'Kate Hoey thinks the whole thing is a corporatist racket' There is certainly a very strong element of that, hence the considerable support for the EU in the boardrooms of bigger firms which are either a) the recipients of government largesse b) ultra-bureaucratic organisations which in many ways resemble government departments or c) believe (rightly) the EU is an excellent target for lobbying that will allow them to entrench their market position.
And perhaps even more crucially, EU bureacracy squeezes out smaller competitors who don't have vast compliance, 'elf n' safety and HR departments who can deal with EU red tape. Big business liking the EU is like someone playing golf at an expensive club - it does cost more but it keeps out the riff raff. Unfortunately for the public, this is directly antithetical to their interests, as most employment comes from SMEs not big companies.
'Europhilia in the Conservative party is dying out.'
Overt Europhilia is now limited to a few superannuated characters. But we still have a more covert kind of EU support among 'court' Tories.
This version wishes to perpetuate the myth that the UK can be 'In Europe but not run by Europe' (remember that?). In reality what it boils down to is senior politicians and civil servants desperately wanting to remain at the 'top table' attending summits and taking selfies etc.
In many ways this latter form of Europhilia is more dishonest than that practised by Heseltine etc. and it is also less honourable as it is mostly about self-importance and self-advancement.
The polling shows Conservative supporters being fairly equally divided between Leave and Remain.
But unlike the Labour party, it's the MPs that matter.
The Hague article in the Telegraph is titled: 'If we leave the EU it will break up the UK and destabilise Europe - I'm in.'
My own view is: ''If we leave the EU it will break up the UK and destabilise Europe - I'm out.'
A perhaps trite way of pointing out that the 'negatives' many Inners like to parade are in fact features not bugs for many others of us.
I found Hague's craven fear of the Nat reaction especially contemptible.
The crapped pants of the fortnight leading up to 18/09/14 have evidently left their mark.
Sadly, the nats, were too inept to bring home a yes vote. Even against what they loudly proclaim to have been crap opposition. God knows what a trouncing they would have received if they been up against anybody who was half decent.
A little piqued, are we?
Since nobody half decent existed, that's not even a hypotheses.
'Kate Hoey thinks the whole thing is a corporatist racket'
There is certainly a very strong element of that, hence the considerable support for the EU in the boardrooms of bigger firms which are either a) the recipients of government largesse b) ultra-bureaucratic organisations which in many ways resemble government departments or c) believe (rightly) the EU is an excellent target for lobbying that will allow them to entrench their market position.
And perhaps even more crucially, EU bureacracy squeezes out smaller competitors who don't have vast compliance, 'elf n' safety and HR departments who can deal with EU red tape. Big business liking the EU is like someone playing golf at an expensive club - it does cost more but it keeps out the riff raff. Unfortunately for the public, this is directly antithetical to their interests, as most employment comes from SMEs not big companies.
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
'Europhilia in the Conservative party is dying out.'
Overt Europhilia is now limited to a few superannuated characters. But we still have a more covert kind of EU support among 'court' Tories.
This version wishes to perpetuate the myth that the UK can be 'In Europe but not run by Europe' (remember that?). In reality what it boils down to is senior politicians and civil servants desperately wanting to remain at the 'top table' attending summits and taking selfies etc.
In many ways this latter form of Europhilia is more dishonest than that practised by Heseltine etc. and it is also less honourable as it is mostly about self-importance and self-advancement.
The polling shows Conservative supporters being fairly equally divided between Leave and Remain.
What about members though. I believe it is about 70% for Out amongst actual members.
'Europhilia in the Conservative party is dying out.'
Overt Europhilia is now limited to a few superannuated characters. But we still have a more covert kind of EU support among 'court' Tories.
This version wishes to perpetuate the myth that the UK can be 'In Europe but not run by Europe' (remember that?). In reality what it boils down to is senior politicians and civil servants desperately wanting to remain at the 'top table' attending summits and taking selfies etc.
In many ways this latter form of Europhilia is more dishonest than that practised by Heseltine etc. and it is also less honourable as it is mostly about self-importance and self-advancement.
The polling shows Conservative supporters being fairly equally divided between Leave and Remain.
Polling showed a hung parliament or small Labour majority.....
'Europhilia in the Conservative party is dying out.'
Overt Europhilia is now limited to a few superannuated characters. But we still have a more covert kind of EU support among 'court' Tories.
This version wishes to perpetuate the myth that the UK can be 'In Europe but not run by Europe' (remember that?). In reality what it boils down to is senior politicians and civil servants desperately wanting to remain at the 'top table' attending summits and taking selfies etc.
In many ways this latter form of Europhilia is more dishonest than that practised by Heseltine etc. and it is also less honourable as it is mostly about self-importance and self-advancement.
The polling shows Conservative supporters being fairly equally divided between Leave and Remain.
But unlike the Labour party, it's the MPs that matter.
They look to be shaping up fairly evenly too, perhaps with Remain having the edge.
Though I would dispute your notion. This is a plebiscite not a parliamentary vote.
I see about a 30% core Leave vote (Kippers and half the Tories) so a long way to go to 50% +1.
It would be hard for the Leavers to marshall an argument against the EU doing things that we consider outrageous should we Leave. After all that is what Leave want us to sign up for: no influence at all on policy making on our continent.
You are increasingly sounding like someone whom suffers from Attention-Seeking-Disorder: Please desist....
'Europhilia in the Conservative party is dying out.'
Overt Europhilia is now limited to a few superannuated characters. But we still have a more covert kind of EU support among 'court' Tories.
This version wishes to perpetuate the myth that the UK can be 'In Europe but not run by Europe' (remember that?). In reality what it boils down to is senior politicians and civil servants desperately wanting to remain at the 'top table' attending summits and taking selfies etc.
In many ways this latter form of Europhilia is more dishonest than that practised by Heseltine etc. and it is also less honourable as it is mostly about self-importance and self-advancement.
The polling shows Conservative supporters being fairly equally divided between Leave and Remain.
But unlike the Labour party, it's the MPs that matter.
They look to be shaping up fairly evenly too, perhaps with Remain having the edge.
Though I would dispute your notion. This is a plebiscite not a parliamentary vote.
I see about a 30% core Leave vote (Kippers and half the Tories) so a long way to go to 50% +1.
