On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Which is why, after an awful lot of huffing and puffing from both sides, Obama will put forward someone moderate and the Senate Republicans will confirm them after a month or two of messing around.
Hasn't Cruz said he'll filibuster it ?
Ideally the republicans need some of their more moderate senators (Yes they do exist) to vote it through.
It's a political poker game. Obama has the first move, he can choose to be reasonable or partisan.
The Republicans are trying to goad him into being partisan, but if the president chooses this route it could be to his advantage in the run up to the election. If he is reasonable he can paint the republicans as partisan in the short term while he is playing straight.
The Republicans actually want it done & dusted, they know they can't reasonably hold up the appointment through the summer without it playing into the hands of the Democrats in the run up to the election.
If Obama goes for the partisan route, that nominee will be quickly rejected by the Senate, then a second nominee will be appointed. If he goes for the reasonable option they will be confirmed after a little messing around.
The big prize for both parties is the Presidency, he or she will have at least two more Justices to nominate in the next 4 years. They know that the issue is important to the Democrat base and turnout at the Presidential election, so for all the bluff and bluster we'll have a new Justice by late spring.
Maybe.
Ted Cruz can't be seen to be backing down on this one in particular (Perhaps Rubio too but to a lesser degree), Trump has the luxury that he can't affect the outcome !
Ted Cruz needs to attempt to filibuster it and pass out or something so the vote can take place, he can then play the martyr.
LOL, like that idea. Trump has already waded into it, telling the Senators to be reasonable, but he would say that.
The Senate is 54/46, they'll find a way that Cruz and maybe Rubio can still be seen not to back down. It only needs five Senators up for re-election in marginal States to want to avoid spending their whole election campaign talking about the Supreme Court.
No I don't have it the wrong way round. There is a huge rulebook for trading european shares. We helped to draft it and we follow it. It might, for example, say that shares of Deutsche Telecom can only be traded by people called Hans. It would be ridiculous, but if JP Morgan in London wanted to trade Deutsche Telecom, they would need to hire some bloke called Hans to do it. At present we have an input into such rules.
The single rulebook (optional for non eurozone members according to the draft) governs amongst other things SSM, SRM which, as non-euro members, we remain out of. CRD-IV governs capital requirements as you say and, like the Basel protocols, are sensible measures ensuring uniformity of risk across financial and credit institutions. Are you really so worried about the right level CARs to the extent that you would vote Leave for the BoE to set our own?
To say "we can regulate our own banks" is, as they say, not even wrong. Of course we govern our own banks and the EU accepts this.
As to your last statement, how long this will be the case if we vote to stay in remains to be seen. I think you are seriously underestimating the hostility towards the City from the EU.
And I understand that concern. It is a known unknown.
Look, @Richard_Tyndall asked for a positive reason to stay in the EU. I think that MiFID and its formulation is onesuch. It would be the infamous government by fax.
Is it enough to convince Leavers to stay? Of course not. But it is a concrete example, in an industry important to the UK, where staying in would go some way to avoiding the extra cost and almost certain disadvantages being imposed upon The City.
Surely the point is that it being known that the EU wants to dismantle the City means we should detach ourselves from it. The damage that can be done by the EU once we are out is not that large, yes they can try and hobble our access to Euro denominated trade and yes it might mean some FX and investment management moves to Dublin, but the upside of making trade relationships with medium sized Asian and LatAm countries for services. The EU is stagnating and we will stagnate along with it if we stay attached to it.
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Which is why, after an awful lot of huffing and puffing from both sides, Obama will put forward someone moderate and the Senate Republicans will confirm them after a month or two of messing around.
Hasn't Cruz said he'll filibuster it ?
Ideally the republicans need some of their more moderate senators (Yes they do exist) to vote it through.
It's a political poker game. Obama has the first move, he can choose to be reasonable or partisan.
The Republicans are trying to goad him into being partisan, but if the president chooses this route it could be to his advantage in the run up to the election. If he is reasonable he can paint the republicans as partisan in the short term while he is playing straight.
The Republicans actually want it done & dusted, they know they can't reasonably hold up the appointment through the summer without it playing into the hands of the Democrats in the run up to the election.
If Obama goes for the partisan route, that nominee will be quickly rejected by the Senate, then a second nominee will be appointed. If he goes for the reasonable option they will be confirmed after a little messing around.
The big prize for both parties is the Presidency, he or she will have at least two more Justices to nominate in the next 4 years. They know that the issue is important to the Democrat base and turnout at the Presidential election, so for all the bluff and bluster we'll have a new Justice by late spring.
Maybe.
Ted Cruz can't be seen to be backing down on this one in particular (Perhaps Rubio too but to a lesser degree), Trump has the luxury that he can't affect the outcome !
Ted Cruz needs to attempt to filibuster it and pass out or something so the vote can take place, he can then play the martyr. Well maybe not, but he needs a way to cry foul in his own side's tactics or some such. It'll be interesting to see if he can engineer such a situation. SCOTUS is a massive issue for Cruz's base.
I suspect Cruz will just bide his time for now, let Obama get into a twist (if he does) and wait for an out.
We have no input into US financial regulations but our financial sector does very well selling to the US.
Our input into Eurozone rules in the future is also going to be effectively zero. We will succeed or fail in that market based on our own efforts and just how restrictive they choose to be - but we can't do anything about the latter now. Our 'influence' is theoretical.
You have used the perfect analogy. We don't have any influence into US financial regulations and we get on just fine. And we have to adhere to all the various stipulations that the SEC sets out. And so, out of Europe, we would be fine. And subject to all the various stipulations that the EU sets out.
But atm we have an input into those regs. And we would be voting to give that up.
So my question is - if you apply the MiFID example to other areas, do you find the same thing? Are we voting for less influence in any number of areas of trade and services? We have agreed that we would have less influence in financial services so does a LEAVE vote mean we would, in effect, have less influence in the world?
