusted trade agreement for us to sign up to. We'll just have to weigh up the uncertainties as part of the decision.
Thanks for responding. Sounds like you'll give Cameron the benefit of the doubt and presume the EU renegotiation is innocent until proven guilty?
I think the current NO strategy is shaping up to be that a 'NO' does not mean immediate exit, but a rejection of the renegotiated terms of membership if inadequate.
I think for most of us it's also pretty clear that the government isn't serious about achieving anything other than a cosmetic set of changes that can be used to try to shut down the whole debate on EU membership permanently - just like 1976.
Well, certainly, if we are going to stay in the EU (and I think it is near-certain that we will, I've always said a referendum is unwinnable for the Out side), then shutting down the debate is a smart thing to do. Spending the next 20 years bitching about the EU but not actually leaving is in no-one's interest (except Labour's, I suppose).
What we are seeing at the moment is the bureaucrats scrabbling around to solve a problem (a problem which, ultimately, rises from the fact that the Eurozone is dominant in the EU but that it is not the same as the EU). There's nothing dishonest about it, it's a structural flaw in the EU (and, to be fair to them, one they recognised all along - which is why they tried to make Euro membership compulsory),
The ECB just printed 1,000,000,000,000 euros for its QE program. If it printed 1,011,000,000,000 and lent 11bn to Greece, it would save a lot of hassle!
I think for most of us it's also pretty clear that the government isn't serious about achieving anything other than a cosmetic set of changes that can be used to try to shut down the whole debate on EU membership permanently - just like 1976.
Well, certainly, if we are going to stay in the EU (and I think it is near-certain that we will, I've always said a referendum is unwinnable for the Out side), then shutting down the debate is a smart thing to do. Spending the next 20 years bitching about the EU but not actually leaving is in no-one's interest.
That seems a more honest, if disappointing, answer about your views. Thanks for clarifying.
I think for most of us it's also pretty clear that the government isn't serious about achieving anything other than a cosmetic set of changes that can be used to try to shut down the whole debate on EU membership permanently - just like 1976.
Well, certainly, if we are going to stay in the EU (and I think it is near-certain that we will, I've always said a referendum is unwinnable for the Out side), then shutting down the debate is a smart thing to do. Spending the next 20 years bitching about the EU but not actually leaving is in no-one's interest.
The problem is that eurosceptics have very good grounds to complain that the referendum is not legitimate when the government can fund one side. That is a mistake entirely of the governments' own making.
A scrap of paper? Well, that's difficult. As I've said before, there will inevitably be uncertainty on what exactly the renegotiation has achieved. But this is a false argument by the Out side, because, no matter how much uncertainty there is about what staying In would mean, there's going to be massively more uncertainty about what leaving would mean - there's not going to be a done-and-dusted trade agreement for us to sign up to. We'll just have to weigh up the uncertainties as part of the decision.
That sounds like a long way of saying that leaving is just to risky in any case and you will be voting in with your nose held.
I agree with Mike. I voted the same way for similar reasons. Additionally, when I saw Norman talk in Oxford a couple of weeks ago, I was very impressed.
Thanks for responding. Sounds like you'll give Cameron the benefit of the doubt and presume the EU renegotiation is innocent until proven guilty?
The way the Out campaign is shaping up, I won't have much of a difficult decision. As I've said many times, they should have started two years ago doing some serious work preparing the case, figuring out what is practical, and laying out a blueprint. Virtually nothing has been done, and it's not looking as though that will change.
Thanks for responding. Sounds like you'll give Cameron the benefit of the doubt and presume the EU renegotiation is innocent until proven guilty?
The way the Out campaign is shaping up, I won't have much of a difficult decision. As I've said many times, they should have started two years ago doing some serious work preparing the case, figuring out what is practical, and laying out a blueprint. Virtually nothing has been done, and it's not looking as though that will change.