There is probably only about a 20% core Remain vote, though. So it comes down to how many of the other 50% can be persuaded to vote,
'Kate Hoey thinks the whole thing is a corporatist racket'
There is certainly a very strong element of that, hence the considerable support for the EU in the boardrooms of bigger firms which are either a) the recipients of government largesse b) ultra-bureaucratic organisations which in many ways resemble government departments or c) believe (rightly) the EU is an excellent target for lobbying that will allow them to entrench their market position.
And perhaps even more crucially, EU bureacracy squeezes out smaller competitors who don't have vast compliance, 'elf n' safety and HR departments who can deal with EU red tape. Big business liking the EU is like someone playing golf at an expensive club - it does cost more but it keeps out the riff raff. Unfortunately for the public, this is directly antithetical to their interests, as most employment comes from SMEs not big companies.
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
It would be nice if the EU could see fit to extend the same courtesy to those of us who manage recreation-result-dependent financial services firms. Instead they have protected various governmental monopolies who offer terrible value products, in some cases operating purely on a pooling with commission basis.
'Kate Hoey thinks the whole thing is a corporatist racket'
There is certainly a very strong element of that, hence the considerable support for the EU in the boardrooms of bigger firms which are either a) the recipients of government largesse b) ultra-bureaucratic organisations which in many ways resemble government departments or c) believe (rightly) the EU is an excellent target for lobbying that will allow them to entrench their market position.
And perhaps even more crucially, EU bureacracy squeezes out smaller competitors who don't have vast compliance, 'elf n' safety and HR departments who can deal with EU red tape. Big business liking the EU is like someone playing golf at an expensive club - it does cost more but it keeps out the riff raff. Unfortunately for the public, this is directly antithetical to their interests, as most employment comes from SMEs not big companies.
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
It would be nice if the EU could see fit to extend the same courtesy to those of us who manage recreation-result-dependent financial services firms. Instead they have protected various governmental monopolies who offer terrible value products, in some cases operating purely on a pooling with commission basis.
Am I being dim: is a "recreation-result-dependent financial services firm" another way of saying "bookmaker"?
'Europhilia in the Conservative party is dying out.'
Overt Europhilia is now limited to a few superannuated characters. But we still have a more covert kind of EU support among 'court' Tories.
This version wishes to perpetuate the myth that the UK can be 'In Europe but not run by Europe' (remember that?). In reality what it boils down to is senior politicians and civil servants desperately wanting to remain at the 'top table' attending summits and taking selfies etc.
In many ways this latter form of Europhilia is more dishonest than that practised by Heseltine etc. and it is also less honourable as it is mostly about self-importance and self-advancement.
The polling shows Conservative supporters being fairly equally divided between Leave and Remain.
But unlike the Labour party, it's the MPs that matter.
They look to be shaping up fairly evenly too, perhaps with Remain having the edge.
Though I would dispute your notion. This is a plebiscite not a parliamentary vote.
I see about a 30% core Leave vote (Kippers and half the Tories) so a long way to go to 50% +1.
You may well be right, but your logic is wonky because of differential turnout. If 100% of the committed core leave vote turns out, and most of the rest of the population can't be bothered and less than half of it turns out, then leave have it in the bag.
In the current context the smart move for leave would be to bore the pants off the floating voter and suggest to them that there is nothing to see and it's safe to stay at home. Come to think about it, the current bumbling of the leave campaign and the gloating from the Remain campaign might have just that effect.
'Kate Hoey thinks the whole thing is a corporatist racket'
There is certainly a very strong element of that, hence the considerable support for the EU in the boardrooms of bigger firms which are either a) the recipients of government largesse b) ultra-bureaucratic organisations which in many ways resemble government departments or c) believe (rightly) the EU is an excellent target for lobbying that will allow them to entrench their market position.
And perhaps even more crucially, EU bureacracy squeezes out smaller competitors who don't have vast compliance, 'elf n' safety and HR departments who can deal with EU red tape. Big business liking the EU is like someone playing golf at an expensive club - it does cost more but it keeps out the riff raff. Unfortunately for the public, this is directly antithetical to their interests, as most employment comes from SMEs not big companies.
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
I'm happy to take your point, but that's one area. I don't think the fact that the EU has lead to a large increase of the regulatory burden on UK companies is widely disputed even by its fans.
Apparently it will all sweet smiles after the referendum. So people who have been banging on about Europe for a generation [ like many here ] will suddenly accept a 51-49 result particularly when their Prime Minister votes to REMAIN as he no doubt will.
Incidentally there's a gift for Leave on the front page of The Times this morning, 55,000 EU officials are to be given a christmas bonus.
I'm sure we all agree that's money well spent and that a bonus for these essential workers should be prioritised over spending on heath care, provision for refugees and aid for the flood victims in Carlisle.
55,000 people, the size of a provincial town, and otherwise rational people will be voting to remain part of it. I'm hoping the Inners on here will attempt to justify this criminal waste of taxpayer's money.
I dunno. I, like 99.75% of the population neither buy the times or subscribe, so I can't actually read the article. But from the paragraph an a half I get for free, I can just about make out that the EU has 55,000 staff and they get paid at Christmas. And that they got a 2.4% pay rise this year.
If that's all there is, it'll enrage a few senile kippers while everyone else just shrugs their shoulders.
Is your expectation that the translators & whatever shouldn't get paid at christmas? Or is it the 2.4% payrise that is so outrageous?
"A few senile kippers".
For somebody who writes such lucid articles your level of debate rarely rises above that of a teenager which I find surprising. I'm reasonably sure the front page of the The Times isn't targeting "a few senile kippers", but well done, you crowbarred it in.
The 2.4% was paid as a lump sum, it amounted to £74m, you clearly consider it money well spent, I don't, for reasons I've already pointed out.
2.4% bonus paid as a lump sum is quite modest. Many Brits will get similar ones, whether working in the city or in John Lewis.
Considering the size of its institutions and budget, the euro-civil service is a very reasonable size.
If the EU is such a reasonable size, you have to wonder why the EU Commission has gone to great lengths to play down the total number of people working for the EU. The true figure is not quite the 20,000 they claim, it is in fact closer to 170,000.
'Kate Hoey thinks the whole thing is a corporatist racket'
There is certainly a very strong element of that, hence the considerable support for the EU in the boardrooms of bigger firms which are either a) the recipients of government largesse b) ultra-bureaucratic organisations which in many ways resemble government departments or c) believe (rightly) the EU is an excellent target for lobbying that will allow them to entrench their market position.
