I incline towards this view too. Zurich and Geneva seem to do fine outside the EU as financial centres.
Yes, but accepting EU rules on (inter alia), Freedom of Movement.
I'm not saying we can't negotiate something acceptable. What I'm challenging is the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, with zero input from the rest of the EU as to what the nature of the new deal would be.
That is why I keep banging on about the lack of any coherent plan from the Leave side. It's going to be a negotiation: we want as free a market in services as possible, what do the Leavers realistically think we'll have to give in return to get it?
I absolutely agree we can't have our cake and eat it. The disingenuous idea that Leave supporters put around that through sprinkling pixie dust Britain will somehow have the best of both worlds is incredibly offputting. Equally, the Remain camp wildly overstates the dangers of leaving.
Neither side is doing itself any favours. The public expect it to have to weigh pros and cons. They won't believe anyone who suggests it's all one way.
It will be better in some aspects and worse in others. Overall it will make no difference. I think European banks will face a lot of internal and political pressure to move jobs back to Frankfurt and Paris should we leave, the Americans will probably stay put, some might make noises, but our tax regime is more friendly than Germany or France, they may open up branch offices in Dublin for certain transactions but beyond that I don't see anything happening. A friend who works for SocGen told me they are staying put come what may, the quality of labour available in Paris is why they came to London in the first place and leaving the EU doesn't suddenly make the French education system produce graduates who think like British ones.
Re SocGen: most of the good French bankers would rather work in London anyway.
We are very lucky that we have critical mass. Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Zurich and Geneva do not. There is more money managed in London than in the rest of Europe put together. And that means that the brokers want to be in London, so they can be near their clients. And the traders want to be near the brokers. And the corporate financiers - to a lesser extent - want to be be where the pools of money are.
The danger to London would come from losing investment managers.
And I don't see Brexit - assuming we stayed in EFTA/EEA - causing investment managers to leave the UK.
Oh stop waffling Richard and try answering the question.
You have said City issues could sway your decision. How, exactly, when the PM is not negotiating on this topic?
He is. The institutional protections against Eurozone hegemony are an absolutely key point for me.
On the other side, which you ignored, who knows? I don't see the slightest smidgen of a grown-up discussion from the Leave camp on this.
The absolutely key point for me is that we're part of an organisation that believes in endless mission creep, and in endlessly drawing power away from national political institutions up towards pan-European political institutions. And, in my view, the way that the Euro and CAP have worked since inception show that this is an organisation that should not be trusted with large amounts of power.
And, I don't see any way of changing this. There is no appetite to change this among either centre-right, or centre-left political parties on the Continent. Nor will the Prime Minister's negotiations change this.
This may change if insurgent parties of right and left come to dominate Continental politics, but that in turn would cause problems of its own.
So, for me at least, any economic difficulties that may ensue from Leaving are of secondary importance. The UK will remain a rich country whether or not it remains part of the EU (unless we elect Corbyn).
I incline towards this view too. Zurich and Geneva seem to do fine outside the EU as financial centres.
Yes, but accepting EU rules on (inter alia), Freedom of Movement.
I'm not saying we can't negotiate something acceptable. What I'm challenging is the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, with zero input from the rest of the EU as to what the nature of the new deal would be.
That is why I keep banging on about the lack of any coherent plan from the Leave side. It's going to be a negotiation: we want as free a market in services as possible, what do the Leavers realistically think we'll have to give in return to get it?
I absolutely agree we can't have our cake and eat it. The disingenuous idea that Leave supporters put around that through sprinkling pixie dust Britain will somehow have the best of both worlds is incredibly offputting. Equally, the Remain camp wildly overstates the dangers of leaving.
Neither side is doing itself any favours. The public expect it to have to weigh pros and cons. They won't believe anyone who suggests it's all one way.
It will be better in some aspects and worse in others. Overall it will make no difference. I think European banks will face a lot of internal and political pressure to move jobs back to Frankfurt and Paris should we leave, the Americans will probably stay put, some might make noises, but our tax regime is more friendly than Germany or France, they may open up branch offices in Dublin for certain transactions but beyond that I don't see anything happening. A friend who works for SocGen told me they are staying put come what may, the quality of labour available in Paris is why they came to London in the first place and leaving the EU doesn't suddenly make the French education system produce graduates who think like British ones.
I'd be more worried about Paris than Frankfurt. Attracting enough high-flying staff to live and work in a city whose cultural attractions comprise a Palm House and an oompa oompa band rather than London looks like a non-starter to me.
Surely Dublin, Goldman Sachs are already there as well as a few other Americans.
Dublin is already the Jersey City to London's Manhattan...
(As in, Jersey City has all the back-offices for the US investment banks...)
Wondered how long it would be until that panacea was rolled out.
As long as doctors don't have to change their behavior or the interests of patients are put first just give the good old magic money tree another shake
Perhaps Chris A can tell us how much extra tax he currently overpays to HMRC by choice ?
Pay more tax? Presumably whiny medical staff would expect a pay rise to cover any reduction in their overall net salary.
I incline towards this view too. Zurich and Geneva seem to do fine outside the EU as financial centres.
Yes, but accepting EU rules on (inter alia), Freedom of Movement.
I'm not saying we can't negotiate something acceptable. What I'm challenging is the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, with zero input from the rest of the EU as to what the nature of the new deal would be.
That is why I keep banging on about the lack of any coherent plan from the Leave side. It's going to be a negotiation: we want as free a market in services as possible, what do the Leavers realistically think we'll have to give in return to get it?
I absolutely agree we can't have our cake and eat it. The disingenuous idea that Leave supporters put around that through sprinkling pixie dust Britain will somehow have the best of both worlds is incredibly offputting. Equally, the Remain camp wildly overstates the dangers of leaving.
Neither side is doing itself any favours. The public expect it to have to weigh pros and cons. They won't believe anyone who suggests it's all one way.
It will be better in some aspects and worse in others. Overall it will make no difference. I think European banks will face a lot of internal and political pressure to move jobs back to Frankfurt and Paris should we leave, the Americans will probably stay put, some might make noises, but our tax regime is more friendly than Germany or France, they may open up branch offices in Dublin for certain transactions but beyond that I don't see anything happening. A friend who works for SocGen told me they are staying put come what may, the quality of labour available in Paris is why they came to London in the first place and leaving the EU doesn't suddenly make the French education system produce graduates who think like British ones.
I'd be more worried about Paris than Frankfurt. Attracting enough high-flying staff to live and work in a city whose cultural attractions comprise a Palm House and an oompa oompa band rather than London looks like a non-starter to me.
Surely Dublin, Goldman Sachs are already there as well as a few other Americans.
Having spent a lot of time working in Dublin, there's not much there to entertain bankers relative to the delights of London, and transport's terrible. It's really just a very large town, rather than an international city.
Oh stop waffling Richard and try answering the question.
You have said City issues could sway your decision. How, exactly, when the PM is not negotiating on this topic?
He is. The institutional protections against Eurozone hegemony are an absolutely key point for me.
On the other side, which you ignored, who knows? I don't see the slightest smidgen of a grown-up discussion from the Leave camp on this.
The absolutely key point for me is that we're part of an organisation that believes in endless mission creep, and in endlessly drawing power away from national political institutions up towards pan-European political institutions. And, in my view, the way that the Euro and CAP have worked since inception show that this is an organisation that should not be trusted with large amounts of power.
And, I don't see any way of changing this. There is no appetite to change this among either centre-right, or centre-left political parties on the Continent. Nor will the Prime Minister's negotiations change this.
This may change if insurgent parties of right and left come to dominate Continental politics, but that in turn would cause problems of its own.
So, for me at least, any economic difficulties that may ensue from Leaving are of secondary importance. The UK will remain a rich country whether or not it remains part of the EU (unless we elect Corbyn).
Re SocGen: most of the good French bankers would rather work in London anyway.
We are very lucky that we have critical mass. Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Zurich and Geneva do not. There is more money managed in London than in the rest of Europe put together. And that means that the brokers want to be in London, so they can be near their clients. And the traders want to be near the brokers. And the corporate financiers - to a lesser extent - want to be be where the pools of money are.
The danger to London would come from losing investment managers.
And I don't see Brexit - assuming we stayed in EFTA/EEA - causing investment managers to leave the UK.
I wouldn't be up for moving the Frankfurt.