Never mind about the OUT campaign, you are well informed you don't need to hide behind their skirts. The OUT campaign isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know, so its not actually going to change your vote one iota. What should be changing your vote is the behaviour of the EU. Are you in effect saying that even if the EU continues to be antidemocratic, illiberal and high-handed, you will be voting in anyway because Cameron comes back with a bit of tinsel ? Or possibility that you are actually very pro-EU and the tinsel just gives you cover.
Now more than half of Syriza MPs will not support the bail-out plans.
Greece is going to be ungovernable.
With support of opposition parties, the arithmetic still works though. Question is whether Tspiras resigns if he can't carry his own party.
Personally, I think the IMF intervention is a dealbreaker for the vote. They've effectively endorsed a form what Syriza have been asked for and not got from the EZ - meaningful, real debt relief.
The IMF intervention also means that if Greece does go through with the EU uber-austerity, at the end of it the Greeks will still be asking themselves "what good did that do us then?"
At which the bankers of Europe will give a sly smile and say "well, it did ME the power of good..."
That sounds like a long way of saying that leaving is just to risky in any case and you will be voting in with your nose held.
To a large extent that is correct. If we are going to leave, I want to know the answer to some rather key questions:
- Will there be free movement of labour? - Will there be protection for the City, guaranteeing that the Eurozone don't stitch us up? - Will there be a free market in services? - What about CAP and fisheries? - Will we sign up to the EU/US trade agreement? - What rights will UK citizens have in EU countries? - Will we stay signed up to EU-style employment law? - Will there be any customs formalities in EU/UK trade? - How much will we pay?
(I take it as read that, in all circumstances, we'd stay signed up to EU VAT law and product type approvals, and that there will be no tariffs on manufactured goods).
Now, I suspect that I know what the Out side will say - just like Alex Salmond before IndyRef, they'll say we can have everything we want and the other side's views are immaterial. Well, I won't buy that.
Thanks for responding. Sounds like you'll give Cameron the benefit of the doubt and presume the EU renegotiation is innocent until proven guilty?
The way the Out campaign is shaping up, I won't have much of a difficult decision. As I've said many times, they should have started two years ago doing some serious work preparing the case, figuring out what is practical, and laying out a blueprint. Virtually nothing has been done, and it's not looking as though that will change.
Never mind about the OUT campaign, you are well informed you don't need to hide behind their skirts. The OUT campaign isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know, so its not actually going to change your vote one iota. What should be changing your vote is the behaviour of the EU. Are you in effect saying that even if the EU continues to be antidemocratic, illiberal and high-handed, you will be voting in anyway because Cameron comes back with a bit of tinsel ? Or possibility that you are actually very pro-EU and the tinsel just gives you cover.
The EU is a almost like a cult and poor Richard seems to have been brainwashed by it!
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
.
Will most other people make sensible informed decisions like you, David, or just be spooked into voting Yes by the '3 million jobs' lobby?
I hope the former, but the governance of the EU is fiendishly difficult to understand. If that is the way it goes, No will need to find an equally understandable and powerful counter to the latter, and highlights the problem of the EZ ability to screw us over very transparently.
BOO need to learn from the incompetence of the Nats and agree on a single, viable alternative which gives specific answers to legitimate questions. Membership of the EEA is one possibility as is a bespoke agreement like Switzerland although that of course would be more subject to negotiation.
If they indulge in some free trade fantasy where we are bound to negotiate great deals with everyone which all work to our advantage they will have fallen into the same trap.
I doubt most of the voters are going to think about it that deeply. GE2015 wasn't won on detail, it was won on competence, and scare stories. The EuRef will be the same, Cameron might still seem competent then, but the edges are fraying already. The EU looks badly incompetent after the Greece fiasco. Big business is going to be making scare stories about 3m jobs, but will have a hard time making it stand up to scrutiny. BOO will be making scare stories about pissing away our money and making up rules on the hoof, both of which will have recent evidence to support them, plus "ever closer union" and the example of riding rough shod over the Greeks, the facts aren't going to get much of a look in.