And perhaps even more crucially, EU bureacracy squeezes out smaller competitors who don't have vast compliance, 'elf n' safety and HR departments who can deal with EU red tape. Big business liking the EU is like someone playing golf at an expensive club - it does cost more but it keeps out the riff raff. Unfortunately for the public, this is directly antithetical to their interests, as most employment comes from SMEs not big companies.
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
It would be nice if the EU could see fit to extend the same courtesy to those of us who manage recreation-result-dependent financial services firms. Instead they have protected various governmental monopolies who offer terrible value products, in some cases operating purely on a pooling with commission basis.
Ending restrictions on UK bookies in Europe should be a core part of Camerons renegotiation. It could swing PB behind Remain...
'Europhilia in the Conservative party is dying out.'
Overt Europhilia is now limited to a few superannuated characters. But we still have a more covert kind of EU support among 'court' Tories.
This version wishes to perpetuate the myth that the UK can be 'In Europe but not run by Europe' (remember that?). In reality what it boils down to is senior politicians and civil servants desperately wanting to remain at the 'top table' attending summits and taking selfies etc.
In many ways this latter form of Europhilia is more dishonest than that practised by Heseltine etc. and it is also less honourable as it is mostly about self-importance and self-advancement.
The polling shows Conservative supporters being fairly equally divided between Leave and Remain.
But unlike the Labour party, it's the MPs that matter.
They look to be shaping up fairly evenly too, perhaps with Remain having the edge.
Though I would dispute your notion. This is a plebiscite not a parliamentary vote.
I see about a 30% core Leave vote (Kippers and half the Tories) so a long way to go to 50% +1.
You're confusing issues - this was about Europhilia within the Tory party, where TGOHF's argument is that it will die out and the parliamentary party will elect a eurosceptic. It wasn't about the referendum.
Apparently it will all sweet smiles after the referendum. So people who have been banging on about Europe for a generation [ like many here ] will suddenly accept a 51-49 result particularly when their Prime Minister votes to REMAIN as he no doubt will.
No, and the resulting tidal wave of (bad) blood in the Tory party is going to be big enough to sink a few little boats like Osborne's leadership ambitions.
A change of 0.1% in a guesstimate/forecast is a problem????
Much worse to come as I have been posting here since October. We sell only to manufacturing industry and a little bit to Utilities. Q1 , we grew over 10%, Q2 = 0%, Q3=3%, Q4 = -12% [ each month has been below -10% ].
The figures are even worse than it shows because our number of buying customers have actually increased by 2.5% !!!!
Manufacturing, particularly those involved in exports, is in big trouble !
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
I'm happy to take your point, but that's one area. I don't think the fact that the EU has lead to a large increase of the regulatory burden on UK companies is widely disputed even by its fans.
(Each of which is seriously awesome: and if you need live score data, a Python Platform as a Service, back-end technology for a bookmaker, or investment research, you know where to get them!)
Of these, we have been touched by EU bureaucracy exactly one occasion, although that was quite a seriously negative, that cost quite a lot of time and effort to sort out.
If you don't sell physical products, then the burden of regulation in the UK - whether from the UK government or the EU - is pretty light. You do annual returns for Companies House in the UK; and you do VAT returns and taxations stuff for the HMRC. That is literally it, as far as regulation goes.
A change of 0.1% in a guesstimate/forecast is a problem????
Much worse to come as I have been posting here since October. We sell only to manufacturing industry and a little bit to Utilities. Q1 , we grew over 10%, Q2 = 0%, Q3=3%, Q4 = -12% [ each month has been below -10% ].
Manufacturing, particularly those involved in exports, is in big trouble !
Have you considered making something people want to buy?
''Apparently it will all sweet smiles after the referendum.''
To be fair, I don;t think any tory here really disputes the notion that the party is split on Europe, and has been for decades.
The nature of the split, however, is different. Its Dave and the tory voters versus the tory party and a big majority of the MPs.
Looking at the EU ref polls, the OUT is somewhere between 45 and 50% at the moment, if we assume that 15% of those are kippers, the other 30-35% come from other parties, if they aren't lefties, then that is almost all the Tory vote at the last election.... or a lot of Labourites are for OUT despite that their MPs might think.
BBC: "in its World Oil Outlook report, Opec said oil would rise to $70 a barrel by 2020 and in the long term would continue higher."
Just in time for IndyRef2!
$70 in 2020.
It's amazing how perspectives change. 18 months ago you would need to be an uber-bear to predict $70 in 2020. Now $70 in 2020 is considered a bullish forecast.
''or a lot of Labourites are for OUT despite that their MPs might think. ''
Not sure. I suspect a healthy majority of Brits would be content with something in between what Dave is proposing and a full out.
How that translates into what will happen politically, I don;t know. I have a feeling that we may see something like the Scottish referendum ie everything going smoothly for remain until the final few weeks - when the polls start to turn to out.
That will trigger a desperate scrabbling by the establishment, with further concessions (real or imagined), promised.
BBC: "in its World Oil Outlook report, Opec said oil would rise to $70 a barrel by 2020 and in the long term would continue higher."
Just in time for IndyRef2!
$70 in 2020.
It's amazing how perspectives change. 18 months ago you would need to be an uber-bear to predict $70 in 2020. Now $70 in 2020 is considered a bullish forecast.
People are not realising how much renewables are catching on. Europe led the way but now China and India have caught the zeal of the convert. USA too. Two of the largest solar plants were constructed only recently. Solar is growing by about 100% every year.
BBC: "in its World Oil Outlook report, Opec said oil would rise to $70 a barrel by 2020 and in the long term would continue higher."
Just in time for IndyRef2!
$70 in 2020.
It's amazing how perspectives change. 18 months ago you would need to be an uber-bear to predict $70 in 2020. Now $70 in 2020 is considered a bullish forecast.
People are not realising how much renewables are catching on. Europe led the way but now China and India have caught the zeal of the convert. USA too. Two of the largest solar plants were constructed only recently. Solar is growing by about 100% every year.
People are not realising how much renewables are catching on. Europe led the way but now China and India have caught the zeal of the convert. USA too. Two of the largest solar plants were constructed only recently. Solar is growing by about 100% every year.
Sachin Tendulkar is - apparently - well informed in tax-allowances and wind-farms. Not sure the UK got there first though....