Yeah, overall I agree with this, there just doesn't seem to be any appetite for change. Most people realise we would probably just end up in the EEA/EFTA anyway (weirdly where we would have a kind of veto on FinReg) and just continue as is. I'm not convinced by the doomsday scenarios and specifically for investment managers leaving, well I don't see it, even if we leave the EU and don't enter into an EEA style agreement. There is just too much inertia. Both Airbus and Toyota have said they are staying and Airbus is part owned by the French and German state so if they aren't leaving I don't see any of the major industries packing up.
My cousin turned down a job with a private health trust to work for the NHS, should he go back and accept that job? There are countless NHS workers who have turned down private work to "do their duty" for the nation, they just didn't expect to be told unilaterally that their wages would be going down.
This business of them "doing their duty" really annoys me. They should just do what's in their best interest. If that means leaving the NHS, so be it. I for one won't hold it against them.
My cousin turned down a job with a private health trust to work for the NHS, should he go back and accept that job? There are countless NHS workers who have turned down private work to "do their duty" for the nation, they just didn't expect to be told unilaterally that their wages would be going down.
This business of them "doing their duty" really annoys me. They should just do what's in their best interest. If that means leaving the NHS, so be it. I for one won't hold it against them.
"The Tories will again be able to paint Labour as the party that prioritises public service providers over public service users"
They will be able to, but they won't. Top Tories consistently pull their punches when it comes to backing the users over the providers - look at Mid Staffs etc. The two parties (at least leaderships) are in total agreement about defending the big state.
My cousin turned down a job with a private health trust to work for the NHS, should he go back and accept that job? There are countless NHS workers who have turned down private work to "do their duty" for the nation, they just didn't expect to be told unilaterally that their wages would be going down.
This business of them "doing their duty" really annoys me. They should just do what's in their best interest. If that means leaving the NHS, so be it. I for one won't hold it against them.
I agree with that as well, my uncle (his dad) told him at the time to throw his lot in with the private trust. He is also one of the final few to come out with less than £50k in debt, the current crop of graduates will have £80-90k in debt so will have less inclination to "do one's duty".
As an aside, we have two MBBS graduates in our programme this year who decided they didn't want to go into medicine and have gone into banking instead. If the government are intent on lowering the pay grades the trickle will turn into a stream.
Re SocGen: most of the good French bankers would rather work in London anyway.
We are very lucky that we have critical mass. Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Zurich and Geneva do not. There is more money managed in London than in the rest of Europe put together. And that means that the brokers want to be in London, so they can be near their clients. And the traders want to be near the brokers. And the corporate financiers - to a lesser extent - want to be be where the pools of money are.
The danger to London would come from losing investment managers.
And I don't see Brexit - assuming we stayed in EFTA/EEA - causing investment managers to leave the UK.
I wouldn't be up for moving the Frankfurt.
Yeah, overall I agree with this, there just doesn't seem to be any appetite for change. Most people realise we would probably just end up in the EEA/EFTA anyway (weirdly where we would have a kind of veto on FinReg) and just continue as is. I'm not convinced by the doomsday scenarios and specifically for investment managers leaving, well I don't see it, even if we leave the EU and don't enter into an EEA style agreement. There is just too much inertia. Both Airbus and Toyota have said they are staying and Airbus is part owned by the French and German state so if they aren't leaving I don't see any of the major industries packing up.
Why would Toyota leave [ i.e. shut down their plant ] ?
The question not asked is would they invest in new lines if they have to pay duties to sell in the EU ? Nissan exports 75% of its output to the EU.
Re SocGen: most of the good French bankers would rather work in London anyway.
We are very lucky that we have critical mass. Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Zurich and Geneva do not. There is more money managed in London than in the rest of Europe put together. And that means that the brokers want to be in London, so they can be near their clients. And the traders want to be near the brokers. And the corporate financiers - to a lesser extent - want to be be where the pools of money are.
The danger to London would come from losing investment managers.
And I don't see Brexit - assuming we stayed in EFTA/EEA - causing investment managers to leave the UK.
I wouldn't be up for moving the Frankfurt.
Yeah, overall I agree with this, there just doesn't seem to be any appetite for change. Most people realise we would probably just end up in the EEA/EFTA anyway (weirdly where we would have a kind of veto on FinReg) and just continue as is. I'm not convinced by the doomsday scenarios and specifically for investment managers leaving, well I don't see it, even if we leave the EU and don't enter into an EEA style agreement. There is just too much inertia. Both Airbus and Toyota have said they are staying and Airbus is part owned by the French and German state so if they aren't leaving I don't see any of the major industries packing up.
Why would Toyota leave [ i.e. shut down their plant ] ?
The question not asked is would they invest in new lines if they have to pay duties to sell in the EU ? Nissan exports 75% of its output to the EU.
If we join the EEA (which is the most likely scenario) then there would be no duties payable and we would be free to pursue trade agreements outside of the EU as well to reduce duties on our exports.
Re SocGen: most of the good French bankers would rather work in London anyway.
We are very lucky that we have critical mass. Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Zurich and Geneva do not. There is more money managed in London than in the rest of Europe put together. And that means that the brokers want to be in London, so they can be near their clients. And the traders want to be near the brokers. And the corporate financiers - to a lesser extent - want to be be where the pools of money are.
The danger to London would come from losing investment managers.
And I don't see Brexit - assuming we stayed in EFTA/EEA - causing investment managers to leave the UK.
I wouldn't be up for moving the Frankfurt.
Yeah, overall I agree with this, there just doesn't seem to be any appetite for change. Most people realise we would probably just end up in the EEA/EFTA anyway (weirdly where we would have a kind of veto on FinReg) and just continue as is. I'm not convinced by the doomsday scenarios and specifically for investment managers leaving, well I don't see it, even if we leave the EU and don't enter into an EEA style agreement. There is just too much inertia. Both Airbus and Toyota have said they are staying and Airbus is part owned by the French and German state so if they aren't leaving I don't see any of the major industries packing up.
Why would Toyota leave [ i.e. shut down their plant ] ?
The question not asked is would they invest in new lines if they have to pay duties to sell in the EU ? Nissan exports 75% of its output to the EU.
So if there are duties, then they also apply in reverse. Toyota and Nissan sell more in the UK and VW and Renault less. We have the second largest car market in Europe, and probably the most profitable for VMs.
I incline towards this view too. Zurich and Geneva seem to do fine outside the EU as financial centres.
Yes, but accepting EU rules on (inter alia), Freedom of Movement.
I'm not saying we can't negotiate something acceptable. What I'm challenging is the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, with zero input from the rest of the EU as to what the nature of the new deal would be.
That is why I keep banging on about the lack of any coherent plan from the Leave side. It's going to be a negotiation: we want as free a market in services as possible, what do the Leavers realistically think we'll have to give in return to get it?
I absolutely agree we can't have our cake and eat it. The disingenuous idea that Leave supporters put around that through sprinkling pixie dust Britain will somehow have the best of both worlds is incredibly offputting. Equally, the Remain camp wildly overstates the dangers of leaving.
Neither side is doing itself any favours. The public expect it to have to weigh pros and cons. They won't believe anyone who suggests it's all one way.
It will be better in some aspects and worse in others. Overall it will make no difference. I think European banks will face a lot of internal and political pressure to move jobs back to Frankfurt and Paris should we leave, the Americans will probably stay put, some might make noises, but our tax regime is more friendly than Germany or France, they may open up branch offices in Dublin for certain transactions but beyond that I don't see anything happening. A friend who works for SocGen told me they are staying put come what may, the quality of labour available in Paris is why they came to London in the first place and leaving the EU doesn't suddenly make the French education system produce graduates who think like British ones.
I'd be more worried about Paris than Frankfurt. Attracting enough high-flying staff to live and work in a city whose cultural attractions comprise a Palm House and an oompa oompa band rather than London looks like a non-starter to me.
Surely Dublin, Goldman Sachs are already there as well as a few other Americans.
Dublin is already the Jersey City to London's Manhattan...
(As in, Jersey City has all the back-offices for the US investment banks...)
Dublin will be a huge beneficiary of Brexit. To those who say it is too small, Singapore and Hong Kong are small too !
Edinburgh too in a separate Scotland. You don't lose 300 years experience in a few years.
And I don't see Brexit - assuming we stayed in EFTA/EEA - causing investment managers to leave the UK.
That's the rub. You are right that if we join the EEA then the economic effects on the City (and on business generally) would be minimal. If that is what is proposed, then we have a concrete and credible alternative, the merits of which can be rationally discussed. (I'm personally not persuaded it's worth the hassle and loss of influence to get sovereignty back over relatively minor areas such as agriculture, but others will disagree - that's fair enough).