No I don't have it the wrong way round. There is a huge rulebook for trading european shares. We helped to draft it and we follow it. It might, for example, say that shares of Deutsche Telecom can only be traded by people called Hans. It would be ridiculous, but if JP Morgan in London wanted to trade Deutsche Telecom, they would need to hire some bloke called Hans to do it. At present we have an input into such rules.
The single rulebook (optional for non eurozone members according to the draft) governs amongst other things SSM, SRM which, as non-euro members, we remain out of. CRD-IV governs capital requirements as you say and, like the Basel protocols, are sensible measures ensuring uniformity of risk across financial and credit institutions. Are you really so worried about the right level CARs to the extent that you would vote Leave for the BoE to set our own?
To say "we can regulate our own banks" is, as they say, not even wrong. Of course we govern our own banks and the EU accepts this.
As to your last statement, how long this will be the case if we vote to stay in remains to be seen. I think you are seriously underestimating the hostility towards the City from the EU.
And I understand that concern. It is a known unknown.
Look, @Richard_Tyndall asked for a positive reason to stay in the EU. I think that MiFID and its formulation is onesuch. It would be the infamous government by fax.
Is it enough to convince Leavers to stay? Of course not. But it is a concrete example, in an industry important to the UK, where staying in would go some way to avoiding the extra cost and almost certain disadvantages being imposed upon The City.
Surely the point is that it being known that the EU wants to dismantle the City means we should detach ourselves from it. The damage that can be done by the EU once we are out is not that large, yes they can try and hobble our access to Euro denominated trade and yes it might mean some FX and investment management moves to Dublin, but the upside of making trade relationships with medium sized Asian and LatAm countries for services. The EU is stagnating and we will stagnate along with it if we stay attached to it.
I think that is an extreme view. Take away euro-denominated business from the City and it ain't the City any more. Or at least it's not the european financial hub it is today.
ISIS are now palpably losing. But a cornered rat is a dangerous rat.
I wonder how much this really has to do with the US targeting ISIS funding sources - and how much is down to the far less squeamish Ruskies bombing the shit out of the illegal oil tankering operations?
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
companies from every major financial hub in the world, losing many companies in the process). Whereas things like pay levels, capital requirements, banned activity very much can and will be changed dramatically if we stay in.
protocols, are sensible measures ensuring uniformity of risk across financial and credit institutions. Are you really so worried about the right level CARs to the extent that you would vote Leave for the BoE to set our own?
To say "we can regulate our own banks" is, as they say, not even wrong. Of course we govern our own banks and the EU accepts this.
The EU does not accept this though. Hence the France lobbying hard to change the memo language to make it clear the UK can not have different interpretations in future. You seem to be ignoring all the evidence that goes against your view. The draft also specifically says the single rulebook applies to all members, so you are just wrong on that.
As for what I'm worried about, CARs are just one possibility. There are a thousand damaging regulations they could put in in order to appease an anti-banking sentiment in the Eurozone, esp if it is channelled into an anti-British xenophobic argument too. And its not just banking either. Every sector of the UK economy can have new rules put on it by the Eurozone caucus vote. There would be nothing we can do to stop it.
No I don't have it the wrong way round. There is a huge rulebook for trading european shares. We helped to draft it and we follow it. It might, for example, say that shares of Deutsche Telecom can only be traded by people called Hans. It would be ridiculous, but if JP Morgan in London wanted to trade Deutsche Telecom, they would need to hire some bloke called Hans to do it. At present we have an input into such rules.
The single rulebook (optional for non eurozone members according to the draft) governs amongst other things SSM, SRM which, as non-euro members, we remain out of. CRD-IV governs capital requirements as you say and, like the Basel protocols, are sensible measures ensuring uniformity of risk across financial and credit institutions. Are you really so worried about the right level CARs to the extent that you would vote Leave for the BoE to set our own?
To say "we can regulate our own banks" is, as they say, not even wrong. Of course we govern our own banks and the EU accepts this.
As to your last statement, how long this will be the case if we vote to stay in remains to be seen. I think you are seriously underestimating the hostility towards the City from the EU.
And I understand that concern. It is a known unknown.
Look, @Richard_Tyndall asked for a positive reason to stay in the EU. I think that MiFID and its formulation is onesuch. It would be the infamous government by fax.
Is it enough to convince Leavers to stay? Of course not. But it is a concrete example, in an industry important to the UK, where staying in would go some way to avoiding the extra cost and almost certain disadvantages being imposed upon The City.
Surely the point is that it being known that the EU wants to dismantle the City means we should detach ourselves from it. The damage that can be done by the EU once we are out is not that large, yes they can try and hobble our access to Euro denominated trade and yes it might mean some FX and investment management moves to Dublin, but the upside of making trade relationships with medium sized Asian and LatAm countries for services. The EU is stagnating and we will stagnate along with it if we stay attached to it.
I think that is an extreme view. Take away euro-denominated business from the City and it ain't the City any more. Or at least it's not the european financial hub it is today.
The Eurozone is determined the City loses the euro denominated part of the pie whether we stay in or come out. The question is, what happens to the rest.
No I don't have it the wrong way round. There is a huge rulebook for trading european shares. We helped to draft it and we follow it. It might, for example, say that shares of Deutsche Telecom can only be traded by people called Hans. It would be ridiculous, but if JP Morgan in London wanted to trade Deutsche Telecom, they would need to hire some bloke called Hans to do it. At present we have an input into such rules.
The single rulebook (optional for non eurozone members according to the draft) governs amongst other things SSM, SRM which, as non-euro members, we remain out of. CRD-IV governs capital requirements as you say and, like the Basel protocols, are sensible measures ensuring uniformity of risk across financial and credit institutions. Are you really so worried about the right level CARs to the extent that you would vote Leave for the BoE to set our own?
To say "we can regulate our own banks" is, as they say, not even wrong. Of course we govern our own banks and the EU accepts this.
