On the EU summit, as your local EU specialist I predict it'll end with a deal this evening or tomorrow morning. It won't run to Sunday.
Quite. I can't believe everyone is falling for the theatrics of this, yet again. It's quite clearly just being engineered to make the negotiations look tougher than they are so that it seems at the end of it that's a really great deal, and that Cameron "banged the table" like the strong leader he supposedly is.
Sweden used to have a drama every 3 years when the equivalent of the CBI had a huge negotiation with the equivalent of the TUC on everyone's wages (I think it's become much less centralised these days). Normally, the negotiations would battle on all night until the two sides would stumble out in the morning, unshaven and haggard, to announce that they'd reached a deal. There would then be a vote of all workers on whether to accept it, and it would be carried, as people were satisfied that all that could be achieved had been fought for.
One year, to everyone's surprise, they reached a deal by 8 the previous evening. Nonplussed, they debated what to do. If they just went out and announced it, it wouldn't look credible. So they put aside the final details, ordered in some crates of beer and played cards all night, before tidying up the details at 6am and stumbling out looking exhausted, etc. Amazingly, the story only got out some time later, after people had duly voted to agree.
Brilliant. Good for them.
I wonder, only half in jest, if really they're all sat around in Brussels watching movies with popcorn with the "deal" already signed off in a corner.
Probably. Angela probably came prepared with the Hunger Games boxset.
On the EU summit, as your local EU specialist I predict it'll end with a deal this evening or tomorrow morning. It won't run to Sunday.
Quite. I can't believe everyone is falling for the theatrics of this, yet again. It's quite clearly just being engineered to make the negotiations look tougher than they are so that it seems at the end of it that's a really great deal, and that Cameron "banged the table" like the strong leader he supposedly is.
Sweden used to have a drama every 3 years when the equivalent of the CBI had a huge negotiation with the equivalent of the TUC on everyone's wages (I think it's become much less centralised these days). Normally, the negotiations would battle on all night until the two sides would stumble out in the morning, unshaven and haggard, to announce that they'd reached a deal. There would then be a vote of all workers on whether to accept it, and it would be carried, as people were satisfied that all that could be achieved had been fought for.
One year, to everyone's surprise, they reached a deal by 8 the previous evening. Nonplussed, they debated what to do. If they just went out and announced it, it wouldn't look credible. So they put aside the final details, ordered in some crates of beer and played cards all night, before tidying up the details at 6am and stumbling out looking exhausted, etc. Amazingly, the story only got out some time later, after people had duly voted to agree.
Brilliant. Good for them.
I wonder, only half in jest, if really they're all sat around in Brussels watching movies with popcorn with the "deal" already signed off in a corner.
Probably. Angela probably came prepared with the Hunger Games boxset.
Probably taking notes to model how to keep the natives happy and the million or so migrants busy!
Anyone want to bet against me on whether 2016 will be the warmest year ever recorded globally? The band of merry folk who like to band about terms such as "AGW trough" etc perhaps?
El Nino year. Makes it meaningless just like the 1998 El Nino year. Any sensible climate student long ago learnt not to use such years as indicators of a trend. Of course you have never been in danger of being considered sensible so I understand your confusion.
One years data is too small a window. Insults are not constructive. Most scientists agree that AGW is real. This site looks reasonable although I've only just found it (by searching Google for'climate change unbiased facts') http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp
Poor PSF figures this morning. January surplus of £11.2bn well under expectations of ~£13bn given the massive rise in self-employment.
My payment probably didn't make it through until about the 2nd of Feb. I very much doubt I was alone, particularly as the 31st was a Sunday. I expect February figures to reflect that.
Feb receipts usually come in at about £2.5bn for SA, it would have to be close to £4.5bn to make up for the January miss in SA expectations. I don't see that as very likely.
Even if it does materialise and there is some improvement in the March figures YoY, Osborne is going to overshoot the borrowing estimate by at least £5bn. As I said previously, he needs a massive revisions of the YTD figures and a huge expectations beat in Feb to make the OBR estimate. Anything less than £2bn over won't be such a big deal, but more than that and you're talking about real money that can't just be magicked away with efficiency savings in the following year.
Osborne has been a victim of his own success in this. I remember when a Chancellor who got within £5bn of his forecast would be seriously chuffed with himself. Osborne, in contrast, has got absurdly close. He clearly fiddles it and will no doubt do so again.