All the more reason why the alternative needs to be clear. By 2017 the economy may well be turning down again. It is unlikely we are going to be ready for a great leap into the unknown.
I had previously had reservations about the EEA but it is looking like the best option to me. It does not address the freedom of movement issue but other than that it seems to give us what we want at a much lower cost and with a lot more leeway over a wide range of areas. It looks like a sensible compromise to me.
O/T - I'm not sure what the point is in sentencing this man. It's almost as if he's volunteered to be made an example of, and prosecuted solely because he's still alive, and can be, to atone for all those more serious cases that were not during a very dark period of German history:
. . . since British politicians can't resist grandstanding for domestic reasons when everybody's trying to get something important done.
Just British politicians? Ha! They ALL play to their own domestic galleries, and you well know it! :-)
This is true, but for some reason the British are really, really into vetoing things.
The only reason we need to veto things is because the EU keeps doing twattish things that require vetoing.
Why the hell won't Germany and France and a few others in the Eurozone stump up a Wonga-loan of seven billion Euros to get the process of Greece's economic salvation kick-started? If there is sufficient risk of default to make them baulk, then they shouldn't be passing that risk over to the wider EU.
A report into the largest sale of publicly-owned land in Wales in recent years found it should have generated at least £15m more for the taxpayer.
Sites were sold as one portfolio by the Regeneration Investment Fund for Wales (RIFW) for £21m three years ago.
But the District Valuer, in a report by the public spending watchdog the Wales Audit Office, valued them at £36m if they had been sold separately.
Auditors also said there were flaws in the sale process and weaknesses in the advice to the RIFW board, in particular from the property consultants Lambert Smith Hampton......
It also said some parties involved in the deal had relationships with the buyer and seller that could have given rise to potential conflicts of interest.
'I had previously had reservations about the EEA but it is looking like the best option to me'
Yes - it's precisely because it is that, that Richard N and others are desperately spinning against it. Other countries, smaller and weaker than us, have got a better deal - exactly what Europhiles have always argued can't be achieved.
I would prefer a complete 'out' but I would settle for EEA membership if we can't get that straight away.
That sounds like a long way of saying that leaving is just to risky in any case and you will be voting in with your nose held.
To a large extent that is correct. If we are going to leave, I want to know the answer to some rather key questions:
- Will there be free movement of labour? - Will there be protection for the City, guaranteeing that the Eurozone don't stitch us up? - Will there be a free market in services? - What about CAP and fisheries? - Will we sign up to the EU/US trade agreement? - What rights will UK citizens have in EU countries? - Will we stay signed up to EU-style employment law? - Will there be any customs formalities in EU/UK trade? - How much will we pay?
(I take it as read that, in all circumstances, we'd stay signed up to EU VAT law and product type approvals, and that there will be no tariffs on manufactured goods).
Now, I suspect that I know what the Out side will say - just like Alex Salmond before IndyRef, they'll say we can have everything we want and the other side's views are immaterial. Well, I won't buy that.
Who can predict the future?
None of these things are in the gift of the Out campaign. They can (at best) say what they would like to happen, but they aren't the government.
Posing that list of questions is just another way of stating that there are no conceivable circumstances in which you would favour Out.
Private polling shows Jeremy Corbyn ahead in the first round of voting, a survey seen by the New Statesman has revealed.
The veteran leftwinger has surprised observers by collecting 40 nominations from local parties, just eight less than the bookmakers' favourite, Andy Burnham. Yvette Cooper has 30. Liz Kendall is way back in fourth place with just five.
. . . since British politicians can't resist grandstanding for domestic reasons when everybody's trying to get something important done.
Just British politicians? Ha! They ALL play to their own domestic galleries, and you well know it! :-)
This is true, but for some reason the British are really, really into vetoing things.
The only reason we need to veto things is because the EU keeps doing twattish things that require vetoing.