As to your last statement, how long this will be the case if we vote to stay in remains to be seen. I think you are seriously underestimating the hostility towards the City from the EU.
And I understand that concern. It is a known unknown.
Look, @Richard_Tyndall asked for a positive reason to stay in the EU. I think that MiFID and its formulation is onesuch. It would be the infamous government by fax.
Is it enough to convince Leavers to stay? Of course not. But it is a concrete example, in an industry important to the UK, where staying in would go some way to avoiding the extra cost and almost certain disadvantages being imposed upon The City.
Surely the point is that it being known that the EU wants to dismantle the City means we should detach ourselves from it. The damage that can be done by the EU once we are out is not that large, yes they can try and hobble our access to Euro denominated trade and yes it might mean some FX and investment management moves to Dublin, but the upside of making trade relationships with medium sized Asian and LatAm countries for services. The EU is stagnating and we will stagnate along with it if we stay attached to it.
I think that is an extreme view. Take away euro-denominated business from the City and it ain't the City any more. Or at least it's not the european financial hub it is today.
The euro is going to die anyway. In a few years it'll be called the DMark
But that input is minimal now and will become entirely theoretical in the future as the Eurozone decides its own rules and votes them through en bloc. My Grandad used to vote Tory every time in Barnsley but it never affected the outcome.
Moreover, you need to balance that tiny loss of influence against the damage that could be inflicted on the UK financial sector by becoming bound by Eurozone-created rules which potentially hobble its activities in all markets.
'Why should Nomura or Citi care a toss whether we're in the EU or in the EEA, or indeed some other arrangement? Or the credit rating agencies? These are as independent as its humanly possible to get whilst still being informed.'
That is so naive it is quite extraordinary. Ratings agencies and large banks are some of the most political and politicised institutions you could possibly come across. There is massive interference in what analysts can and do write.
You clearly have no experience whatever in this area, or are being deliberately misleading.
Yeah, yeah, it's all a plot, the evil tentacles of the Eurocrats telling Nomura and Citi what to write about Brexit.
For an organisation which is supposed to be dysfunctional, I have to say the EU's thoroughness in nobbling the entire set of ratings agencies, banks, academics, accountancy firms and independent economic research groups is a wonder to behold.
Thats not what he said at all though. Sone Remain supporters are very keen to put words in mouths of Leave supporters and then claim its conspiracy theories or racism. He werent sauing Eurocrats pulling strings. He was just saying financial institutions are politicised to point that reports they release will be done with one eye on their own political interests. If a bank thinks Brexit is bad for their bottom line senior folk will interfere with research notes to make sure right things are said.
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Dems get a monster turnout boost. Very amusing. The small minority, 30%, who identify as Democrats and who will vote anyway will get worked up.
The Republicans in the Senate should, as is their right, block and the next President will appoint. Any other move would be a political disaster for the Republicans.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. the EU.
re. The City.
If we leave we will have the rules of the game (of how to trade european euro-denominated shares) handed to us, or perhaps faxed over. If we stay we get to help decide (to a lesser or greater extent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
Where those rules are made by the ECB we get no say at all. None.
In practice if we stay in we get a chance to make our case but the likely reality will be we will be outvoted by the Eurozone states under QMV. So I question whether staying in really does give us a say.
If - as is reported - France wants to impose rules on all states, including those in the Eurozone, there is a reason for that. They're not doing it out of tidiness. They're doing it because they don't want to face a competitor within the EU but not within the Eurozone. That suggests to me that we would be foolish to give up that competitive advantage.
No, I agree, we have discussed this, and hence my qualification "to a greater or lesser extent" and the nub imo is the following: do we have more influence to draft such legislation inside or outside the EU. For me the answer is trivial - it must be inside because outside we get no influence. We have also discussed rapporteurs and have agreed that out of the EU we wouldn't have one. Kay Swinburne may not have been as effective as we wished, but she was fighting our side in the MiFID negotiations.
As for the ECB, you, together with the BBC, are slightly in danger of conflating EU member and eurozone member. As you have said, the ECB can legislate for euro-denominated business all day long and it has every right to do so. So SSM, SRM, CRD-IV are all legitimate measures for the eurozone. But we ain't in the eurozone so we can choose or not to join in as per the negotiating text.
But in any case I didn't notice us opting out of the Basel protocols and I have no objection to us adhering to various capital ratio requirements, whoever drafted them.
Still waiting for a convincing positive reason to Remain. (As opposed to a dubiously speculative scare-story based one I mean)
The positive reason which has convinced me is that it looks better than the alternatives. As simple as that. No scare stories involved either way.
LOL. You are one of those perpetrating the scare stories.
Really? What scare stories have I perpetuated?
The idea that the City will suffer if we leave. The idea that trade will suffer if we leave. The idea that our GDP will drop and we will see a Sterling crash.
The whole basis of your argument has been negative. I don't recall you ever having made a single positive case for remaining in the EU.
xtent) what those rules are.
That's a positive reason to stay.
companies from every major financial hub i dramatically if we stay in.
To say "we can regulate our o EU accepts this.
The EU does not accept this though. Hence the France lobbying hard to change the memo language to make it clear the UK can not have different interpretations in future. You seem to be ignoring all the evidence that goes against your view. The draft also specifically says the single rulebook applies to all members, so you are just wrong on that.
As for what I'm worried about, CARs are just one possibility. There are a thousand damaging regulations they could put in in order to appease an anti-banking sentiment in the Eurozone, esp if it is channelled into an anti-British xenophobic argument too. And its not just banking either. Every sector of the UK economy can have new rules put on it by the Eurozone caucus vote. There would be nothing we can do to stop it.
Section A Paragraph 2 states that Union law on the banking union is only applicable to eurozone countries. Or do you seriously think that it is saying we would be forced to join SSM & SRM? France wants uniformity of eurozone (not EU member) legislation, of course it does and that is part of the negotiations.