However, if the proposal is an EEA-style deal, the Leave side needs to stop all this crap about regaining control of our borders and citing the EU migration crisis as a reason for leaving, and it also needs to accept that there is a lot of truth in the 'government by fax' jibe.
Re SocGen: most of the good French bankers would rather work in London anyway.
We are very lucky that we have critical mass. Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Zurich and Geneva do not. There is more money managed in London than in the rest of Europe put together. And that means that the brokers want to be in London, so they can be near their clients. And the traders want to be near the brokers. And the corporate financiers - to a lesser extent - want to be be where the pools of money are.
The danger to London would come from losing investment managers.
And I don't see Brexit - assuming we stayed in EFTA/EEA - causing investment managers to leave the UK.
I wouldn't be up for moving the Frankfurt.
Yeah, overall I agree with this, there just doesn't seem to be any appetite for change. Most people realise we would probably just end up in the EEA/EFTA anyway (weirdly where we would have a kind of veto on FinReg) and just continue as is. I'm not convinced by the doomsday scenarios and specifically for investment managers leaving, well I don't see it, even if we leave the EU and don't enter into an EEA style agreement. There is just too much inertia. Both Airbus and Toyota have said they are staying and Airbus is part owned by the French and German state so if they aren't leaving I don't see any of the major industries packing up.
Why would Toyota leave [ i.e. shut down their plant ] ?
The question not asked is would they invest in new lines if they have to pay duties to sell in the EU ? Nissan exports 75% of its output to the EU.
The issue is not in 2020 but in 2040. And Nissan are controlled by Renault. And the other issue is all the other share of EU inward investment we benefit from. its easy enough to shrug your shoulders when all thats driving you is ignorance and bigotry. Less so if you need the job.
Yes, but accepting EU rules on (inter alia), Freedom of Movement.
I'm not saying we can't negotiate something acceptable. What I'm challenging is the idea that we can have our cake and eat it, with zero input from the rest of the EU as to what the nature of the new deal would be.
That is why I keep banging on about the lack of any coherent plan from the Leave side. It's going to be a negotiation: we want as free a market in services as possible, what do the Leavers realistically think we'll have to give in return to get it?
I absolutely agree we can't have our cake and eat it. The disingenuous idea that Leave supporters put around that through sprinkling pixie dust Britain will somehow have the best of both worlds is incredibly offputting. Equally, the Remain camp wildly overstates the dangers of leaving.
Neither side is doing itself any favours. The public expect it to have to weigh pros and cons. They won't believe anyone who suggests it's all one way.
It will be better in some aspects and worse in others. Overall it will make no difference. I think European banks will face a lot of internal and political pressure to move jobs back to Frankfurt and Paris should we leave, the Americans will probably stay put, some might make noises, but our tax regime is more friendly than Germany or France, they may open up branch offices in Dublin for certain transactions but beyond that I don't see anything happening. A friend who works for SocGen told me they are staying put come what may, the quality of labour available in Paris is why they came to London in the first place and leaving the EU doesn't suddenly make the French education system produce graduates who think like British ones.
I'd be more worried about Paris than Frankfurt. Attracting enough high-flying staff to live and work in a city whose cultural attractions comprise a Palm House and an oompa oompa band rather than London looks like a non-starter to me.
Surely Dublin, Goldman Sachs are already there as well as a few other Americans.
Dublin is already the Jersey City to London's Manhattan...
(As in, Jersey City has all the back-offices for the US investment banks...)
Dublin will be a huge beneficiary of Brexit. To those who say it is too small, Singapore and Hong Kong are small too !
Edinburgh too in a separate Scotland. You don't lose 300 years experience in a few years.
Is there not a risk it would go the other way, with London no longer being at threat of EU regulation / tax?
For those interested in understanding the Doctor' strike, rather than just spouting their own political views of what it is about, I heartily commend the post on the previous thread timed at 00:05 this morning from the good Dr. FoxInSox, consultant medicus of the County of Leicestershire.
He's a vested interest on at least 2 counts - Dr and Corbynite.
I thought he was a LibDem!
His post started off with a few reasonable points but "some Doctors get married and don't want to work unsociable hours" isn't a basis for the government to give them even more money.
It's not about giving them even more money, it is about not accepting a pretty big wage cut. Doctors are the one group of people who's services are in high demand globally and in the private sector over here so most could walk into a non-NHS job. They also vote Tory. Hunt is barking up the wrong tree here.
Who they vote for is irrelevant. Political allegiance should be no bar to reform.
Well as a Tory member, I'm not sure the government should be in the business of pissing off supporters who work hard and buy into the idea of aspiration. Becoming a doctor isn't easy and once it's done requires a lifetime of education and training. People like you who think they should all bugger off because they are on strike don't seem to get how hard the job is.
My best friend is a doctor, for a couple of years he was basically socially absent either working or catching up on sleep. His choice and he gets paid well for his trouble, but that's the point, it's not an easy job. Your ire would be better directed at the tube drivers.
I know plenty of doctors too, and know how hard they work. They seem to do very nicely financially, and no, I don't think they should all bugger off. But quite a few would do well to look around and appreciate just how much better off they are relative to the majority of those paying their taxes to finance and educate them, and dial down the 'Me, Me, Me' rhetoric.
Junior doctors start at £23000. What are the starting salaries of qualified Solicitors or Chartered Accountants ?
Mr. 1983, not an area of expertise for me, but I gather the head of a suicide bomber often survives very much intact. Probably handy (in a grisly way) for identifying the perpetrator, if so.
And I don't see Brexit - assuming we stayed in EFTA/EEA - causing investment managers to leave the UK.
That's the rub. You are right that if we join the EEA then the economic effects on the City (and on business generally) would be minimal. If that is what is proposed, then we have a concrete and credible alternative, the merits of which can be rationally discussed. (I'm personally not persuaded it's worth the hassle and loss of influence to get sovereignty back over relatively minor areas such as agriculture, but others will disagree - that's fair enough).
However, if the proposal is an EEA-style deal, the Leave side needs to stop all this crap about regaining control of our borders and citing the EU migration crisis as a reason for leaving, and it also needs to accept that there is a lot of truth in the 'government by fax' jibe.
What exactly are the difference between the EU and the EEA on these substantive issues ? Hardly any.
Mr. 1983, not an area of expertise for me, but I gather the head of a suicide bomber often survives very much intact. Probably handy (in a grisly way) for identifying the perpetrator, if so.
Oh stop waffling Richard and try answering the question.
You have said City issues could sway your decision. How, exactly, when the PM is not negotiating on this topic?
He is. The institutional protections against Eurozone hegemony are an absolutely key point for me.
On the other side, which you ignored, who knows? I don't see the slightest smidgen of a grown-up discussion from the Leave camp on this.
Yes I agree with you and its plain stupid of people to pretend it is not being negotiated. I also agree with Mr Meeks that in or out is not that much different if we leave to join the EEA. Both sides do not want to mention that. The EEA keeps us out of he political side but we are still influenced by an ever closer union of the EU with no votes.
For those interested in understanding the Doctor' strike, rather than just spouting their own political views of what it is about, I heartily commend the post on the previous thread timed at 00:05 this morning from the good Dr. FoxInSox, consultant medicus of the County of Leicestershire.
He's a vested interest on at least 2 counts - Dr and Corbynite.
I thought he was a LibDem!
His post started off with a few reasonable points but "some Doctors get married and don't want to work unsociable hours" isn't a basis for the government to give them even more money.
It's not about giving them even more money, it is about not accepting a pretty big wage cut. Doctors are the one group of people who's services are in high demand globally and in the private sector over here so most could walk into a non-NHS job. They also vote Tory. Hunt is barking up the wrong tree here.
Who they vote for is irrelevant. Political allegiance should be no bar to reform.
Well as a Tory member, I'm not sure the government should be in the business of pissing off supporters who work hard and buy into the idea of aspiration. Becoming a doctor isn't easy and once it's done requires a lifetime of education and training. People like you who think they should all bugger off because they are on strike don't seem to get how hard the job is.
My best friend is a doctor, for a couple of years he was basically socially absent either working or catching up on sleep. His choice and he gets paid well for his trouble, but that's the point, it's not an easy job. Your ire would be better directed at the tube drivers.
I know plenty of doctors too, and know how hard they work. They seem to do very nicely financially, and no, I don't think they should all bugger off. But quite a few would do well to look around and appreciate just how much better off they are relative to the majority of those paying their taxes to finance and educate them, and dial down the 'Me, Me, Me' rhetoric.
Junior doctors start at £23000. What are the starting salaries of qualified Solicitors or Chartered Accountants ?