Why the hell won't Germany and France and a few others in the Eurozone stump up a Wonga-loan of seven billion Euros to get the process of Greece's economic salvation kick-started? If there is sufficient risk of default to make them baulk, then they shouldn't be passing that risk over to the wider EU.
If I've understood the proposal correctly they don't intend to pass the risk over to the wider EU. Apparently tapping this EU fund just seemed like the quickest way to find 7 billion Euros at 4am on a Monday morning without waking a medium-sized country's voters. What do people here usually do in that situation?
. . . since British politicians can't resist grandstanding for domestic reasons when everybody's trying to get something important done.
Just British politicians? Ha! They ALL play to their own domestic galleries, and you well know it! :-)
This is true, but for some reason the British are really, really into vetoing things.
You have to laugh... remind me again why the European Parliament meets in Strasbourg ? I don't think it because of the Brits throwing their toys out. Who vetoed the attempts to stop the EU travelling circus moving the parliament every few months? Who has vetoed any changes to CAP. Come to think about it, who said "Non" in 1967 ?
. . . since British politicians can't resist grandstanding for domestic reasons when everybody's trying to get something important done.
Just British politicians? Ha! They ALL play to their own domestic galleries, and you well know it! :-)
This is true, but for some reason the British are really, really into vetoing things.
You have to laugh... remind me again why the European Parliament meets in Strasbourg ? I don't think it because of the Brits throwing their toys out. Who vetoed the attempts to stop the EU travelling circus moving the parliament every few months? Who has vetoed any changes to CAP. Come to think about it, who said "Non" in 1967 ?
Perhaps the UK parliament should decant to Strasborug for the renovation, since it is woefully underused.
. . . since British politicians can't resist grandstanding for domestic reasons when everybody's trying to get something important done.
Just British politicians? Ha! They ALL play to their own domestic galleries, and you well know it! :-)
This is true, but for some reason the British are really, really into vetoing things.
The only reason we need to veto things is because the EU keeps doing twattish things that require vetoing.
Why the hell won't Germany and France and a few others in the Eurozone stump up a Wonga-loan of seven billion Euros to get the process of Greece's economic salvation kick-started? If there is sufficient risk of default to make them baulk, then they shouldn't be passing that risk over to the wider EU.
If I've understood the proposal correctly they don't intend to pass the risk over to the wider EU. Apparently tapping this EU fund just seemed like the quickest way to find 7 billion Euros at 4am on a Monday morning without waking a medium-sized country's voters. What do people here usually do in that situation?
Touch a few keys in the ECB and magic the money out of thin air, its what they have been doing for the past year or so, so they have had plenty of practise.
. . . since British politicians can't resist grandstanding for domestic reasons when everybody's trying to get something important done.
Just British politicians? Ha! They ALL play to their own domestic galleries, and you well know it! :-)
This is true, but for some reason the British are really, really into vetoing things.
Really? Veto's have been rare by anybody since the (in) famous "Luxembourg Compromise" - which was all about the French standing up for their interests. We weren't even in the EEC at the time. The dominant method of decision making since the Lisbon Treaty is QMV. The idea that Britain go about vetoing things is a myth. What we actually do is try to negotiate hard - then usually fail. We are rank amateurs compared to France and Spain at EU level.
. . . since British politicians can't resist grandstanding for domestic reasons when everybody's trying to get something important done.
Just British politicians? Ha! They ALL play to their own domestic galleries, and you well know it! :-)
This is true, but for some reason the British are really, really into vetoing things.
You have to laugh... remind me again why the European Parliament meets in Strasbourg ? I don't think it because of the Brits throwing their toys out. Who vetoed the attempts to stop the EU travelling circus moving the parliament every few months? Who has vetoed any changes to CAP. Come to think about it, who said "Non" in 1967 ?
This is true, but the French have a few known specifics they won't budge on, whereas with the British pretty much any high-level discussion is going to be picked up by the press as a menacing threat to Queen Elizabeth's ovaries and the Prime Minister ends up feeling like they have to demonstrate their patriotism by walking away without a deal.