As for your other concerns - my question remains: if you think there would be a thousand damaging regulations which would affect the UK adversely if we stayed in the EU, why on earth do you think that there wouldn't be a thousand (or ten thousand) if we left?
It is just illogical: we don't like the EU because in it they discriminate against us, but if we were outside the EU we somehow think the discrimination would vanish.
I think that is an extreme view. Take away euro-denominated business from the City and it ain't the City any more. Or at least it's not the european financial hub it is today.
As I said, the City will innovate as it has done in the past. The EU will eventually force us to live by their rules if we want to do EUR business, to my mind, we should just get it over and done with, on our terms rather than let the slow drip of regulation strangle our key industry. It's like a boiling a frog, the EU intends to slowly turn up the heat on the City. The "negotiation" has made it very clear they don't want to accommodate our key industry or ensure we are masters of our own home, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that, it is in their nature. What I do have a problem with is our politicians going along with it.
Momentum, the hard-Left group backed by Jeremy Corbyn, wants to replace Labour Party branches because they are no longer “effective political spaces”, according to leaked minutes from a leading local group.
An email circulated by Lambeth Momentum – an area of London represented by leading moderate MP Chuka Umunna – told members that the group should now become the “replacement space” for activism until Labour is “politicised”.
Labour boat people will be drifting down the Thames in their attempt to avoid the reeducation camps. I wonder if they will get as far as Hong Kong?
I think that is an extreme view. Take away euro-denominated business from the City and it ain't the City any more. Or at least it's not the european financial hub it is today.
As I said, the City will innovate as it has done in the past. The EU will eventually force us to live by their rules if we want to do EUR business, to my mind, we should just get it over and done with, on our terms rather than let the slow drip of regulation strangle our key industry. It's like a boiling a frog, the EU intends to slowly turn up the heat on the City. The "negotiation" has made it very clear they don't want to accommodate our key industry or ensure we are masters of our own home, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that, it is in their nature. What I do have a problem with is our politicians going along with it.
100% agree. Mr Topping has far too little confidence in the City, and lamentable over confidence in the Eurozone's tolerance of its existence. An over confidence that runs against all the evidence.
But that input is minimal now and will become entirely theoretical in the future as the Eurozone decides its own rules and votes them through en bloc. My Grandad used to vote Tory every time in Barnsley but it never affected the outcome.
Moreover, you need to balance that tiny loss of influence against the damage that could be inflicted on the UK financial sector by becoming bound by Eurozone-created rules which potentially hobble its activities in all markets.
Gah! This is my last word (perhaps) on the matter:
So in your opinion the damage that could be inflicted on the UK financial sector by becoming bound by Eurozone-created rules is greater if we are in the EU than it would be if we were out?
Even our 3.57% influence would be greater than 0%, surely?!
Thats not what he said at all though. Sone Remain supporters are very keen to put words in mouths of Leave supporters and then claim its conspiracy theories or racism. He werent sauing Eurocrats pulling strings. He was just saying financial institutions are politicised to point that reports they release will be done with one eye on their own political interests. If a bank thinks Brexit is bad for their bottom line senior folk will interfere with research notes to make sure right things are said.
What political interests?
For heaven's sake, this whole argument is complicated enough without the Leavers* casting doubts on the integrity and independence of anyone who writes anything which doesn't support their view.
* I accept your point that it's not all Leavers. But it's a hell of a lot of them.
'Take away euro-denominated business from the City and it ain't the City any more.'
To really do that, would require the Eurozone to effectively introduce pretty draconian exchange controls not only against the UK but the US and other countries also.
I think that is very unlikely to happen - if it did, the Eurozone really would be an organisation heading for stagnation and irrelevance.
''So in your opinion the damage that could be inflicted on the UK financial sector by becoming bound by Eurozone-created rules is greater if we are in the EU than it would be if we were out?''
absolutely, because those rules would cover all business including non-euro business, and all business practices.
But that input is minimal now and will become entirely theoretical in the future as the Eurozone decides its own rules and votes them through en bloc. My Grandad used to vote Tory every time in Barnsley but it never affected the outcome.
Moreover, you need to balance that tiny loss of influence against the damage that could be inflicted on the UK financial sector by becoming bound by Eurozone-created rules which potentially hobble its activities in all markets.
Gah! This is my last word (perhaps) on the matter:
So in your opinion the damage that could be inflicted on the UK financial sector by becoming bound by Eurozone-created rules is greater if we are in the EU than it would be if we were out?
Even our 3.57% influence would be greater than 0%, surely?!
Outside we could work to mitigate the damage, look at the creation of eurodollar markets as an example, we could also form trade agreements with mid-sized Asian and LatAm nations outside of the EU to boost our share of global financial services trade. I'll say it again, every trade agreement the EU always favours trade in goods over trade in services which is not good for us but good for Germany, Italy and France.
''So in your opinion the damage that could be inflicted on the UK financial sector by becoming bound by Eurozone-created rules is greater if we are in the EU than it would be if we were out?''
absolutely, because those rules would cover all business including non-euro business, and all business practices.
so we would not accept EU rules for trading UK shares and would (have to) accept EU rules for trading euro-denominated shares.
And that would involve what kind of regulatory compliance cost on firms, do you suppose?
In the EU, we'd be subject to regulation and control on a far larger scale. Outside, yes we'd have to comply with their regulations when exporting, but the same applies in reverse and when we export to the US, China and so on.
On SCOTUS. If Republicans don't confirm anyone before election, isn't it curtains for Republican Senators in blue states that are up this year??
They are caught between a rock and a hard place - confirm a liberal justice and their base rebels. Hold up an appointment and they make the presidential election about SCOTUS and the Dems get a monster turnout boost.
Dems have a turnout problem and making this an election to SCOTUS helps them so very, very much.
Which is why, after an awful lot of huffing and puffing from both sides, Obama will put forward someone moderate and the Senate Republicans will confirm them after a month or two of messing around.