Oh stop waffling Richard and try answering the question.
You have said City issues could sway your decision. How, exactly, when the PM is not negotiating on this topic?
He is. The institutional protections against Eurozone hegemony are an absolutely key point for me.
On the other side, which you ignored, who knows? I don't see the slightest smidgen of a grown-up discussion from the Leave camp on this.
Yes I agree with you and its plain stupid of people to pretend it is not being negotiated. I also agree with Mr Meeks that in or out is not that much different if we leave to join the EEA. Both sides do not want to mention that. The EEA keeps us out of he political side but we are still influenced by an ever closer union of the EU with no votes.
In the immediate term, there isn't much difference between EEA and EU membership.
In the longer term, much more so. It enables one side to progress to ever-closer union, and the other side, to move away from it.
And I don't see Brexit - assuming we stayed in EFTA/EEA - causing investment managers to leave the UK.
That's the rub. You are right that if we join the EEA then the economic effects on the City (and on business generally) would be minimal. If that is what is proposed, then we have a concrete and credible alternative, the merits of which can be rationally discussed. (I'm personally not persuaded it's worth the hassle and loss of influence to get sovereignty back over relatively minor areas such as agriculture, but others will disagree - that's fair enough).
However, if the proposal is an EEA-style deal, the Leave side needs to stop all this crap about regaining control of our borders and citing the EU migration crisis as a reason for leaving, and it also needs to accept that there is a lot of truth in the 'government by fax' jibe.
What exactly are the difference between the EU and the EEA on these substantive issues ? Hardly any.
As I see it, the differences are we would not be part of the CAP and CFP, would be paying substantially less in contributions, and would not be part of the political aspects of the EU (attempts to forge EU defence capability, common foreign policy etc.)
Mr. Slackbladder, and guaranteed jobs, as well as the pensions being bulletproof.
On the other side, the job is intensely stressful. Salaries matter, but they're not the whole story, either way.
Training contracts are like gold dust in law, my OH really wishes she hadn't gone into it - and hates it. You can do conversions into law, but does anyone know how to get out ?
Oh stop waffling Richard and try answering the question.
You have said City issues could sway your decision. How, exactly, when the PM is not negotiating on this topic?
He is. The institutional protections against Eurozone hegemony are an absolutely key point for me.
On the other side, which you ignored, who knows? I don't see the slightest smidgen of a grown-up discussion from the Leave camp on this.
Yes I agree with you and its plain stupid of people to pretend it is not being negotiated. I also agree with Mr Meeks that in or out is not that much different if we leave to join the EEA. Both sides do not want to mention that. The EEA keeps us out of he political side but we are still influenced by an ever closer union of the EU with no votes.
The equation is:
(1) Stay in EU: remain as large net contributor, possess 1/28th of the say on the single market (with the risk of being regularly outvoted by the euro zone) but able to at least make our case in the EU parliament/European Council etc. with a handful of veto options. Risk of further EU integration scope creep and continue to be subject to CAP/CFP and justice/crime/foreign affairs/security oversight through Lisbon. Trade with rest of world wholly through EU.
(2) Leave EU: still pay a contribution through EEA/EFTA membership, but less, have no direct say on the single market and comply with products sold into it and have no veto options. But regain self-governance on CAP/CFP, trade deals and any constitutional/legal links to most supranational EU institutions, including crime/justice. Able to have much greater economic freedom with non EU states with no threat of further integration. Retain some influence in Europe through economic size/clout on the continent.
For me, the balance is quite clearly in favour of (2) and flipped some time ago.
Training contracts are like gold dust in law, my OH really wishes she hadn't gone into it - and hates it. You can do conversions into law, but does anyone know how to get out ?
At what stage is she? Once qualified, there are plenty of opportunities outside working for law firms.
For those interested in understanding the Doctor' strike, rather than just spouting their own political views of what it is about, I heartily commend the post on the previous thread timed at 00:05 this morning from the good Dr. FoxInSox, consultant medicus of the County of Leicestershire.
He's a vested interest on at least 2 counts - Dr and Corbynite.
I thought he was a LibDem!
His post started off with a few reasonable points but "some Doctors get married and don't want to work unsociable hours" isn't a basis for the government to give them even more money.
It's not about giving them even more money, it is about not accepting a pretty big wage cut. Doctors are the one group of people who's services are in high demand globally and in the private sector over here so most could walk into a non-NHS job. They also vote Tory. Hunt is barking up the wrong tree here.
Who they vote for is irrelevant. Political allegiance should be no bar to reform.
GPs have been suffering pay cuts over the last few years and frankly so have a lot of worker who have to adapt to keep their jobs and industries solvent. No doubt these junior doctors, who in previous years had to work 80 hrs a week are happy to receive goods and services at low inflationary prices whilst at the same time refusing to treat their illnesses.
Mr. Slackbladder, and guaranteed jobs, as well as the pensions being bulletproof.
On the other side, the job is intensely stressful. Salaries matter, but they're not the whole story, either way.
Training contracts are like gold dust in law, my OH really wishes she hadn't gone into it - and hates it. You can do conversions into law, but does anyone know how to get out ?
For those interested in understanding the Doctor' strike, rather than just spouting their own political views of what it is about, I heartily commend the post on the previous thread timed at 00:05 this morning from the good Dr. FoxInSox, consultant medicus of the County of Leicestershire.
He's a vested interest on at least 2 counts - Dr and Corbynite.
I thought he was a LibDem!
His post started off with a few reasonable points but "some Doctors get married and don't want to work unsociable hours" isn't a basis for the government to give them even more money.
It's not about giving them even more money, it is about not accepting a pretty big wage cut. Doctors are the one group of people who's services are in high demand globally and in the private sector over here so most could walk into a non-NHS job. They also vote Tory. Hunt is barking up the wrong tree here.
Who they vote for is irrelevant. Political allegiance should be no bar to reform.
Well as a Tory member, I'm not sure the government should be in the business of pissing off supporters who work hard and buy into the idea of aspiration. Becoming a doctor isn't easy and once it's done requires a lifetime of education and training. People like you who think they should all bugger off because they are on strike don't seem to get how hard the job is.
My best friend is a doctor, for a couple of years he was basically socially absent either working or catching up on sleep. His choice and he gets paid well for his trouble, but that's the point, it's not an easy job. Your ire would be better directed at the tube drivers.
I know plenty of doctors too, and know how hard they work. They seem to do very nicely financially, and no, I don't think they should all bugger off. But quite a few would do well to look around and appreciate just how much better off they are relative to the majority of those paying their taxes to finance and educate them, and dial down the 'Me, Me, Me' rhetoric.
Junior doctors start at £23000. What are the starting salaries of qualified Solicitors or Chartered Accountants ?
Their basic salary is £23k. What is the average starting gross pay, after weekend payments and the rest?
Also, what's the average 'junior doctor' salary after, say, 5 years? Indeed, I'd be interested to know what the average salary of those striking today is.
Mr. Slackbladder, and guaranteed jobs, as well as the pensions being bulletproof.
On the other side, the job is intensely stressful. Salaries matter, but they're not the whole story, either way.
Training contracts are like gold dust in law, my OH really wishes she hadn't gone into it - and hates it. You can do conversions into law, but does anyone know how to get out ?
And I don't see Brexit - assuming we stayed in EFTA/EEA - causing investment managers to leave the UK.
That's the rub. You are right that if we join the EEA then the economic effects on the City (and on business generally) would be minimal. If that is what is proposed, then we have a concrete and credible alternative, the merits of which can be rationally discussed. (I'm personally not persuaded it's worth the hassle and loss of influence to get sovereignty back over relatively minor areas such as agriculture, but others will disagree - that's fair enough).
However, if the proposal is an EEA-style deal, the Leave side needs to stop all this crap about regaining control of our borders and citing the EU migration crisis as a reason for leaving, and it also needs to accept that there is a lot of truth in the 'government by fax' jibe.
The point of being in the EEA is that only our relationship with Europe is governed by the EEA treaty, not everything we do. We would be free to enter a trade agreement with Peru if we so wanted and our companies could export there in the same manner as US companies do with fewer tariffs and barriers.
I think you severely overestimate our "influence" in Europe. Especially in financial services, it amounts to nothing.
Mr. Slackbladder, and guaranteed jobs, as well as the pensions being bulletproof.
On the other side, the job is intensely stressful. Salaries matter, but they're not the whole story, either way.
Training contracts are like gold dust in law, my OH really wishes she hadn't gone into it - and hates it. You can do conversions into law, but does anyone know how to get out ?