Not everything is a conspiracy, and people really shouldn't get het up about Telegraph articles based on speculation. The EU is not trying to renege on the agreement with the UK on the EFSM loan. What they are trying to do is find some funds in the short-term, and the EFSM has some.
As regards the UK, what they have actually said is:
We are aware of serious concerns of non-Euro area Member States.
We are therefore working on arrangements to protect non-Euro area Member States from any negative financial consequences, should the EFSM loans not be re-paid.
Hilarious stuff. The EFSM guarantees the money advanced against the EU budget, for which we are liable on a pro rata basis. Cameron frequently claimed to the House of Commons without any qualification or proviso he had secured an opt out from this measure. Yet it is clear that notwithstanding his assurances, it can still be used in the same way it was to bail out Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Incidentally, if the eurozone countries are prepared to insure our contribution (for which there is no provision in the treaties), why are they not prepared to raise the bridging finance by way of bilateral loans to Greece?
We have only Cameron to blame for the accrual of this liability to lend to an insolvent, but let's not pretend that the EU institutions have not reneged on a political agreement.
I think for most of us it's also pretty clear that the government isn't serious about achieving anything other than a cosmetic set of changes that can be used to try to shut down the whole debate on EU membership permanently - just like 1976.
Well, certainly, if we are going to stay in the EU (and I think it is near-certain that we will, I've always said a referendum is unwinnable for the Out side), then shutting down the debate is a smart thing to do. Spending the next 20 years bitching about the EU but not actually leaving is in no-one's interest (except Labour's, I suppose).
Comments
I take a small salary and larger dividends currently, how that will change in the future I'm not yet certain. One thing is clear to me though, something like this has been on the cards for ages. Rightly or wrongly, it is seen as a dodge by many and it is quite hard to counter the arguments. I see your point about the quid-pro-quo for the lack of employment related perks and securities, but where we lose on the swings we gain on the roundabouts.
The changes that to concern me are the travel and subsistence related changes which could force some small consultancies out of business. Oh, and the as yet detail-less review of IR35.
That's 76.
Probably PASOK and To Potami too, that's 30.
So he can get it through with the support of less than half his party I think !
Golden Dawn and the communists againt (32)
Where do his Gov't partners, the Independent Greeks stand ?
Better luck this time, Mike?
I agree that he does have enough votes to get the package through - the problems come afterwards.
I can see both sides of the argument to an extent but there must be a lot of Tory voters who are pretty furious as the penny drops. Imagine if they whacked 7.5% on basic rate income tax in one go? There'd be riots. If it had to be introduced, surely an escalator would have been the fairest approach. Of course, Osborne isn't concerned about fairness or impact on the little people, he just wanted to get it out the way early on hoping it'd be forgiven and forgotten by his natural supporters by 2020.
Personally, I think the IMF intervention is a dealbreaker for the vote. They've effectively endorsed a form what Syriza have been asked for and not got from the EZ - meaningful, real debt relief.
The net effect depends on how much dividend income you take out. For basic-rate taxpayers it's 3.75% at £10K, 5% at £15K, 5.6% at £20K. Higher-rate taxpayers actually get a net benefit from the new structure, up to just over £20K. At £50K they lose out to the tune of £2,125 (4.25%).
Corp tax rate is down, personal allowance is up, the 5k dividend allowance is there too.
How this means I will need to balance my remuneration, I'm not yet certain. I am sure that I will be paying a bit more to HMRC than I do now, but it won't be 7.5% more than I do currently.
It could always use an extra laugh.
If it goes through, it makes very clear that any non-treaty agreement the UK strikes with the EU can be breached in future. No doubt, when that breach happens, they will pretend it is ok because they put something else in its stead. And that will last until the thing in its stead also needs to be abrogated.
Every agreement is flexible in the EU, apparently, to be changed whenever it does not serve the EU purposes. And then the Union's defenders will claim whatever replacement to the abrogation means no abrogation has happened.