William Hill aren't in the habit of giving away Christmas presents if anyone fancies the 16-1 about the 2 Hilarys.Unless the membership of the Labour party changes,Benn is a non-starter.With regard to Mrs Clinton,I still think the amount of people who are feeling the Bern,makes backing Democrat at 8-11 the better bet.Rubio will not get the 35% Hispanic vote he needs and the demographics across the whole country mean current GOP cannot win.
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
I'm happy to take your point, but that's one area. I don't think the fact that the EU has lead to a large increase of the regulatory burden on UK companies is widely disputed even by its fans.
(Each of which is seriously awesome: and if you need live score data, a Python Platform as a Service, back-end technology for a bookmaker, or investment research, you know where to get them!)
Of these, we have been touched by EU bureaucracy exactly one occasion, although that was quite a seriously negative, that cost quite a lot of time and effort to sort out.
If you don't sell physical products, then the burden of regulation in the UK - whether from the UK government or the EU - is pretty light. You do annual returns for Companies House in the UK; and you do VAT returns and taxations stuff for the HMRC. That is literally it, as far as regulation goes.
And we would also re-invent alot of it anyway. In my area of work we would clearly have Environmental Impact Regulations, procurement guidelines and competition policy. In the latter case the EU can probably be more trusted than national Governments to take on large multi-nationals and stop support of national champions and barriers to entry.
I suspect a substantial part of parliamentary business on exit would be amending SIs to remove references to EU laws but leaving the rest of them substantially intact.
A change of 0.1% in a guesstimate/forecast is a problem????
Much worse to come as I have been posting here since October. We sell only to manufacturing industry and a little bit to Utilities. Q1 , we grew over 10%, Q2 = 0%, Q3=3%, Q4 = -12% [ each month has been below -10% ].
The figures are even worse than it shows because our number of buying customers have actually increased by 2.5% !!!!
Manufacturing, particularly those involved in exports, is in big trouble !
I suspect a substantial part of parliamentary business on exit would be amending SIs to remove references to EU laws but leaving the rest of them substantially intact
The most useful change I would think would be so that EU exports didn't have to comply with both EU standards and those of the target market. Having to apply both EU and say Japanese standards must put us at a distinct competitive disadvantage compared to non-EU countries who can comply only with the Japanese standards, saving them at the least one set of paperwork if not being able to trim requirements as well. Having to apply EU standards to each countries domestic market is rather an imposition as well.
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
I'm happy to take your point, but that's one area. I don't think the fact that the EU has lead to a large increase of the regulatory burden on UK companies is widely disputed even by its fans.
You think wrong...:-)
I once saw a Telegraph article that blamed the EU for the capsizing of the Costa Concordia. I parodied this stance as "Something has happened: quick, let's blame the EU". Simply put, the EU has become an Universal Villain: everything that exists or happens is blamed on it.
Your statement "...the fact that the EU has lead to a large increase of the regulatory burden on UK companies..." presupposes that a) there has been a large increase in regulatory burden, b) it's caused by membership of the EU, c) it will disappear on LEAVE.
I can believe in the first part (HR departments are larger now than, say 1980?), although I'd like to see it quantified. But the second and third parts? Not so much. I know it's like swearing in church, but (whisper it) it may just be possible that the regs were driven by/agreed by the UK and will not in fact be removed post-LEAVE.
Remember the "bonfire of the quangos" that never happened?
''Apparently it will all sweet smiles after the referendum.'' .
Looking at the EU ref polls, the OUT is somewhere between 45 and 50% at the moment, if we assume that 15% of those are kippers, the other 30-35% come from other parties, if they aren't lefties, then that is almost all the Tory vote at the last election.... or a lot of Labourites are for OUT despite that their MPs might think.
I suspect a substantial part of parliamentary business on exit would be amending SIs to remove references to EU laws but leaving the rest of them substantially intact
The most useful change I would think would be so that EU exports didn't have to comply with both EU standards and those of the target market. Having to apply both EU and say Japanese standards must put us at a distinct competitive disadvantage compared to non-EU countries who can comply only with the Japanese standards, saving them at the least one set of paperwork if not being able to trim requirements as well. Having to apply EU standards to each countries domestic market is rather an imposition as well.
Do people really only produce products for only one market? When I was involved with a solar battery company, they got the same product certified for US, Japan, Australia and Europe - simply because it was easier to have one production line than three or four.
''Apparently it will all sweet smiles after the referendum.'' .
Looking at the EU ref polls, the OUT is somewhere between 45 and 50% at the moment, if we assume that 15% of those are kippers, the other 30-35% come from other parties, if they aren't lefties, then that is almost all the Tory vote at the last election.... or a lot of Labourites are for OUT despite that their MPs might think.
Edited extra bit: and that's disregarding that a referendum is a different beast to an election. A Stay can always change to a Leave later, whereas Leave is for life.
Minefornothing French gross public debt grew 3.3% Y/Y in Q3 to €2.10 trillion, as a share of GDP up to 96.9% from 95.6%
Interestingly, a 3.3% increase in gross government debt is nothing spectacular. The issue is that normally - as underlying economies grow, and as inflation eats away at the value of money - the burden relative to GDP falls.
The problem France has is that it's economy isn't growing much, and there is bugger all inflation.
France is the sick man of Europe right now. Too scared to reform, and too unreformed to grow.
Not necessarily. If they thought the Tories in a majority were more likely to deliver economic stability. Nationalism is entirely different and preferred by men. That's full of machismo.
''Rubio will not get the 35% Hispanic vote he needs and the demographics across the whole country mean current GOP cannot win.''
In that case, why are they bothering to stand?
It is worth remembering that the GOP don't actually need to change that many votes to get over the line (although only with a bare minimum, which would make it harder to hold in 2020)
They need: all the states they won last time + Florida (Obama won by 0.88%) + Ohio (Obama won by 2.98%) + Virginia (Obama won by 3.87%) + Colorado OR Iowa (Obama won by 5.37% and 5.81% respectively). Other states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Nevada, Minnesota and Wisconsin are also in play. Really the only traditional swing state that has irretrievably moved away from the Republicans due to demographic change is New Mexico. At the same time Missouri has gone the other way
And we would also re-invent alot of it anyway. In my area of work we would clearly have Environmental Impact Regulations, procurement guidelines and competition policy. In the latter case the EU can probably be more trusted than national Governments to take on large multi-nationals and stop support of national champions and barriers to entry.
I suspect a substantial part of parliamentary business on exit would be amending SIs to remove references to EU laws but leaving the rest of them substantially intact.