Anyone want to bet against me on whether 2016 will be the warmest year ever recorded globally? The band of merry folk who like to band about terms such as "AGW trough" etc perhaps?
El Nino year. Makes it meaningless just like the 1998 El Nino year. Any sensible climate student long ago learnt not to use such years as indicators of a trend. Of course you have never been in danger of being considered sensible so I understand your confusion.
Haha - typical response from a flat-earther!
Of course there will be natural variations in the climate which include ENSO. I'm talking about the trend and the trend is up - the Earth is warming (there is absolutely no doubt about that!) - even the derived lower troposphere temperatures from the satellite data that you so love to quote all the time shows that.
I may not be an expert but I'm with the 97% here. Sceptics initially said there the Earth was actually cooling referencing the early and wrong derivations of the global temperatures from the satellite data. They quickly backtracked as their data and analysis were trashed. Now of course the mantra is "carbon dioxide is good for you - no need to worry!".
This is one of the BIGGEST issues facing us - we can be ignorant and blind or we can be intelligent - the choice is ours...
Actually the trend isn't up. The trend from the 1998 El Nino to this one is flat or slightly down. The trend ignoring the El Nino's is definitely very slightly down.
Your 97% comment shows you really don't have a clue what you are talking about as that has been comprehensively debunked years ago. The satellite data continues to be far more accurate than the discredited surface station data set.
The only person showing how ignorant and blind they are around here is you.
Richard - I don't want this to be a monthly shouting match. The evidence is there - our politicians know about it - it's up to them to start to take action and I'm confident and hopeful they will...
We can all make a difference and policy makers can help us make that change in our behaviour that is so much needed...
It will be interesting to know if I am the only person on this right-wing blog that actually believes in AGW.
Sky reports Cameron threatens to stay weekend. Oh la la. Le weekend - the ultimate weapon, the nuclear deterrent of negotiation, the Dr Strangelove gambit. Give in Johnny Foreigner. Resistance is futile!
Anyone want to bet against me on whether 2016 will be the warmest year ever recorded globally? The band of merry folk who like to band about terms such as "AGW trough" etc perhaps?
El Nino year. Makes it meaningless just like the 1998 El Nino year. Any sensible climate student long ago learnt not to use such years as indicators of a trend. Of course you have never been in danger of being considered sensible so I understand your confusion.
Haha - typical response from a flat-earther!
Of course there will be natural variations in the climate which include ENSO. I'm talking about the trend and the trend is up - the Earth is warming (there is absolutely no doubt about that!) - even the derived lower troposphere temperatures from the satellite data that you so love to quote all the time shows that.
I may not be an expert but I'm with the 97% here. Sceptics initially said there the Earth was actually cooling referencing the early and wrong derivations of the global temperatures from the satellite data. They quickly backtracked as their data and analysis were trashed. Now of course the mantra is "carbon dioxide is good for you - no need to worry!".
This is one of the BIGGEST issues facing us - we can be ignorant and blind or we can be intelligent - the choice is ours...
Actually the trend isn't up. The trend from the 1998 El Nino to this one is flat or slightly down. The trend ignoring the El Nino's is definitely very slightly down.
Your 97% comment shows you really don't have a clue what you are talking about as that has been comprehensively debunked years ago. The satellite data continues to be far more accurate than the discredited surface station data set.
The only person showing how ignorant and blind they are around here is you.
Sky reports Cameron threatens to stay weekend. Oh la la. Le weekend - the ultimate weapon, the nuclear deterrent of negotiation, the Dr Strangelove gambit. Give in Johnny Foreigner. Resistance is futile!
Sky reports Cameron threatens to stay weekend. Oh la la. Le weekend - the ultimate weapon, the nuclear deterrent of negotiation, the Dr Strangelove gambit. Give in Johnny Foreigner. Resistance is futile!
The question is will anybody else stay there with him? Or will be just be sat on his own?
Poor PSF figures this morning. January surplus of £11.2bn well under expectations of ~£13bn given the massive rise in self-employment.
My payment probably didn't make it through until about the 2nd of Feb. I very much doubt I was alone, particularly as the 31st was a Sunday. I expect February figures to reflect that.
Feb receipts usually come in at about £2.5bn for SA, it would have to be close to £4.5bn to make up for the January miss in SA expectations. I don't see that as very likely.