This budget, as sole trader, didn't do me much harm but in the last government I lost all of my personal allowance, my child benefit and found more of my income subject to 40% tax. I'm not complaining. I accept bills have to be paid.
Having said that, one also has to be realistic about the alternative. If we leave the EU, we will still be very much subject to Eurozone decisions in practice. I think that staying in, with formal safeguards, is likely to be safer and more reliable than leaving and therefore giving up any hope of safeguards. Obviously we'll have to see how the negotiation pans out.
I hope the former, but the governance of the EU is fiendishly difficult to understand. If that is the way it goes, No will need to find an equally understandable and powerful counter to the latter, and highlights the problem of the EZ ability to screw us over very transparently.
https://twitter.com/LibDemLords/status/621293810648227840
The ECB has just finished printing a trillion new Euros for its QE program, and we are supposed to believe it cant find another 850m down the back of the sofa, its stretches credulity frankly.
I can quite image him telling us back in 1992 how Maastricht 'puts the break on federalism' alongside divers brainless Tory backbenchers who were put up for that purpose at the time.
And, I'm afraid, past experience (whatever happened to those promises on CAP?) and how they are dealing with this erode what little credibility the EU has left. Unless their feet are nailed to the floor, I simply think it is too risky to believe them.
We will suffer pain if we leave, of that I'm certain. But we can survive and prosper and we will govern ourselves. Better that than be taken for fools by an institution which does not value integrity and which treats one of its major funders with contempt.
I have been very uncertain about which way I might vote. Instinctively I feel that "In" is probably the better, more economically sensible choice but I have very serious reservations about the direction of travel of the EU. Then stuff like this happens and the general clusterf*ck that has been the way it has handled Greece and I think: "No. Enough already. I wouldn't vote to join this lot."
If they indulge in some free trade fantasy where we are bound to negotiate great deals with everyone which all work to our advantage they will have fallen into the same trap.
And on that scatological note, lunch ends and I must go back to work...
[1] a battle that may already have been lost...
It's the way you tell 'em.
What we are seeing at the moment is the bureaucrats scrabbling around to solve a problem (a problem which, ultimately, rises from the fact that the Eurozone is dominant in the EU but that it is not the same as the EU). There's nothing dishonest about it, it's a structural flaw in the EU (and, to be fair to them, one they recognised all along - which is why they tried to make Euro membership compulsory),
Words like "safeguards" are often used to have a line to trot out to the media regardless of the actual content. The only safeguard that truly protects the UK to the same extent as not using the fund is for the Eurozone members to make a payment to the UK of the difference. Somehow I doubt that is happening. I'm sure it will be some sort of financial doublespeak akin to George Osborne "halving the bill" for the EU payment a little while back.
They will offer us something very minor, but otherwise believe they can call our bluff, IMHO.
They’re over a barrel and their hands are tied, what else can they do? - It’s that cellar scene from Pulp Fiction…!
A scrap of paper? Well, that's difficult. As I've said before, there will inevitably be uncertainty on what exactly the renegotiation has achieved. But this is a false argument by the Out side, because, no matter how much uncertainty there is about what staying In would mean, there's going to be massively more uncertainty about what leaving would mean - there's not going to be a done-and-dusted trade agreement for us to sign up to. We'll just have to weigh up the uncertainties as part of the decision.
In the same way that Labour has no credibility dealing with the economy after effing it up everytime it gets its mitts on HMT, the EU are apparently trying to misuse our EU contributions to cover their own bankrupt sibling - despite promising not to do so. Being untrustworthy isn't a vote winner.
EZers should be sorting their own piggybank out - their bed, they lie in it.
The BOO critique of the EU needs to be joined up and fairly consistent to be a coherent campaign. That needs to include emphasising the benefits of self-governance.
It would then be up to the left/right wings of the BOO campaign to explain how and what they'd respectively exercise that self-governance for, in practice.