Have babies.
We have two horses. Ain't got no time for kids ;p.
Mr. Slackbladder, and guaranteed jobs, as well as the pensions being bulletproof.
On the other side, the job is intensely stressful. Salaries matter, but they're not the whole story, either way.
Training contracts are like gold dust in law, my OH really wishes she hadn't gone into it - and hates it. You can do conversions into law, but does anyone know how to get out ?
Regarding EU vs EEA, that's not what's on the table is it? The way to have done that would have been a manifesto commitment to negotiate a transition from EU to EEA. Arguably you wouldn't even have needed a referendum to ratify it.
The point of being in the EEA is that only our relationship with Europe is governed by the EEA treaty, not everything we do. We would be free to enter a trade agreement with Peru if we so wanted and our companies could export there in the same manner as US companies do with fewer tariffs and barriers.
I'm unimpressed by this argument that we'd get some advantage through trade deals by leaving. Can anyone cite any industry, any industry at all, which is lobbying for non-EU-brokered trade deals? Furthermore, since the developed country which is unquestionably the biggest success in the world at exporting is a member of the EU, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that our non-EU exports are being held back by EU membership. On balance, the argument over trade deals is either neutral or perhaps favours staying in the EU, IMO; scale is important in such negotiations.
Just heard Jeremy Hunt thank the 40% of Junior Doctors working normally today. I thought all the Junior Doctors were on strike. If as seems likely public support will fall surely the strike will collapse as it doesnt take many more doctors to go to work for the strike to be supported by less than half of doctors
Mr. Slackbladder, and guaranteed jobs, as well as the pensions being bulletproof.
On the other side, the job is intensely stressful. Salaries matter, but they're not the whole story, either way.
Training contracts are like gold dust in law, my OH really wishes she hadn't gone into it - and hates it. You can do conversions into law, but does anyone know how to get out ?
Take a job in the civil service.
It took me two and a half years to get my training contract (Oxford degrees aren't what they used to be!) and it won't start for over a year. But that is the market I am in; I don't feel personally hard done by.
He's said that he regrets not running and is perfectly placed to do a Humphrey. Obviously, Humphrey lost but 1968 was a strange election in many ways, and healthcare is not Vietnam, Trump is not Nixon, and some dodgy e-mails are not an assassin's bullet.
Good shout David, although if it's not to be Hillary (or Saunders), then it could be anyone .... all of whom are at three figure odds. For fun, I've just done a spot of bottom fishing, picking up 52p's worth of Elizabeth Warren with Betfair at the modest price of 451/1, net of their commission. It would be a tale worth telling down at my local should I land that one.
Good luck with that bet! I still can't help feeling, as was discussed last night, that if it's clearly looking like Trump v Sanders after the early primaries, *someone* will throw their hat into the ring. It could be a moderate from one side or the other hoping for a brokered convention, or a third party candidate.
Biden and Warren are both good shouts for the Dems, and Bloomberg is the most likely independent as he's got huge money behind him.
Who might come for the Republicans though, maybe Rubio or Christie trying to retread? I can't think of any really high-profile centrist Republicans not in the race - Romney again?
Really? You can't think about any really high profile Republican not in the race? Ryan.
Plato...A Doctor who has sworn by the Hippocratic Oath should not be told to just ignore it because his Union officials have failed at the negotiating table..thank heaven some Doctors have retained their principles
He's said that he regrets not running and is perfectly placed to do a Humphrey. Obviously, Humphrey lost but 1968 was a strange election in many ways, and healthcare is not Vietnam, Trump is not Nixon, and some dodgy e-mails are not an assassin's bullet.
Good shout David, although if it's not to be Hillary (or Saunders), then it could be anyone .... all of whom are at three figure odds. For fun, I've just done a spot of bottom fishing, picking up 52p's worth of Elizabeth Warren with Betfair at the modest price of 451/1, net of their commission. It would be a tale worth telling down at my local should I land that one.
Good luck with that bet! I still can't help feeling, as was discussed last night, that if it's clearly looking like Trump v Sanders after the early primaries, *someone* will throw their hat into the ring. It could be a moderate from one side or the other hoping for a brokered convention, or a third party candidate.
Biden and Warren are both good shouts for the Dems, and Bloomberg is the most likely independent as he's got huge money behind him.
Who might come for the Republicans though, maybe Rubio or Christie trying to retread? I can't think of any really high-profile centrist Republicans not in the race - Romney again?
Really? You can't think about any really high profile Republican not in the race? Ryan.
Ryan was easily my first choice when considering which Republicans had the ability to "Make a splash". However I still couldn't see a way for him to end up in this race.
The point of being in the EEA is that only our relationship with Europe is governed by the EEA treaty, not everything we do. We would be free to enter a trade agreement with Peru if we so wanted and our companies could export there in the same manner as US companies do with fewer tariffs and barriers.
I'm unimpressed by this argument that we'd get some advantage through trade deals by leaving. Can anyone cite any industry, any industry at all, which is lobbying for non-EU-brokered trade deals? Furthermore, since the developed country which is unquestionably the biggest success in the world at exporting is a member of the EU, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that our non-EU exports are being held back by EU membership. On balance, the argument over trade deals is either neutral or perhaps favours staying in the EU, IMO; scale is important in such negotiations.
Well why would any industry be lobbying for lone trade deals when we are in the EU, it would just be a waste of resources and time.
Again, Richard, you have ignored the more important point and not answered my original question of what changes Dave is trying to get to protect the City. I haven't seen anything on it other than some generalised, don't let EMU nations gang up on the non EMU nations, but given that the City is usually alone in any fight how are Dave's negotiations going to help? I take you back to the example of bail-in rules and ask how that would be any different had Dave already had his renegotiation and won this non-EMU protection? We were outvoted on that measure 26-2 and without the veto power we weren't able to secure an opt-out.
BBCLauraK 38 percent of junior doctors did go to work today I m told - majority on strike but less clear cut than original strike ballot
Seems high - not good for the militant wing of the BMA.
38% of JDs working does seem high once those on leave, sick and working other shifts is taken into account.
I would guess it is 40% of doctors scheduled to work today rather than 40% of all JDs and there perhaps has been some shifting around of schedules / holidays so that those likely to come in were on duty anyway.
My cousin turned down a job with a private health trust to work for the NHS, should he go back and accept that job? There are countless NHS workers who have turned down private work to "do their duty" for the nation, they just didn't expect to be told unilaterally that their wages would be going down.
This business of them "doing their duty" really annoys me. They should just do what's in their best interest. If that means leaving the NHS, so be it. I for one won't hold it against them.
I agree with that as well, my uncle (his dad) told him at the time to throw his lot in with the private trust. He is also one of the final few to come out with less than £50k in debt, the current crop of graduates will have £80-90k in debt so will have less inclination to "do one's duty".
As an aside, we have two MBBS graduates in our programme this year who decided they didn't want to go into medicine and have gone into banking instead. If the government are intent on lowering the pay grades the trickle will turn into a stream.
Isn't a large part of the problem that productivity gains in medicine simply haven't kept up with the rest of the economy, and hence the relative value of a healthcare worker (doctor, nurse, orderly, administrator) has diminished relative to the average worker?
If that is the case, it is only natural that wages relative to the average will be suppressed, with the natural consequence that the most financially ambitious will no longer enter this profession or will leave it. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with that.
BBCLauraK 38 percent of junior doctors did go to work today I m told - majority on strike but less clear cut than original strike ballot
Seems high - not good for the militant wing of the BMA.
38% of JDs working does seem high once those on leave, sick and working other shifts is taken into account.
I would guess it is 40% of doctors scheduled to work today rather than 40% of all JDs and there perhaps has been some shifting around of schedules / holidays so that those likely to come in were on duty anyway.
Maybe but the fact that 40% of Junior Doctors were on duty will encourage Jeremy Hunt to stand firm
He's said that he regrets not running and is perfectly placed to do a Humphrey. Obviously, Humphrey lost but 1968 was a strange election in many ways, and healthcare is not Vietnam, Trump is not Nixon, and some dodgy e-mails are not an assassin's bullet.
Good shout David, although if it's not to be Hillary (or Saunders), then it could be anyone .... all of whom are at three figure odds. For fun, I've just done a spot of bottom fishing, picking up 52p's worth of Elizabeth Warren with Betfair at the modest price of 451/1, net of their commission. It would be a tale worth telling down at my local should I land that one.