Obama has absolutely no reason to put forward a moderate. As long as they have the requisite CV it's in his interest to put forward a lefty-left (as far as you can have one of those in America) nomination.
There are no downsides for the Dems about the SCOTUS nomination being drawn out barring Hilary being indited after her Democratic nomination
''So in your opinion the damage that could be inflicted on the UK financial sector by becoming bound by Eurozone-created rules is greater if we are in the EU than it would be if we were out?''
absolutely, because those rules would cover all business including non-euro business, and all business practices.
so we would not accept EU rules for trading UK shares and would (have to) accept EU rules for trading euro-denominated shares.
And that would involve what kind of regulatory compliance cost on firms, do you suppose?
The eurozone is grabbing euro denominated business whatever we do. The question is what we do, not just with UK shares, but Chinese renminbi trading, Dollar denominated swaps, yen caps and floors, Swiss franc Eurobonds, offshore rupees, Malaysian ringgit bonds, Aussie and Canadian dollars etc. etc. etc. The vast cornucopia of non Euro financial products business the City generates.
If you are suggesting we accept Eurozone, socialist, UK-loathing rules for all the above you must be a f8cking lunatic. We will lose the lot.
Labour boat people will be drifting down the Thames in their attempt to avoid the reeducation camps. I wonder if they will get as far as Hong Kong?
Talking of Hong Kong, that's the model for either a Britain outside the EU or a Britain that stays in on the British government's terms, right? The financial centre. Except with no special economic zones on the continent. Which rather defeats the purpose. The City of London is the big issue here. It'll be good if the governments of France and some other EU countries do what no British government has ever had the guts to do, and tell those parasites in the Square Mile where to get off. They've been holding the British economy to ransom for ages. Maybe France won't let them hold the EU to ransom too. Maybe in the grandes écoles they remember John Law?
The way some Brits talk about the eurozone reminds me of the headline that supposedly read "Fog in Channel: Continent Cut Off". The Eurozone has an output 3-4 times the size of Britain's. Economically it's about the same size as China. How can it become "irrelevant"? Irrelevant to what? To a traditional rendition of the Eton Boating Song?
And that would involve what kind of regulatory compliance cost on firms, do you suppose?
In the bigger scheme of things, that is pretty trivial
I'm not convinced that we ought to vote REMAIN because it cuts down on compliance costs of financial services firms (although don't underestimate the burden this places on them, if fact administrative/compliance costs seem to be just the sort of thing LEAVERS rail against).
But trading stocks and shares in europe is one example where being in the EU helps the UK. My question to myself is how many other areas are there tangible benefits of being in the EU vs being outside?
Labour boat people will be drifting down the Thames in their attempt to avoid the reeducation camps. I wonder if they will get as far as Hong Kong?
Talking of Hong Kong, that's the model for either a Britain outside the EU or a Britain that stays in on the British government's terms, right? The financial centre. Except with no special economic zones on the continent. Which rather defeats the purpose. The City of London is the big issue here. It'll be good if the governments of France and some other EU countries do what no British government has ever had the guts to do, and tell those parasites where to get off. They've been holding the British economy to ransom for ages. Maybe France won't let them hold the EU to ransom too. Maybe in the grandes écoles they remember John Law?
EFTA have a free trade agreement with China, by the way.
'Those parasites' in the City? Which hospitals and schools would you close when they 'get off'?
Reading downthread about BBC not commissioning polls, their job is not to commission polls its to report the news.
The sooner the licence fee is removed the better
The BBC dominate the news that people receive. Typically >40%. Therefore when they decide to follow a particular line on polling it will influence the voters.
Interesting, thanks. I was looking here which only mentions the EEA being able to adopt EU measures, not help formulate them. Would be interested in the text where this is explained.
Edit: that said I am unsure also as to the weight allocated to EEA member concerns vs EU member concerns..
The whole process is discussed in a rather long winded manner here:
Can propose and instigate new legislation Sit on all the committees involved with the development of legislation (Norway currently sits on over 200 EU committees involved with the development of Single Market Law.) Take part in the amendment of any legislation Can, in the last resort, refuse to implement legislation via a 'reservation'.
It is also worth noting that considerable amounts of legislation that is adopted by the EU does not come from the EU itself but from the adoption of rules developed by the UNECE, WTO or Codex Alimentarius along with many other international bodies. Norway has seats on all these bodies as a full voting member. the UK does not as it has given up these rights to the EU on all areas where the EU has competence.
'Those parasites' in the City? Which hospitals and schools would you close when they 'get off'?
You're accepting they're holding us to ransom. With the right will, the British parliament could slap export controls on capital within hours and make beneficial interests taxable into the bargain. Use the war rules like they did against Iceland.
Conservatives propose EEA membership in their manifesto Corbyns Labour propose to abide by all the previous EU laws even though we left UKIP propose total withdrawal Lib Dems propose the same as the Cons
Interesting, thanks. I was looking here which only mentions the EEA being able to adopt EU measures, not help formulate them. Would be interested in the text where this is explained.
Edit: that said I am unsure also as to the weight allocated to EEA member concerns vs EU member concerns..
The whole process is discussed in a rather long winded manner here:
Can propose and instigate new legislation Sit on all the committees involved with the development of legislation (Norway currently sits on over 200 EU committees involved with the development of Single Market Law.) Take part in the amendment of any legislation Can, in the last resort, refuse to implement legislation via a 'reservation'.
It is also worth noting that considerable amounts of legislation that is adopted by the EU does not come from the EU itself but from the adoption of rules developed by the UNECE, WTO or Codex Alimentarius along with many other international bodies. Norway has seats on all these bodies as a full voting member. the UK does not as it has given up these rights to the EU on all areas where the EU has competence.
...but no formal role in the internal decision-making of the EU. Plus it is a pay to play with presence on committees (mainly research and technological) contingent on Norway contributing funds to the project concerned.
But that is just me skim-reading until I found something that supported my argument!