Well, Mr. Tom, if you are right then at least Parliament will have a chance to decide whether we want said regulations and if so in what form and to what extent. If the British electorate don't like the decision made than they will be able to "vote the rascals out". Which is sort of the point of being an independent, democratic nation state.
As to the EU taking on large multi-nationals and stopping support of National Champions, I can hear the cries of derisive laughter even from down here in rural Sussex. True they have conducted a few well-publicised search and destroy missions (e.g. Microsoft) but much more has been done that supports the big boys to the disadvantage of smaller players trying to break in to their markets and as for National champions I refer you to France.
''Apparently it will all sweet smiles after the referendum.'' .
Looking at the EU ref polls, the OUT is somewhere between 45 and 50% at the moment, if we assume that 15% of those are kippers, the other 30-35% come from other parties, if they aren't lefties, then that is almost all the Tory vote at the last election.... or a lot of Labourites are for OUT despite that their MPs might think.
Minefornothing French gross public debt grew 3.3% Y/Y in Q3 to €2.10 trillion, as a share of GDP up to 96.9% from 95.6%
Interestingly, a 3.3% increase in gross government debt is nothing spectacular. The issue is that normally - as underlying economies grow, and as inflation eats away at the value of money - the burden relative to GDP falls.
The problem France has is that it's economy isn't growing much, and there is bugger all inflation.
France is the sick man of Europe right now. Too scared to reform, and too unreformed to grow.
so we dropped .01 % in the 3rd quarter.. fucking catastrophe..Beachy Head beckons..Can Ed Conway be at the front of the queue...he is so happy when he is miserable..
'Kate Hoey thinks the whole thing is a corporatist racket'
There is certainly a very strong element of that, hence the considerable support for the EU in the boardrooms of bigger firms which are either a) the recipients of government largesse b) ultra-bureaucratic organisations which in many ways resemble government departments or c) believe (rightly) the EU is an excellent target for lobbying that will allow them to entrench their market position.
And perhaps even more crucially, EU bureacracy squeezes out smaller competitors who don't have vast compliance, 'elf n' safety and HR departments who can deal with EU red tape. Big business liking the EU is like someone playing golf at an expensive club - it does cost more but it keeps out the riff raff. Unfortunately for the public, this is directly antithetical to their interests, as most employment comes from SMEs not big companies.
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
That would be the same passport the EU is trying so very hard to deny for non-EMU countries yes?
BBC: "in its World Oil Outlook report, Opec said oil would rise to $70 a barrel by 2020 and in the long term would continue higher."
Just in time for IndyRef2!
$70 in 2020.
It's amazing how perspectives change. 18 months ago you would need to be an uber-bear to predict $70 in 2020. Now $70 in 2020 is considered a bullish forecast.
People are not realising how much renewables are catching on. Europe led the way but now China and India have caught the zeal of the convert. USA too. Two of the largest solar plants were constructed only recently. Solar is growing by about 100% every year.
Renewables will have to manage without the govt subsidy in future. And without a govt subsidy what will be the cost of 'renewing' all those solar panels?
'Kate Hoey thinks the whole thing is a corporatist racket'
There is certainly a very strong element of that, hence the considerable support for the EU in the boardrooms of bigger firms which are either a) the recipients of government largesse b) ultra-bureaucratic organisations which in many ways resemble government departments or c) believe (rightly) the EU is an excellent target for lobbying that will allow them to entrench their market position.
And perhaps even more crucially, EU bureacracy squeezes out smaller competitors who don't have vast compliance, 'elf n' safety and HR departments who can deal with EU red tape. Big business liking the EU is like someone playing golf at an expensive club - it does cost more but it keeps out the riff raff. Unfortunately for the public, this is directly antithetical to their interests, as most employment comes from SMEs not big companies.
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
That would be the same passport the EU is trying so very hard to deny for non-EMU countries yes?
so we dropped .01 % in the 3rd quarter.. fucking catastrophe..Beachy Head beckons..Can Ed Conway be at the front of the queue...he is so happy when he is miserable..
The ONS has cut its estimate of GDP growth for Quarters 2 and 3 by 0.2% and 0.1% respectively. Growth over 12 months is now 2.1% - a rate of growth somewhat below trend. Clear signs of slowdown there!
BBC: "in its World Oil Outlook report, Opec said oil would rise to $70 a barrel by 2020 and in the long term would continue higher."
Just in time for IndyRef2!
$70 in 2020.
It's amazing how perspectives change. 18 months ago you would need to be an uber-bear to predict $70 in 2020. Now $70 in 2020 is considered a bullish forecast.
People are not realising how much renewables are catching on. Europe led the way but now China and India have caught the zeal of the convert. USA too. Two of the largest solar plants were constructed only recently. Solar is growing by about 100% every year.
Renewables will have to manage without the govt subsidy in future. And without a govt subsidy what will be the cost of 'renewing' all those solar panels?
"New tax breaks for North Sea oil and gas production announced by the chancellor, George Osborne, earlier in 2015 will cost taxpayers a further £1.7bn by 2020, according to government figures."
'Kate Hoey thinks the whole thing is a corporatist racket'
There is certainly a very strong element of that, hence the considerable support for the EU in the boardrooms of bigger firms which are either a) the recipients of government largesse b) ultra-bureaucratic organisations which in many ways resemble government departments or c) believe (rightly) the EU is an excellent target for lobbying that will allow them to entrench their market position.
And perhaps even more crucially, EU bureacracy squeezes out smaller competitors who don't have vast compliance, 'elf n' safety and HR departments who can deal with EU red tape. Big business liking the EU is like someone playing golf at an expensive club - it does cost more but it keeps out the riff raff. Unfortunately for the public, this is directly antithetical to their interests, as most employment comes from SMEs not big companies.
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
That would be the same passport the EU is trying so very hard to deny for non-EMU countries yes?
Source?
There's an on going ECJ case the government brought against the EBA iirc. I think we won round one. The gist was that they wanted to introduce a Euro passport instead of an EU passport which would lock out countries which had no intention of joining the Euro. I'll have to look for the details later as I'm almost out of the door until the new year!
so we dropped .01 % in the 3rd quarter.. fucking catastrophe..Beachy Head beckons..Can Ed Conway be at the front of the queue...he is so happy when he is miserable..