Good luck with that bet! I still can't help feeling, as was discussed last night, that if it's clearly looking like Trump v Sanders after the early primaries, *someone* will throw their hat into the ring. It could be a moderate from one side or the other hoping for a brokered convention, or a third party candidate.
Biden and Warren are both good shouts for the Dems, and Bloomberg is the most likely independent as he's got huge money behind him.
Who might come for the Republicans though, maybe Rubio or Christie trying to retread? I can't think of any really high-profile centrist Republicans not in the race - Romney again?
Really? You can't think about any really high profile Republican not in the race? Ryan.
Ryan was easily my first choice when considering which Republicans had the ability to "Make a splash". However I still couldn't see a way for him to end up in this race.
The only way is for the conference to beg him. Otherwise, it is not happening.
He's said that he regrets not running and is perfectly placed to do a Humphrey. Obviously, Humphrey lost but 1968 was a strange election in many ways, and healthcare is not Vietnam, Trump is not Nixon, and some dodgy e-mails are not an assassin's bullet.
Good shout David, although if it's not to be Hillary (or Saunders), then it could be anyone .... all of whom are at three figure odds. For fun, I've just done a spot of bottom fishing, picking up 52p's worth of Elizabeth Warren with Betfair at the modest price of 451/1, net of their commission. It would be a tale worth telling down at my local should I land that one.
Good luck with that bet! I still can't help feeling, as was discussed last night, that if it's clearly looking like Trump v Sanders after the early primaries, *someone* will throw their hat into the ring. It could be a moderate from one side or the other hoping for a brokered convention, or a third party candidate.
Biden and Warren are both good shouts for the Dems, and Bloomberg is the most likely independent as he's got huge money behind him.
Who might come for the Republicans though, maybe Rubio or Christie trying to retread? I can't think of any really high-profile centrist Republicans not in the race - Romney again?
Really? You can't think about any really high profile Republican not in the race? Ryan.
Ryan was easily my first choice when considering which Republicans had the ability to "Make a splash". However I still couldn't see a way for him to end up in this race.
The only way is for the conference to beg him. Otherwise, it is not happening.
You will know better than me but I do not think the conference would beg him if Trump or Cruz or Rubio were in line otherwise.
Oh stop waffling Richard and try answering the question.
You have said City issues could sway your decision. How, exactly, when the PM is not negotiating on this topic?
He is. The institutional protections against Eurozone hegemony are an absolutely key point for me.
On the other side, which you ignored, who knows? I don't see the slightest smidgen of a grown-up discussion from the Leave camp on this.
Yes I agree with you and its plain stupid of people to pretend it is not being negotiated. I also agree with Mr Meeks that in or out is not that much different if we leave to join the EEA. Both sides do not want to mention that. The EEA keeps us out of he political side but we are still influenced by an ever closer union of the EU with no votes.
The equation is:
(1) Stay in EU: remain as large net contributor, possess 1/28th of the say on the single market (with the risk of being regularly outvoted by the euro zone) but able to at least make our case in the EU parliament/European Council etc. with a handful of veto options. Risk of further EU integration scope creep and continue to be subject to CAP/CFP and justice/crime/foreign affairs/security oversight through Lisbon. Trade with rest of world wholly through EU.
(2) Leave EU: still pay a contribution through EEA/EFTA membership, but less, have no direct say on the single market and comply with products sold into it and have no veto options. But regain self-governance on CAP/CFP, trade deals and any constitutional/legal links to most supranational EU institutions, including crime/justice. Able to have much greater economic freedom with non EU states with no threat of further integration. Retain some influence in Europe through economic size/clout on the continent.
For me, the balance is quite clearly in favour of (2) and flipped some time ago.
A very nice summary of the issues, Mr. Royale.
This business of influence is in my view much overstated. We have no influence on the product/market rules of the USA, China etc. etc. but manage to trade with them OK. As for the non-trade related matters, we would lose influence but regain control - Parliament would decide. So, I am less convinced that the "government by fax" argument is anymore than than another scare story. If memory serves it was a term originally coined by a pro-EU Norwegian politician who was trying to convince her compatriots to vote to join.
One final thing, the EEA is a treaty that applies to only three of the four members of the EFTA. The fourth, Switzerland, is not a member of the EEA but has its own series of bilateral agreements. Given the size and importance of the UK economy I would expect us to follow the Swiss route but be able to negotiate a better deal.
Just heard Jeremy Hunt thank the 40% of Junior Doctors working normally today. I thought all the Junior Doctors were on strike. If as seems likely public support will fall surely the strike will collapse as it doesnt take many more doctors to go to work for the strike to be supported by less than half of doctors
No not all junior doctors are on strike only BMA members. My trust (and it is the one which had been on the news) has only 70% BMA membership. Those non members have been specifically warned about taking some action as they would not perhaps have protection against dismissal. Like everything which comes out of Hunt's mouth it is pure spin.
The point of being in the EEA is that only our relationship with Europe is governed by the EEA treaty, not everything we do. We would be free to enter a trade agreement with Peru if we so wanted and our companies could export there in the same manner as US companies do with fewer tariffs and barriers.
I'm unimpressed by this argument that we'd get some advantage through trade deals by leaving. Can anyone cite any industry, any industry at all, which is lobbying for non-EU-brokered trade deals? Furthermore, since the developed country which is unquestionably the biggest success in the world at exporting is a member of the EU, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that our non-EU exports are being held back by EU membership. On balance, the argument over trade deals is either neutral or perhaps favours staying in the EU, IMO; scale is important in such negotiations.
Small point: Germany shares the Euro with a bunch of deadbeats. This gives it the mega advantage of having a currency that is WAY undervalued. But, errr, it also means the deadbeats have currencies WAY overvalued so their economic / export performance is crippled. And they can never repay their loans. The German model is therefore inherently unsustainable - a kind of giant vendor financing scam. German success comes from eating their co-religionists in the Euro. Not going to end well. 2016 will be the year. Buy gold.
This business of influence is in my view much overstated. We have no influence on the product/market rules of the USA, China etc. etc. but manage to trade with them OK. As for the non-trade related matters, we would lose influence but regain control - Parliament would decide. So, I am less convinced that the "government by fax" argument is anymore than than another scare story. If memory serves it was a term originally coined by a pro-EU Norwegian politician who was trying to convince her compatriots to vote to join.
One final thing, the EEA is a treaty that applies to only three of the four members of the EFTA. The fourth, Switzerland, is not a member of the EEA but has its own series of bilateral agreements. Given the size and importance of the UK economy I would expect us to follow the Swiss route but be able to negotiate a better deal.
Switzerland is not a part of the EU single market for services, which would be a big deal for the UK given our large legal, accounting, and consulting, etc businesses.
She obviously isn't too concerned about having an active love life.
On the other hand, if someone discovers it, and thinks it is awesome, they should get engaged on the spot - clearly, their souls were meant for each other.
Just heard Jeremy Hunt thank the 40% of Junior Doctors working normally today. I thought all the Junior Doctors were on strike. If as seems likely public support will fall surely the strike will collapse as it doesnt take many more doctors to go to work for the strike to be supported by less than half of doctors
No not all junior doctors are on strike only BMA members. My trust (and it is the one which had been on the news) has only 70% BMA membership. Those non members have been specifically warned about taking some action as they would not perhaps have protection against dismissal. Like everything which comes out of Hunt's mouth it is pure spin.
The interesting part of this is that the Junior Doctors now appear split and not far from 50/50 and I an sure the public thought this strike was by all Junior Doctors. I can see only one winner here and its not the Junior Doctors
The point of being in the EEA is that only our relationship with Europe is governed by the EEA treaty, not everything we do. We would be free to enter a trade agreement with Peru if we so wanted and our companies could export there in the same manner as US companies do with fewer tariffs and barriers.
I'm unimpressed by this argument that we'd get some advantage through trade deals by leaving. Can anyone cite any industry, any industry at all, which is lobbying for non-EU-brokered trade deals? Furthermore, since the developed country which is unquestionably the biggest success in the world at exporting is a member of the EU, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that our non-EU exports are being held back by EU membership. On balance, the argument over trade deals is either neutral or perhaps favours staying in the EU, IMO; scale is important in such negotiations.
You're missing the point. We can join the EEA and get something better. Or we can join EFTA an get something better. Or we can negotiate our own deals and get something better. Or we can alternate between them five times a second and get something better twice. No explanation need be offered as to *why* this would produce something better, no proof has to be offered that it *will* produce something better, it just has to be continually stated. See also "magic money tree".