The practical problem is how you actually write a rule for "The Eurozone shouldn't act as a block to stitch up the non-Eurozone members" that stands the test of time. Euro membership may stay as it is for a long time (or shrink slightly) but it could also well grow to take in everyone except Britain, and they certainly won't want to give the British a veto on their own, since British politicians can't resist grandstanding for domestic reasons when everybody's trying to get something important done.
But we all know that whatever the outcome of the negotiations, you will call them a success Richard.
I think for most of us it's also pretty clear that the government isn't serious about achieving anything other than a cosmetic set of changes that can be used to try to shut down the whole debate on EU membership permanently - just like 1976.
I think the current NO strategy is shaping up to be that a 'NO' does not mean immediate exit, but a rejection of the renegotiated terms of membership if inadequate.
At which the bankers of Europe will give a sly smile and say "well, it did ME the power of good..."
- Will there be free movement of labour?
- Will there be protection for the City, guaranteeing that the Eurozone don't stitch us up?
- Will there be a free market in services?
- What about CAP and fisheries?
- Will we sign up to the EU/US trade agreement?
- What rights will UK citizens have in EU countries?
- Will we stay signed up to EU-style employment law?
- Will there be any customs formalities in EU/UK trade?
- How much will we pay?
(I take it as read that, in all circumstances, we'd stay signed up to EU VAT law and product type approvals, and that there will be no tariffs on manufactured goods).
Now, I suspect that I know what the Out side will say - just like Alex Salmond before IndyRef, they'll say we can have everything we want and the other side's views are immaterial. Well, I won't buy that.
I had previously had reservations about the EEA but it is looking like the best option to me. It does not address the freedom of movement issue but other than that it seems to give us what we want at a much lower cost and with a lot more leeway over a wide range of areas. It looks like a sensible compromise to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33533264
Why the hell won't Germany and France and a few others in the Eurozone stump up a Wonga-loan of seven billion Euros to get the process of Greece's economic salvation kick-started? If there is sufficient risk of default to make them baulk, then they shouldn't be passing that risk over to the wider EU.
Sites were sold as one portfolio by the Regeneration Investment Fund for Wales (RIFW) for £21m three years ago.
But the District Valuer, in a report by the public spending watchdog the Wales Audit Office, valued them at £36m if they had been sold separately.
Auditors also said there were flaws in the sale process and weaknesses in the advice to the RIFW board, in particular from the property consultants Lambert Smith Hampton......
It also said some parties involved in the deal had relationships with the buyer and seller that could have given rise to potential conflicts of interest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33532893
Yes - it's precisely because it is that, that Richard N and others are desperately spinning against it. Other countries, smaller and weaker than us, have got a better deal - exactly what Europhiles have always argued can't be achieved.
I would prefer a complete 'out' but I would settle for EEA membership if we can't get that straight away.
None of these things are in the gift of the Out campaign. They can (at best) say what they would like to happen, but they aren't the government.
Posing that list of questions is just another way of stating that there are no conceivable circumstances in which you would favour Out.
The veteran leftwinger has surprised observers by collecting 40 nominations from local parties, just eight less than the bookmakers' favourite, Andy Burnham. Yvette Cooper has 30. Liz Kendall is way back in fourth place with just five.
http://news.sky.com/story/1519429/theresa-may-rules-out-water-cannon-for-police
I think he might have damaged a rib laughing
- We want to join the EEA
- We want control over EU immigration.
Well, you can have one, or the other, but you can't have both. Which would you like?
The dominant method of decision making since the Lisbon Treaty is QMV.
The idea that Britain go about vetoing things is a myth. What we actually do is try to negotiate hard - then usually fail. We are rank amateurs compared to France and Spain at EU level.
Yowser
New Thread
We have only Cameron to blame for the accrual of this liability to lend to an insolvent, but let's not pretend that the EU institutions have not reneged on a political agreement.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11741659/Jeremy-Corbyn-set-to-win-Labour-leadership-shock-poll-reveals.html
Looking forward to seeing if I've continued my losing streak...