And we would also re-invent alot of it anyway. In my area of work we would clearly have Environmental Impact Regulations, procurement guidelines and competition policy. In the latter case the EU can probably be more trusted than national Governments to take on large multi-nationals and stop support of national champions and barriers to entry.
I suspect a substantial part of parliamentary business on exit would be amending SIs to remove references to EU laws but leaving the rest of them substantially intact.
.....As to the EU taking on large multi-nationals and stopping support of National Champions, I can hear the cries of derisive laughter even from down here in rural Sussex. True they have conducted a few well-publicised search and destroy missions (e.g. Microsoft) but much more has been done that supports the big boys to the disadvantage of smaller players trying to break in to their markets and as for National champions I refer you to France.
so we dropped .01 % in the 3rd quarter.. fucking catastrophe..Beachy Head beckons..Can Ed Conway be at the front of the queue...he is so happy when he is miserable..
"Renewables will have to manage without the govt subsidy in future. And without a govt subsidy what will be the cost of 'renewing' all those solar panels?"
My index-linked subsidy lasts for another 20 years, and solar panels are getting cheaper all the time. The best annuity ever. All hail the marvellous Milliband.
Working at a small fund manager, I have exactly the opposite experience. The EU has a system called the single financial passport. This means that if you are regulated in one country in the EU, you can sell to customers in all EU countries.
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
I'm happy to take your point, but that's one area. I don't think the fact that the EU has lead to a large increase of the regulatory burden on UK companies is widely disputed even by its fans.
You think wrong...:-)
I once saw a Telegraph article that blamed the EU for the capsizing of the Costa Concordia. I parodied this stance as "Something has happened: quick, let's blame the EU". Simply put, the EU has become an Universal Villain: everything that exists or happens is blamed on it.
Your statement "...the fact that the EU has lead to a large increase of the regulatory burden on UK companies..." presupposes that a) there has been a large increase in regulatory burden, b) it's caused by membership of the EU, c) it will disappear on LEAVE.
I can believe in the first part (HR departments are larger now than, say 1980?), although I'd like to see it quantified. But the second and third parts? Not so much. I know it's like swearing in church, but (whisper it) it may just be possible that the regs were driven by/agreed by the UK and will not in fact be removed post-LEAVE.
Remember the "bonfire of the quangos" that never happened?
[EDIT: unfuck HTML]
Of course it's possible. It's possible that a future UK Government may order the death of every firstborn and ban Christmas. The point is that the responsibility and the choice will lie with them, and ultimately with the electorate. I don't see leaving the EU as a panacea for all ills, and I hope no-one else does - if Leave wins it's just the beginning. But it's better than no beginning at all.
In an in-depth interview with the Far-Left Red Pepper website, the Labour leader suggested that the party’s humiliating defeat in the 1983 general election was because of a “xenophobic” campaign by Margaret Thatcher’s government based on the Falklands War.
The comment is the latest insult to islanders who have fiercely opposed being taken over by Argentina and the veterans who lost their lives and suffered injuries in the campaign in 1982 when fascist leader General Leopoldo Galtieri ordered the invasion.
Previously, Mr Corbyn has provoked outrage on the same issue when he described the war as “a plot” by Margaret Thatcher to distract from unemployment in Britain as she restructured the economy.
The ONS has cut its estimate of GDP growth for Quarters 2 and 3 by 0.2% and 0.1% respectively. Growth over 12 months is now 2.1% - a rate of growth somewhat below trend. Clear signs of slowdown there!
Do you understand the 'economic-cycle'. [Silly question: Most folk do not understand the definition of 'a recession...!]
BBC: "in its World Oil Outlook report, Opec said oil would rise to $70 a barrel by 2020 and in the long term would continue higher."
Just in time for IndyRef2!
$70 in 2020.
It's amazing how perspectives change. 18 months ago you would need to be an uber-bear to predict $70 in 2020. Now $70 in 2020 is considered a bullish forecast.
People are not realising how much renewables are catching on. Europe led the way but now China and India have caught the zeal of the convert. USA too. Two of the largest solar plants were constructed only recently. Solar is growing by about 100% every year.
Renewables will have to manage without the govt subsidy in future. And without a govt subsidy what will be the cost of 'renewing' all those solar panels?
"New tax breaks for North Sea oil and gas production announced by the chancellor, George Osborne, earlier in 2015 will cost taxpayers a further £1.7bn by 2020, according to government figures."
By all means see the closure of the north sea oil industry and the loss of thousands of jobs in Scotland if you want. But renewables remain very much in need of renewing. solar panels need replacing as do wind farms over time. Indeed the very rooftops on which solar panels are placed need renewing periodically.
Does anyone 'in the know' have any info on the explosion(s) at Istanbul Airport that killed one person overnight?
Well, it could be a militant methodist sect behind the blast(s) or maybe a radical bunch of Orthodox Christians trying to restore the Byzantine Empire, but somehow I doubt it.
BBC: "in its World Oil Outlook report, Opec said oil would rise to $70 a barrel by 2020 and in the long term would continue higher."
Just in time for IndyRef2!
$70 in 2020.
It's amazing how perspectives change. 18 months ago you would need to be an uber-bear to predict $70 in 2020. Now $70 in 2020 is considered a bullish forecast.
People are not realising how much renewables are catching on. Europe led the way but now China and India have caught the zeal of the convert. USA too. Two of the largest solar plants were constructed only recently. Solar is growing by about 100% every year.
Renewables will have to manage without the govt subsidy in future. And without a govt subsidy what will be the cost of 'renewing' all those solar panels?
"New tax breaks for North Sea oil and gas production announced by the chancellor, George Osborne, earlier in 2015 will cost taxpayers a further £1.7bn by 2020, according to government figures."
By all means see the closure of the north sea oil industry and the loss of thousands of jobs in Scotland if you want. But renewables remain very much in need of renewing. solar panels need replacing as do wind farms over time. Indeed the very rooftops on which solar panels are placed need renewing periodically.
The real question is why are those £1.5bn English pounds paying for Scottish jobs, they certainly wouldn't pay if the boot was on the other foot. Now that Scotland is an independent nation they should be paying for that sort of thing themselves.... oh, wait!
Does anyone 'in the know' have any info on the explosion(s) at Istanbul Airport that killed one person overnight?
Well, it could be a militant methodist sect behind the blast(s) or maybe a radical bunch of Orthodox Christians trying to restore the Byzantine Empire, but somehow I doubt it.
Whomever it was, it will be blamed on Kurds, giving the Erdogan the excuse to kill some more of them.