Sounds like there would be an input of some kind - and as you say they can then reject the EU legislation. But I have got to believe that this is not as influential as full-fat EU membership.
As I stated downthread I don't necessarily think the UK's degree of influence on formulating the EU's rules for the financial services industry should determine whether to vote LEAVE or REMAIN. But in my mind it is unambiguously the case that for this particular area, we are better off full EU members rather than out or in EEA.
Would still produce delegates of the order of 44,3,3 or 47,3 or even 50 for the Donald...
15% cutoff point >?
No, WTA2.
Statewide winner gets 29. CD winner gets 3 (x7).
The CDs will probably follow a cube law quite closely. Would be fairly unlikely for anyone other than Big D to win any, although it's not impossible. Cruz looks most likely to win one, just possibly.
Would still produce delegates of the order of 44,3,3 or 47,3 or even 50 for the Donald...
15% cutoff point >?
No, WTA2.
Statewide winner gets 29. CD winner gets 3 (x7).
The CDs will probably follow a cube law quite closely. Would be fairly unlikely for anyone other than Big D to win any, although it's not impossible. Cruz looks most likely to win one, just possibly.
Interesting, thanks. I was looking here which only mentions the EEA being able to adopt EU measures, not help formulate them. Would be interested in the text where this is explained.
Edit: that said I am unsure also as to the weight allocated to EEA member concerns vs EU member concerns..
The whole process is discussed in a rather long winded manner here:
Can propose and instigate new legislation Sit on all the committees involved with the development of legislation (Norway currently sits on over 200 EU committees involved with the development of Single Market Law.) Take part in the amendment of any legislation Can, in the last resort, refuse to implement legislation via a 'reservation'.
It is also worth noting that considerable amounts of legislation that is adopted by the EU does not come from the EU itself but from the adoption of rules developed by the UNECE, WTO or Codex Alimentarius along with many other international bodies. Norway has seats on all these bodies as a full voting member. the UK does not as it has given up these rights to the EU on all areas where the EU has competence.
...but no formal role in the internal decision-making of the EU. Plus it is a pay to play with presence on committees (mainly research and technological) contingent on Norway contributing funds to the project concerned.
But that is just me skim-reading until I found something that supported my argument!
Sounds like there would be an input of some kind - and as you say they can then reject the EU legislation. But I have got to believe that this is not as influential as full-fat EU membership.
As I stated downthread I don't necessarily think the UK's degree of influence on formulating the EU's rules for the financial services industry should determine whether to vote LEAVE or REMAIN. But in my mind it is unambiguously the case that for this particular area, we are better off full EU members rather than out or in EEA.
What you are ignoring there though is that Norway has MORE influence at the level where much legislation is decided which is above the EU level. This will increasingly be the case particularly as the EU becomes less and less important in world trade. But even at the current levels, being able to take part in the decision making process at the WTO and other international level is far more influential than the situation we currently have where the EU makes these decisions for us at those bodies.
Would still produce delegates of the order of 44,3,3 or 47,3 or even 50 for the Donald...
15% cutoff point >?
No, WTA2.
Statewide winner gets 29. CD winner gets 3 (x7).
The CDs will probably follow a cube law quite closely. Would be fairly unlikely for anyone other than Big D to win any, although it's not impossible. Cruz looks most likely to win one, just possibly.
It splits people into seven categories, with some figures on the size of each category and its typical members. E.g
A quarter of us are Nothing to Lose voters, who think Britain is on the wrong track, are worried about immigration, and think we should definitely go.
One in seven are in the Global Britain group – who are optimistic for the UK, believe staying in the EU is a bigger risk than leaving, and think we’d do better in the global economy outside the EU.
Obviously, the numbers are pretty unreliable, but it does give a vague idea what to expect. If the pro and anti sides are seeing similar breakdowns of the electorate, I'd expect both campaigns to focus on the 20% 'hard-pressed undecided' category. These voters favoured Labour at the last election, by 42% to 31%, and are the most likely to work in the public sector. They're also the most pessimistic about the state of the country, and its future.
Conservatives propose EEA membership in their manifesto Corbyns Labour propose to abide by all the previous EU laws even though we left UKIP propose total withdrawal Lib Dems propose the same as the Cons
Would still produce delegates of the order of 44,3,3 or 47,3 or even 50 for the Donald...
15% cutoff point >?
No, WTA2.
Statewide winner gets 29. CD winner gets 3 (x7).
The CDs will probably follow a cube law quite closely. Would be fairly unlikely for anyone other than Big D to win any, although it's not impossible. Cruz looks most likely to win one, just possibly.
Conservatives propose EEA membership in their manifesto Corbyns Labour propose to abide by all the previous EU laws even though we left UKIP propose total withdrawal Lib Dems propose the same as the Cons
After the Charlie Hebdo attack he compared it to punching someone who insulted his mother, now he's getting involved in an election [to be fair, others have been equally daft (including Cameron, I think)].
"One senior EU diplomat said the push for a “self destruct” clause reflected the “gloom” around Brussels over the prospects of Mr Cameron’s winning a referendum campaign to stay in the EU. Another ambassador in Brussels doubted there would be support for the Franco-Belgian clause. “We’ll need a second referendum,” the ambassador said. “We need the UK in the EU""
Suggests it is safe to vote LEAVE in the first referendum as there will be a second - infact it is your patriotic duty to vote LEAVE to ensure further concessions for Britain from the EU.
"One senior EU diplomat said the push for a “self destruct” clause reflected the “gloom” around Brussels over the prospects of Mr Cameron’s winning a referendum campaign to stay in the EU. Another ambassador in Brussels doubted there would be support for the Franco-Belgian clause. “We’ll need a second referendum,” the ambassador said. “We need the UK in the EU""
Such a clause would be stunning. It would be completely closing down the "stay in to reform" argument because it would be sayingnin writing this is the most we will ever get.