The point of being in the EEA is that only our relationship with Europe is governed by the EEA treaty, not everything we do. We would be free to enter a trade agreement with Peru if we so wanted and our companies could export there in the same manner as US companies do with fewer tariffs and barriers.
I'm unimpressed by this argument that we'd get some advantage through trade deals by leaving. Can anyone cite any industry, any industry at all, which is lobbying for non-EU-brokered trade deals? Furthermore, since the developed country which is unquestionably the biggest success in the world at exporting is a member of the EU, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that our non-EU exports are being held back by EU membership. On balance, the argument over trade deals is either neutral or perhaps favours staying in the EU, IMO; scale is important in such negotiations.
Small point: Germany shares the Euro with a bunch of deadbeats. This gives it the mega advantage of having a currency that is WAY undervalued. But, errr, it also means the deadbeats have currencies WAY overvalued so their economic / export performance is crippled. And they can never repay their loans. The German model is therefore inherently unsustainable - a kind of giant vendor financing scam. German success comes from eating their co-religionists in the Euro. Not going to end well. 2016 will be the year. Buy gold.
The deadbeats - Italy, Spain, etc. - all run current account surpluses. Which does not imply their currencies are over-valued.
This business of influence is in my view much overstated. We have no influence on the product/market rules of the USA, China etc. etc. but manage to trade with them OK. As for the non-trade related matters, we would lose influence but regain control - Parliament would decide. So, I am less convinced that the "government by fax" argument is anymore than than another scare story. If memory serves it was a term originally coined by a pro-EU Norwegian politician who was trying to convince her compatriots to vote to join.
One final thing, the EEA is a treaty that applies to only three of the four members of the EFTA. The fourth, Switzerland, is not a member of the EEA but has its own series of bilateral agreements. Given the size and importance of the UK economy I would expect us to follow the Swiss route but be able to negotiate a better deal.
Switzerland is not a part of the EU single market for services, which would be a big deal for the UK given our large legal, accounting, and consulting, etc businesses.
I did say follow the Swiss route (i.e. our own set of agreements rather than adopt the standard EEA treaty). I did not say have the same deal as the Swiss.
By the way has the single free market in services within the EU been completed yet? Last time I looked it hadn't because Germany and France didn't want it.
'He is. The institutional protections against Eurozone hegemony are an absolutely key point for me.'
But as Max has said, what exactly is the PM asking for in this area? As far as I can see, nothing of any significance at all. Perhaps Richard you could lay out clearly what you think an acceptable outcome in this area would be, just so we all know.
If David Bowie had died on a normal day, I would probably have just thought "Oh, that's another person to put on my Death List". But yesterday my reaction was (1) "Oh! It was only his birthday the other day, when his new album was released" and (2) "Oh! His ex-wife is in the Celebrity Big Brother house". I first heard the news when I turned over to the BBC news channel, after watching "Neighbours", at 2:20pm.
I found myself watching the news for the whole afternoon because I realised I needed to take time to absorb and contemplate the enormity and variety of his life's work. It was amusing to read through yesterday morning's thread, with debates about comparing Bowie with Bach and Rachmaninov etc. The essential feature of the music industry, throughout history, is to filter out the vast majority of dross and dribble, and leave the few gems of excellence to emerge and endure. For that reason I think that Bowie's work will be remembered 100 years from now, despite what a few nay-sayers were saying.
This business of influence is in my view much overstated. We have no influence on the product/market rules of the USA, China etc. etc. but manage to trade with them OK. As for the non-trade related matters, we would lose influence but regain control - Parliament would decide. So, I am less convinced that the "government by fax" argument is anymore than than another scare story. If memory serves it was a term originally coined by a pro-EU Norwegian politician who was trying to convince her compatriots to vote to join.
One final thing, the EEA is a treaty that applies to only three of the four members of the EFTA. The fourth, Switzerland, is not a member of the EEA but has its own series of bilateral agreements. Given the size and importance of the UK economy I would expect us to follow the Swiss route but be able to negotiate a better deal.
Switzerland is not a part of the EU single market for services, which would be a big deal for the UK given our large legal, accounting, and consulting, etc businesses.
I did say follow the Swiss route (i.e. our own set of agreements rather than adopt the standard EEA treaty). I did not say have the same deal as the Swiss.
Again, Richard, you have ignored the more important point and not answered my original question of what changes Dave is trying to get to protect the City. I haven't seen anything on it other than some generalised, don't let EMU nations gang up on the non EMU nations, but given that the City is usually alone in any fight how are Dave's negotiations going to help? I take you back to the example of bail-in rules and ask how that would be any different had Dave already had his renegotiation and won this non-EMU protection? We were outvoted on that measure 26-2 and without the veto power we weren't able to secure an opt-out.
I'm not ignoring it, I accept it. Blair & Brown made an absolute solid-gold hash of negotiations, ceding our veto on financial regulation for nothing in return. But we are where we are, and I don't see any hope of reversing that, other than the Eurozone hegemony issue, where I think we will make some progress.
But I come back to my original point: accepting all that, how does leaving help? If we join the EEA, we're back where we started, except with even less say, no vetos, and less institutional protection. If we don't sign up to the EEA or something similar, then we lose out on access to the Single Market, and especially for services.
It's a choice, not a vote of thanks to the EU. I'm fully persuaded of the problems of remaining, what I'm asking for is to be persuaded that the alternative is better.
Just heard Jeremy Hunt thank the 40% of Junior Doctors working normally today. I thought all the Junior Doctors were on strike. If as seems likely public support will fall surely the strike will collapse as it doesnt take many more doctors to go to work for the strike to be supported by less than half of doctors
No not all junior doctors are on strike only BMA members. My trust (and it is the one which had been on the news) has only 70% BMA membership. Those non members have been specifically warned about taking some action as they would not perhaps have protection against dismissal. Like everything which comes out of Hunt's mouth it is pure spin.
The interesting part of this is that the Junior Doctors now appear split and not far from 50/50 and I an sure the public thought this strike was by all Junior Doctors. I can see only one winner here and its not the Junior Doctors
I can't help it if you had been misled by Hunt's dissembling if every junior doctor who was a BMA member was on strike today then 33% of all junior doctors would be in work today.
Just heard Jeremy Hunt thank the 40% of Junior Doctors working normally today. I thought all the Junior Doctors were on strike. If as seems likely public support will fall surely the strike will collapse as it doesnt take many more doctors to go to work for the strike to be supported by less than half of doctors
No not all junior doctors are on strike only BMA members. My trust (and it is the one which had been on the news) has only 70% BMA membership. Those non members have been specifically warned about taking some action as they would not perhaps have protection against dismissal. Like everything which comes out of Hunt's mouth it is pure spin.
Isn't that bullshit?
The likelihood of any non-affiliated junior doctor being sacked for striking is approximately zero
You will know better than me but I do not think the conference would beg him if Trump or Cruz or Rubio were in line otherwise.
I agree. The GOP Establishment is either terrified of or paralyzed by Trump. Cruz will lose the election if the nominee, but his nomination would be valid and hard to justify overturning. A Conference search for an outsider would only be viable if none of the candidates carried enough delegates to win outright.
(1) Stay in EU: remain as large net contributor, possess 1/28th of the say on the single market (with the risk of being regularly outvoted by the euro zone) but able to at least make our case in the EU parliament/European Council etc. with a handful of veto options. Risk of further EU integration scope creep and continue to be subject to CAP/CFP and justice/crime/foreign affairs/security oversight through Lisbon. Trade with rest of world wholly through EU.
(2) Leave EU: still pay a contribution through EEA/EFTA membership, but less, have no direct say on the single market and comply with products sold into it and have no veto options. But regain self-governance on CAP/CFP, trade deals and any constitutional/legal links to most supranational EU institutions, including crime/justice. Able to have much greater economic freedom with non EU states with no threat of further integration. Retain some influence in Europe through economic size/clout on the continent.
For me, the balance is quite clearly in favour of (2) and flipped some time ago.
Not a bad summary, but I need to point out that "able to have much greater economic freedom with non EU states" does not imply a *better* outcome, or even a *different* one. I assume the conversation would go like this
* UK: "Hello, TurkIranexico. I'm the UK. I've just left the EU and I'd like a much better deal please" * TurkIranexico. "Why? We haven't changed, you have. Our interests are still the same" * UK: "Ah. I didn't think this thru, did I?" * TurkIranexico. "No"
It's a bit like Donald Trump promising that Mexico will pay for the wall and the TeaPartiers believing him because the Prez is just magic. But Mexico hasn't been asked and the answer will at least enable us to find out what "f*** off" is in Mexican. Similarly a better deal with country X will require the cooperation of company X, and that cooperation has not been sought nor proffered. See also "We can have a commonwealth free trade area..."