Oh dear, oh dear. Token but cute-ish German woman plus decent petrolhead journalist with some TV skills. Plus Chris Evans.
It's going to be... competent. OK. Quite watchable, if you're into cars. Like Fifth Gear, or Top Gear itself before Clarkson transformed it.
But in terms of matching Top Gear's monumental global appeal it's going to be a disaster. This, presumably, is why the producer and script editor have ALREADY left. They can see the aircrash ahead. Panic in the ranks.
But in terms of matching Top Gear's monumental global appeal it's going to be a disaster. This, presumably, is why the producer and script editor have ALREADY left. They can see the aircrash ahead. Panic in the ranks.
I assume Mr Churchward is still a Top Gear Director, was Mrs Churchward (nee VBH) not available, she always looked good in a car, and knew what she was talking about.
BBC: "in its World Oil Outlook report, Opec said oil would rise to $70 a barrel by 2020 and in the long term would continue higher."
Just in time for IndyRef2!
$70 in 2020.
It's amazing how perspectives change. 18 months ago you would need to be an uber-bear to predict $70 in 2020. Now $70 in 2020 is considered a bullish forecast.
People are not realising how much renewables are catching on. Europe led the way but now China and India have caught the zeal of the convert. USA too. Two of the largest solar plants were constructed only recently. Solar is growing by about 100% every year.
Renewables will have to manage without the govt subsidy in future. And without a govt subsidy what will be the cost of 'renewing' all those solar panels?
"New tax breaks for North Sea oil and gas production announced by the chancellor, George Osborne, earlier in 2015 will cost taxpayers a further £1.7bn by 2020, according to government figures."
Quite. And without a govt tax break what will be the cost of 'keeping' all those oil fields?
One thing I find very puzzling and it is not the cost of subsidy.
People on the left like renewables initially with subsidy [ which is/was costly ]
Rightwingers have no qualm about subsidies for Nuclear, Oil / Gas fields !! Taking a punt on future energy prices for nuclear is OK but not for renewables, apparently !
The ONS has cut its estimate of GDP growth for Quarters 2 and 3 by 0.2% and 0.1% respectively. Growth over 12 months is now 2.1% - a rate of growth somewhat below trend. Clear signs of slowdown there!
Do you understand the 'economic-cycle'. [Silly question: Most folk do not understand the definition of 'a recession...!]
Just curious, is this because previous quarters were rerated higher? This would have the effect of lowering the following Qs rate of growth. Our trend growth is about 2.25% so this current assessment is nothing special. All it means is that interest rates are less likely to rise. We should note that we currently have trend growth with 0.5% bank rate. Interest rates would normally rise when there are signs of the economy overheating. I pointed out a Sunday Times article some days ago which gave a coherent argument suggesting that long term rates looked like struggling to get as far as 2% ''Not so long ago that [ie 2% rates] would have been a mere staging post for interest rates. Now it starts to look like the final destination.''
Does anyone 'in the know' have any info on the explosion(s) at Istanbul Airport that killed one person overnight?
Well, it could be a militant methodist sect behind the blast(s) or maybe a radical bunch of Orthodox Christians trying to restore the Byzantine Empire, but somehow I doubt it.
Whomever it was, it will be blamed on Kurds, giving the Erdogan the excuse to kill some more of them.
Oddly for your little tin-foil hatted head, the Turks did not blame the Kurds after the Ankara bombing in October, or the Suruç bombing a few months earlier. Those atrocities were quickly put at ISIS's door.
Having said that, it's sadly not unprecedented for the PKK to bomb Turkey.
Perhaps you should consider the people your friend Putin is killing before inventing conspiracy theories about Turkey. But that would involve more intellectual rigour than you've got.
Of course it's possible. It's possible that a future UK Government may order the death of every firstborn and ban Christmas. The point is that the responsibility and the choice will lie with them, and ultimately with the electorate. I don't see leaving the EU as a panacea for all ills, and I hope no-one else does - if Leave wins it's just the beginning. But it's better than no beginning at all.
Which begs the question: beginning of what?
I assume you mean "the beginning of said onerous burden". But this is just restating the Universal Villain fallacy - that leaving the EU will enable removal of elements imposed against our will. You still haven't demonstrated that a) they were emplaced by the EU and b) it was against our will. It may be true (it may not...:-)) but you are assuming it as a given.
Comments
Historically, only big financial services firms could afford to set up entities in every country. The single passport means that we can sell to everyone, while only having one entity, and while being regulated by the FSA in the UK.
By contrast, when we sell to customers in Hong Kong, Canada or Switzerland, we need either to set up a local subsidiary (which would be expensive), or find a partner to act on our behalf (which means losing a third of fees). Being a small business, we have obviously gone down the latter route.
Though I would dispute your notion. This is a plebiscite not a parliamentary vote.
I see about a 30% core Leave vote (Kippers and half the Tories) so a long way to go to 50% +1.
https://twitter.com/jhallwood/status/679599592145612802/photo/1
Is that a bad hair day or does she really think she looks good in that hairdo?
In the current context the smart move for leave would be to bore the pants off the floating voter and suggest to them that there is nothing to see and it's safe to stay at home. Come to think about it, the current bumbling of the leave campaign and the gloating from the Remain campaign might have just that effect.
How dare you talk about a woman's appearance! you need to be sent for re-education.
To be fair, I don;t think any tory here really disputes the notion that the party is split on Europe, and has been for decades.
The nature of the split, however, is different. Its Dave and the tory voters versus the tory party and a big majority of the MPs.
The figures are even worse than it shows because our number of buying customers have actually increased by 2.5% !!!!
Manufacturing, particularly those involved in exports, is in big trouble !
I suggest that you are still 'licking-it-up'. Only in a 'tongue-in-check' way of-course...!
Just in time for IndyRef2!
(Each of which is seriously awesome: and if you need live score data, a Python Platform as a Service, back-end technology for a bookmaker, or investment research, you know where to get them!)
Of these, we have been touched by EU bureaucracy exactly one occasion, although that was quite a seriously negative, that cost quite a lot of time and effort to sort out.
If you don't sell physical products, then the burden of regulation in the UK - whether from the UK government or the EU - is pretty light. You do annual returns for Companies House in the UK; and you do VAT returns and taxations stuff for the HMRC. That is literally it, as far as regulation goes.