"One senior EU diplomat said the push for a “self destruct” clause reflected the “gloom” around Brussels over the prospects of Mr Cameron’s winning a referendum campaign to stay in the EU. Another ambassador in Brussels doubted there would be support for the Franco-Belgian clause. “We’ll need a second referendum,” the ambassador said. “We need the UK in the EU""
I'm not sure what that means. That they wouldn't grant us a second referendum to 'think again' if we did vote Leave, or that there will never be another negotiation + referendum like this, or they want to try and deny us a second vote *ever*? (Last of which makes no sense since it's not up to them and an exit clause is in Lisbon)
It is not for the Pope to question someone's salvation. By all means he can and should rebuke professing Christians for un-Christian behaviour, but whether Trump is a Christian is between him and God.
More to the point Norway has a vote on these bodies which gives it influence. The UK does not have a vote on these bodies in any area where we have delegated competence to the EU.
But see the other side. That is actually an EU ambassador admitting that, if we voted OUT, the EU would then offer us better terms, in a second referendum, in the hope that we could be persuaded to return.
Yes even if you are a remainer you should vote LEAVE to gain concessions.
'the EU would then offer us better terms, in a second referendum, in the hope that we could be persuaded to return'
Certainly there's a whiff of panic, I agree.
But you can be sure any second referendum will not be offering anything very substantial either, just a few more titbits.
And what this again confirms of course is the utter failure of the PM's so-called renegotiation. In reality, renegotiation has not even been attempted.
It splits people into seven categories, with some figures on the size of each category and its typical members. E.g
A quarter of us are Nothing to Lose voters, who think Britain is on the wrong track, are worried about immigration, and think we should definitely go.
One in seven are in the Global Britain group – who are optimistic for the UK, believe staying in the EU is a bigger risk than leaving, and think we’d do better in the global economy outside the EU.
Obviously, the numbers are pretty unreliable, but it does give a vague idea what to expect. If the pro and anti sides are seeing similar breakdowns of the electorate, I'd expect both campaigns to focus on the 20% 'hard-pressed undecided' category. These voters favoured Labour at the last election, by 42% to 31%, and are the most likely to work in the public sector. They're also the most pessimistic about the state of the country, and its future. Global Britain for me. As I would guess are most Britains who live outside the EU.
Would still produce delegates of the order of 44,3,3 or 47,3 or even 50 for the Donald...
15% cutoff point >?
No, WTA2.
Statewide winner gets 29. CD winner gets 3 (x7).
The CDs will probably follow a cube law quite closely. Would be fairly unlikely for anyone other than Big D to win any, although it's not impossible. Cruz looks most likely to win one, just possibly.
No, I take the Huff Poll 7-day median, where it exists, or the median of the last 3 polls, if not. This bit is auto-updated in the Auto tab, as well in the state tabs, e.g. the SC tab.
Huff Polling are quite fast to update, but sometimes they seem to reject a poll as not meeting their selection criteria, or if they don't have enough polls they don't create an auto updating CSV file. In some cases I have added a polling median manually, as some data is surely better than none.
There really is a slow flow of polls this election cycle.
More to the point Norway has a vote on these bodies which gives it influence. The UK does not have a vote on these bodies in any area where we have delegated competence to the EU.
You are very selective. Somehow a vote of Norway gives it influence in the WTO, but a vote of the UK doesn't give it influence in the EU
Seems a bit implausible, does it not?
As for your link, colour me (Euro?)-sceptical when one of the headlines is:
Minister of Foreign Affairs Børge Brende discussed trade in Davos
Most countries need to team up with similarly-minded countries to represent their interests in the WTO. The UK is of course a member in its own right anyway.
Comments
The Senate is 54/46, they'll find a way that Cruz and maybe Rubio can still be seen not to back down. It only needs five Senators up for re-election in marginal States to want to avoid spending their whole election campaign talking about the Supreme Court.
Over to the President. Your move, Sir.
But atm we have an input into those regs. And we would be voting to give that up.
So my question is - if you apply the MiFID example to other areas, do you find the same thing? Are we voting for less influence in any number of areas of trade and services? We have agreed that we would have less influence in financial services so does a LEAVE vote mean we would, in effect, have less influence in the world?
And if so is that a good thing?
I wonder how much this really has to do with the US targeting ISIS funding sources - and how much is down to the far less squeamish Ruskies bombing the shit out of the illegal oil tankering operations?
As for what I'm worried about, CARs are just one possibility. There are a thousand damaging regulations they could put in in order to appease an anti-banking sentiment in the Eurozone, esp if it is channelled into an anti-British xenophobic argument too. And its not just banking either. Every sector of the UK economy can have new rules put on it by the Eurozone caucus vote. There would be nothing we can do to stop it.
But that input is minimal now and will become entirely theoretical in the future as the Eurozone decides its own rules and votes them through en bloc. My Grandad used to vote Tory every time in Barnsley but it never affected the outcome.
Moreover, you need to balance that tiny loss of influence against the damage that could be inflicted on the UK financial sector by becoming bound by Eurozone-created rules which potentially hobble its activities in all markets.
Edit: 2013, at the previous running of this event
http://whatson.ae/dubai/knowledge/4588/music-in-dubai-boney-m-dr-alban-vengaboys-and-ntrance-to-perform/
The Republicans in the Senate should, as is their right, block and the next President will appoint. Any other move would be a political disaster for the Republicans.
http://buchanan.org/blog/leave-the-scalia-chair-vacant-124793
As for your other concerns - my question remains: if you think there would be a thousand damaging regulations which would affect the UK adversely if we stayed in the EU, why on earth do you think that there wouldn't be a thousand (or ten thousand) if we left?
It is just illogical: we don't like the EU because in it they discriminate against us, but if we were outside the EU we somehow think the discrimination would vanish.
So in your opinion the damage that could be inflicted on the UK financial sector by becoming bound by Eurozone-created rules is greater if we are in the EU than it would be if we were out?
Even our 3.57% influence would be greater than 0%, surely?!