She obviously isn't too concerned about having an active love life.
On the other hand, if someone discovers it, and thinks it is awesome, they should get engaged on the spot - clearly, their souls were meant for each other.
Gobsmacked - Never had you down as a romantic Mr kle4…!
Mr. Robert, leave aside all other issues, isn't that UK number scary? Isn't that the number that we, and especially HMG, really should be concentrating on?
Comments
We are very lucky that we have critical mass. Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Zurich and Geneva do not. There is more money managed in London than in the rest of Europe put together. And that means that the brokers want to be in London, so they can be near their clients. And the traders want to be near the brokers. And the corporate financiers - to a lesser extent - want to be be where the pools of money are.
The danger to London would come from losing investment managers.
And I don't see Brexit - assuming we stayed in EFTA/EEA - causing investment managers to leave the UK.
And, I don't see any way of changing this. There is no appetite to change this among either centre-right, or centre-left political parties on the Continent. Nor will the Prime Minister's negotiations change this.
This may change if insurgent parties of right and left come to dominate Continental politics, but that in turn would cause problems of its own.
So, for me at least, any economic difficulties that may ensue from Leaving are of secondary importance. The UK will remain a rich country whether or not it remains part of the EU (unless we elect Corbyn).
(As in, Jersey City has all the back-offices for the US investment banks...)
Yeah, overall I agree with this, there just doesn't seem to be any appetite for change. Most people realise we would probably just end up in the EEA/EFTA anyway (weirdly where we would have a kind of veto on FinReg) and just continue as is. I'm not convinced by the doomsday scenarios and specifically for investment managers leaving, well I don't see it, even if we leave the EU and don't enter into an EEA style agreement. There is just too much inertia. Both Airbus and Toyota have said they are staying and Airbus is part owned by the French and German state so if they aren't leaving I don't see any of the major industries packing up.
If life was like Twitter - from @MotoClark https://t.co/2BDfJR6vpK
I imagine us being out would actually be a big boost to investment management, because Britain would effectively be an offshore haven.
The big banks would seek a presence in the eurozone though, undoubtedly.
As an aside, we have two MBBS graduates in our programme this year who decided they didn't want to go into medicine and have gone into banking instead. If the government are intent on lowering the pay grades the trickle will turn into a stream.
The question not asked is would they invest in new lines if they have to pay duties to sell in the EU ? Nissan exports 75% of its output to the EU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCem9EZb-YA&feature=youtu.be
Edinburgh too in a separate Scotland. You don't lose 300 years experience in a few years.
However, if the proposal is an EEA-style deal, the Leave side needs to stop all this crap about regaining control of our borders and citing the EU migration crisis as a reason for leaving, and it also needs to accept that there is a lot of truth in the 'government by fax' jibe.
I also agree with Mr Meeks that in or out is not that much different if we leave to join the EEA. Both sides do not want to mention that. The EEA keeps us out of he political side but we are still influenced by an ever closer union of the EU with no votes.
In a separate Scotland without Sterling??? without the BofE??? don;t think so.
In the longer term, much more so. It enables one side to progress to ever-closer union, and the other side, to move away from it.
On the other side, the job is intensely stressful. Salaries matter, but they're not the whole story, either way.
38 percent of junior doctors did go to work today I m told - majority on strike but less clear cut than original strike ballot
(1) Stay in EU: remain as large net contributor, possess 1/28th of the say on the single market (with the risk of being regularly outvoted by the euro zone) but able to at least make our case in the EU parliament/European Council etc. with a handful of veto options. Risk of further EU integration scope creep and continue to be subject to CAP/CFP and justice/crime/foreign affairs/security oversight through Lisbon. Trade with rest of world wholly through EU.
(2) Leave EU: still pay a contribution through EEA/EFTA membership, but less, have no direct say on the single market and comply with products sold into it and have no veto options. But regain self-governance on CAP/CFP, trade deals and any constitutional/legal links to most supranational EU institutions, including crime/justice. Able to have much greater economic freedom with non EU states with no threat of further integration. Retain some influence in Europe through economic size/clout on the continent.
For me, the balance is quite clearly in favour of (2) and flipped some time ago.
@paulwaugh
.@jeremycorbyn AND @NicolaSturgeon will both address Unite Scottish conference. Corbyn on Sat 16th, day before Sturgeon tho.
Also, what's the average 'junior doctor' salary after, say, 5 years? Indeed, I'd be interested to know what the average salary of those striking today is.
I think you severely overestimate our "influence" in Europe. Especially in financial services, it amounts to nothing.
A Commie! #FeelTheBern
It took me two and a half years to get my training contract (Oxford degrees aren't what they used to be!) and it won't start for over a year. But that is the market I am in; I don't feel personally hard done by.
Northern powerhouse my ar&e. Northern poorhouse more like.
"Where do I put the Royals?"
"In the bin."
Well, it made me laugh.
Again, Richard, you have ignored the more important point and not answered my original question of what changes Dave is trying to get to protect the City. I haven't seen anything on it other than some generalised, don't let EMU nations gang up on the non EMU nations, but given that the City is usually alone in any fight how are Dave's negotiations going to help? I take you back to the example of bail-in rules and ask how that would be any different had Dave already had his renegotiation and won this non-EMU protection? We were outvoted on that measure 26-2 and without the veto power we weren't able to secure an opt-out.
Isn't a large part of the problem that productivity gains in medicine simply haven't kept up with the rest of the economy, and hence the relative value of a healthcare worker (doctor, nurse, orderly, administrator) has diminished relative to the average worker?
If that is the case, it is only natural that wages relative to the average will be suppressed, with the natural consequence that the most financially ambitious will no longer enter this profession or will leave it. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with that.
This business of influence is in my view much overstated. We have no influence on the product/market rules of the USA, China etc. etc. but manage to trade with them OK. As for the non-trade related matters, we would lose influence but regain control - Parliament would decide. So, I am less convinced that the "government by fax" argument is anymore than than another scare story. If memory serves it was a term originally coined by a pro-EU Norwegian politician who was trying to convince her compatriots to vote to join.
One final thing, the EEA is a treaty that applies to only three of the four members of the EFTA. The fourth, Switzerland, is not a member of the EEA but has its own series of bilateral agreements. Given the size and importance of the UK economy I would expect us to follow the Swiss route but be able to negotiate a better deal.
Which does not imply their currencies are over-valued.
By the way has the single free market in services within the EU been completed yet? Last time I looked it hadn't because Germany and France didn't want it.
But as Max has said, what exactly is the PM asking for in this area? As far as I can see, nothing of any significance at all. Perhaps Richard you could lay out clearly what you think an acceptable outcome in this area would be, just so we all know.
I found myself watching the news for the whole afternoon because I realised I needed to take time to absorb and contemplate the enormity and variety of his life's work. It was amusing to read through yesterday morning's thread, with debates about comparing Bowie with Bach and Rachmaninov etc. The essential feature of the music industry, throughout history, is to filter out the vast majority of dross and dribble, and leave the few gems of excellence to emerge and endure. For that reason I think that Bowie's work will be remembered 100 years from now, despite what a few nay-sayers were saying.
But I come back to my original point: accepting all that, how does leaving help? If we join the EEA, we're back where we started, except with even less say, no vetos, and less institutional protection. If we don't sign up to the EEA or something similar, then we lose out on access to the Single Market, and especially for services.
It's a choice, not a vote of thanks to the EU. I'm fully persuaded of the problems of remaining, what I'm asking for is to be persuaded that the alternative is better.
Germany 8.21%
Ireland 4.49%
Italy 2.06%
Greece 1.51%
Spain 1.48%
UK -4.68%
The likelihood of any non-affiliated junior doctor being sacked for striking is approximately zero
Suspect it's still screwed, alas.
* UK: "Hello, TurkIranexico. I'm the UK. I've just left the EU and I'd like a much better deal please"
* TurkIranexico. "Why? We haven't changed, you have. Our interests are still the same"
* UK: "Ah. I didn't think this thru, did I?"
* TurkIranexico. "No"
It's a bit like Donald Trump promising that Mexico will pay for the wall and the TeaPartiers believing him because the Prez is just magic. But Mexico hasn't been asked and the answer will at least enable us to find out what "f*** off" is in Mexican. Similarly a better deal with country X will require the cooperation of company X, and that cooperation has not been sought nor proffered. See also "We can have a commonwealth free trade area..."