It's amazing how perspectives change. 18 months ago you would need to be an uber-bear to predict $70 in 2020. Now $70 in 2020 is considered a bullish forecast.
Not sure. I suspect a healthy majority of Brits would be content with something in between what Dave is proposing and a full out.
How that translates into what will happen politically, I don;t know. I have a feeling that we may see something like the Scottish referendum ie everything going smoothly for remain until the final few weeks - when the polls start to turn to out.
That will trigger a desperate scrabbling by the establishment, with further concessions (real or imagined), promised.
In case anyone missed it, do enjoy a free festive story, by me.
Sir Edric and the Stolen Sherry:
http://thaddeuswhite.weebly.com/free-stories.html
BREAKING: New @cnn poll shows @realDonaldTrump w/ giant lead. #ceiling? https://t.co/LPH66x2Efe
Rumour has it that Slubitum works for an off-shoot of a German Automotive manufactuer. Not solid evidence of anything though....
In that case, why are they bothering to stand?
I suspect a substantial part of parliamentary business on exit would be amending SIs to remove references to EU laws but leaving the rest of them substantially intact.
I once saw a Telegraph article that blamed the EU for the capsizing of the Costa Concordia. I parodied this stance as "Something has happened: quick, let's blame the EU". Simply put, the EU has become an Universal Villain: everything that exists or happens is blamed on it.
Your statement "...the fact that the EU has lead to a large increase of the regulatory burden on UK companies..." presupposes that a) there has been a large increase in regulatory burden, b) it's caused by membership of the EU, c) it will disappear on LEAVE.
I can believe in the first part (HR departments are larger now than, say 1980?), although I'd like to see it quantified. But the second and third parts? Not so much. I know it's like swearing in church, but (whisper it) it may just be possible that the regs were driven by/agreed by the UK and will not in fact be removed post-LEAVE.
Remember the "bonfire of the quangos" that never happened?
[EDIT: unfuck HTML]
SoMuchGuardian
#WarOnChristmas #GuardianScrooges https://t.co/lga6T2syeO
#WarOnChristmas #GuardianScrooges https://t.co/lga6T2syeO
LEAVERS
"Nothing to lose" Old, C2DE
8% Con, 4% Lab, 8% UKIP (of population)
"Global Britain" Younger, ABC1
7% Con, 3% Lab
So LEAVERS are 50% Cons, 25% Lab and 25% UKIP (of LEAVERS)
REMAINERS
"If it ain't Broke"
4% Con, 5% Lab
I'm all right Jacques" More affluent, male, private sector
5% Con, 3% Lab
"Citizen of the World" Younger, graduates, ABC1
1% Con, 5% Lab, 3% LD/SNP/Grn
So REMAINERS are 40% Con, 50% Lab and 10% others.
The UNDECIDED "Listen to DC" are younger, female, over 50% Con and are the swing voters who will determine the result.
French gross public debt grew 3.3% Y/Y in Q3 to €2.10 trillion, as a share of GDP up to 96.9% from 95.6%
....tumbleweed....
Women tend to be more risk averse. That's very good for Remain.
Its a bit long for a cracker joke...
Edited extra bit: and that's disregarding that a referendum is a different beast to an election. A Stay can always change to a Leave later, whereas Leave is for life.
The problem France has is that it's economy isn't growing much, and there is bugger all inflation.
France is the sick man of Europe right now. Too scared to reform, and too unreformed to grow.
They need: all the states they won last time + Florida (Obama won by 0.88%) + Ohio (Obama won by 2.98%) + Virginia (Obama won by 3.87%) + Colorado OR Iowa (Obama won by 5.37% and 5.81% respectively). Other states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Nevada, Minnesota and Wisconsin are also in play. Really the only traditional swing state that has irretrievably moved away from the Republicans due to demographic change is New Mexico. At the same time Missouri has gone the other way
As to the EU taking on large multi-nationals and stopping support of National Champions, I can hear the cries of derisive laughter even from down here in rural Sussex. True they have conducted a few well-publicised search and destroy missions (e.g. Microsoft) but much more has been done that supports the big boys to the disadvantage of smaller players trying to break in to their markets and as for National champions I refer you to France.
Dan Hannan
Basic pay for European Commissioners will rise to £191,500, plus residence payments of £28,700. Merry Christmas! https://t.co/nAyAysUTdu
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2015/12/one-top-gears-new-presenters-will-be-woman
chris harris
http://gearheads.org/drifting-racing-reviewing-look-chris-harris/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12066323/Jeremy-Corbyn-cancels-Christmas-and-refuses-to-issue-festive-message.html
"Renewables will have to manage without the govt subsidy in future. And without a govt subsidy what will be the cost of 'renewing' all those solar panels?"
My index-linked subsidy lasts for another 20 years, and solar panels are getting cheaper all the time. The best annuity ever. All hail the marvellous Milliband.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/12065752/One-dead-in-explosion-at-Istanbul-airport.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/23/istanbul-sabiha-gokcen-airport-explosion-kills-cleaner
Three blasts is odd, though.
:tumbleweed: was a emoticon from defencetalk.com back-in-the-days. 'Clown' was a personal up-tick from OldKingCole.
:CYMFTOSO:
One thing I find very puzzling and it is not the cost of subsidy.
People on the left like renewables initially with subsidy [ which is/was costly ]
Rightwingers have no qualm about subsidies for Nuclear, Oil / Gas fields !! Taking a punt on
future energy prices for nuclear is OK but not for renewables, apparently !
Our trend growth is about 2.25% so this current assessment is nothing special. All it means is that interest rates are less likely to rise.
We should note that we currently have trend growth with 0.5% bank rate. Interest rates would normally rise when there are signs of the economy overheating. I pointed out a Sunday Times article some days ago which gave a coherent argument suggesting that long term rates looked like struggling to get as far as 2%
''Not so long ago that [ie 2% rates] would have been a mere staging post for interest rates. Now it starts to look like the final destination.''
Having said that, it's sadly not unprecedented for the PKK to bomb Turkey.
Perhaps you should consider the people your friend Putin is killing before inventing conspiracy theories about Turkey. But that would involve more intellectual rigour than you've got.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35162523
I assume you mean "the beginning of said onerous burden". But this is just restating the Universal Villain fallacy - that leaving the EU will enable removal of elements imposed against our will. You still haven't demonstrated that a) they were emplaced by the EU and b) it was against our will. It may be true (it may not...:-)) but you are assuming it as a given.