For heaven's sake, this whole argument is complicated enough without the Leavers* casting doubts on the integrity and independence of anyone who writes anything which doesn't support their view.
* I accept your point that it's not all Leavers. But it's a hell of a lot of them.
To really do that, would require the Eurozone to effectively introduce pretty draconian exchange controls not only against the UK but the US and other countries also.
I think that is very unlikely to happen - if it did, the Eurozone really would be an organisation heading for stagnation and irrelevance.
Sanders 1.94
Biden 3.04 !
Clinton 1.57
absolutely, because those rules would cover all business including non-euro business, and all business practices.
And that would involve what kind of regulatory compliance cost on firms, do you suppose?
In the EU, we'd be subject to regulation and control on a far larger scale. Outside, yes we'd have to comply with their regulations when exporting, but the same applies in reverse and when we export to the US, China and so on.
The sooner the licence fee is removed the better
In the bigger scheme of things, that is pretty trivial
No sign of the drop improving the positions of Cruz or Rubio, however.
If Trump holds up he should still gain a near blowout victory on Saturday...
There are no downsides for the Dems about the SCOTUS nomination being drawn out barring Hilary being indited after her Democratic nomination
If you are suggesting we accept Eurozone, socialist, UK-loathing rules for all the above you must be a f8cking lunatic. We will lose the lot.
The way some Brits talk about the eurozone reminds me of the headline that supposedly read "Fog in Channel: Continent Cut Off". The Eurozone has an output 3-4 times the size of Britain's. Economically it's about the same size as China. How can it become "irrelevant"? Irrelevant to what? To a traditional rendition of the Eton Boating Song?
But trading stocks and shares in europe is one example where being in the EU helps the UK. My question to myself is how many other areas are there tangible benefits of being in the EU vs being outside?
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/dep/UD/reports-to-the-storting/20002001/report_no-12_to_the_storting_2000-2001/7/id193725/
EFTA members of the EEA :
Can propose and instigate new legislation
Sit on all the committees involved with the development of legislation (Norway currently sits on over 200 EU committees involved with the development of Single Market Law.)
Take part in the amendment of any legislation
Can, in the last resort, refuse to implement legislation via a 'reservation'.
It is also worth noting that considerable amounts of legislation that is adopted by the EU does not come from the EU itself but from the adoption of rules developed by the UNECE, WTO or Codex Alimentarius along with many other international bodies. Norway has seats on all these bodies as a full voting member. the UK does not as it has given up these rights to the EU on all areas where the EU has competence.
Edit: ah, maybe not. Harper's not on the Real Clear Politics list at the moment.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/harper-r-23793
To quote Inigo Montoya: you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/5-reasons-ted-cruz-divisiveness-could-be-an-asset/
I'm not sure I quite buy it, but it's quite unusual to see the case made in that way.
Brexit is achieved
There is a GE
Conservatives propose EEA membership in their manifesto
Corbyns Labour propose to abide by all the previous EU laws even though we left
UKIP propose total withdrawal
Lib Dems propose the same as the Cons
Let the public decide
But that is just me skim-reading until I found something that supported my argument!
Sounds like there would be an input of some kind - and as you say they can then reject the EU legislation. But I have got to believe that this is not as influential as full-fat EU membership.
As I stated downthread I don't necessarily think the UK's degree of influence on formulating the EU's rules for the financial services industry should determine whether to vote LEAVE or REMAIN. But in my mind it is unambiguously the case that for this particular area, we are better off full EU members rather than out or in EEA.
Statewide winner gets 29. CD winner gets 3 (x7).
The CDs will probably follow a cube law quite closely. Would be fairly unlikely for anyone other than Big D to win any, although it's not impossible. Cruz looks most likely to win one, just possibly.
I wonder how much we overpay for imported goods thanks to trade tariffs against alternative non-EU exporters?
Pope questions Donald Trump's Christianity, says someone "who thinks only about building walls… is not Christian" http://bbc.in/1Q3CahI
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/700365767783686144
It splits people into seven categories, with some figures on the size of each category and its typical members. E.g Obviously, the numbers are pretty unreliable, but it does give a vague idea what to expect. If the pro and anti sides are seeing similar breakdowns of the electorate, I'd expect both campaigns to focus on the 20% 'hard-pressed undecided' category. These voters favoured Labour at the last election, by 42% to 31%, and are the most likely to work in the public sector. They're also the most pessimistic about the state of the country, and its future.
And so it begins///
After the Charlie Hebdo attack he compared it to punching someone who insulted his mother, now he's getting involved in an election [to be fair, others have been equally daft (including Cameron, I think)].
It will be interesting to see how Trump responds.
http://www.norway-geneva.org/wto/
More to the point Norway has a vote on these bodies which gives it influence. The UK does not have a vote on these bodies in any area where we have delegated competence to the EU.
No wonder the Frogs don't want another one.
With 69.5 million members, it is the largest religious body in the United States, comprising 22% of the population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States
Certainly there's a whiff of panic, I agree.
But you can be sure any second referendum will not be offering anything very substantial either, just a few more titbits.
And what this again confirms of course is the utter failure of the PM's so-called renegotiation. In reality, renegotiation has not even been attempted.
Global Britain for me. As I would guess are most Britains who live outside the EU.
This bit is auto-updated in the Auto tab, as well in the state tabs, e.g. the SC tab.
Huff Polling are quite fast to update, but sometimes they seem to reject a poll as not meeting their selection criteria, or if they don't have enough polls they don't create an auto updating CSV file. In some cases I have added a polling median manually, as some data is surely better than none.
There really is a slow flow of polls this election cycle.
Seems a bit implausible, does it not?
As for your link, colour me (Euro?)-sceptical when one of the headlines is:
Minister of Foreign Affairs Børge Brende discussed trade in Davos
Also, see here:
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/negotiating_groups_e.htm
Most countries need to team up with similarly-minded countries to represent their interests in the WTO. The UK is of course a member in its own right anyway.