Even if it does materialise and there is some improvement in the March figures YoY, Osborne is going to overshoot the borrowing estimate by at least £5bn. As I said previously, he needs a massive revisions of the YTD figures and a huge expectations beat in Feb to make the OBR estimate. Anything less than £2bn over won't be such a big deal, but more than that and you're talking about real money that can't just be magicked away with efficiency savings in the following year.
Osborne has been a victim of his own success in this. I remember when a Chancellor who got within £5bn of his forecast would be seriously chuffed with himself. Osborne, in contrast, has got absurdly close. He clearly fiddles it and will no doubt do so again.
Well it's not difficult to meet a forecast that is revised twice a year with one of those revisions taking place just before the final figures are published!
Q18.The date of the referendum is currently not fixed. Do you think that the date on which the referendum is held will have any impact on the outcome of the vote?
What possible benefit is that question, after 17 bloody others.
Ridiculous - people will be bored and saying anything to get the poll over.
In his worst nightmares, I'm sure Cameron never expected to begin his EU referendum campaign actually BEHIND in some of the polls
There is a certain irony in Cameron shooting off ahead of the Leavers, only to be the solitary politico in the spotlight delivering a pile of shit. If both campaigns had gone off at the same starting pistol, the public would just have seen two equally crap campaigns.
StrongerIn Moldova? Nicaragua? South Korea? All genuine suggestions from Leave Campaigners about what UK out of Europe would be like #LeaveChaos #EURef
It's interesting that both major political parties now appear to have a significant gap between the views of the PLP and their broader membership. Obviously Labour have the greater disconnect. I wonder if this will be a trend into the '20s.
Poor PSF figures this morning. January surplus of £11.2bn well under expectations of ~£13bn given the massive rise in self-employment.
My payment probably didn't make it through until about the 2nd of Feb. I very much doubt I was alone, particularly as the 31st was a Sunday. I expect February figures to reflect that.
Feb receipts usually come in at about £2.5bn for SA, it would have to be close to £4.5bn to make up for the January miss in SA expectations. I don't see that as very likely.
Even if it does materialise and there is some improvement in the March figures YoY, Osborne is going to overshoot the borrowing estimate by at least £5bn. As I said previously, he needs a massive revisions of the YTD figures and a huge expectations beat in Feb to make the OBR estimate. Anything less than £2bn over won't be such a big deal, but more than that and you're talking about real money that can't just be magicked away with efficiency savings in the following year.
Osborne has been a victim of his own success in this. I remember when a Chancellor who got within £5bn of his forecast would be seriously chuffed with himself. Osborne, in contrast, has got absurdly close. He clearly fiddles it and will no doubt do so again.
Well it's not difficult to meet a forecast that is revised twice a year with one of those revisions taking place just before the final figures are published!
Really? Remember Alastair Darlings' forecasts? Or Brown's?
Sky reports Cameron threatens to stay weekend. Oh la la. Le weekend - the ultimate weapon, the nuclear deterrent of negotiation, the Dr Strangelove gambit. Give in Johnny Foreigner. Resistance is futile!
Sky's ticker this morning was saying that Tusk was prepared to go through to Sunday, though I didn't see the story to back that up. If Tusk is prepared to stay, it'd be bad manners of the PM not to do likewise.
Mr. T, to paraphrase Nobunaga Oda, referring to Shingen Takeda in Kessen III: "I don't care how strong Osborne is. He cannot stop time."
Pompey was a fading force when he fought Caesar. Osborne's edge has been blunted, dazzled by his own ambition and left to rust by the ease of besting Corbyn (which largely consists of letting Corbyn air his communist madness and the public realise it's crazy).
Osborne may yet be Conservative leader, but 2015 will be his high watermark in terms of competence and esteem.
I think it was TOPPING yesterday who said we would not be subject to EMU rules, well this is the sticking point:
"Arriving at the summit, Francois Hollande made clear that France continues to resist a deal on financial regulation which would deliver one rule for eurozone states and another for those which do not use the single currency."
From the Telegraph live blog. The French are absolutely adamant that they want to impose EMU regulation across the whole bloc even if it is completely unsuitable or just irrelevant to those outside of the currency union. Unless Dave can win on this, very, very key point it will be exactly like boiling a frog, the ECB and EBA will slowly turn up the heat on the City and kill it off with all of the non-traditional business escaping to NY, HK or Singapore for a much friendlier regulatory outlook.
Outside of the EU we could innovate around any potential roadblocks the EU tries to throw up in terms of EUR denominated trade, inside it we are stuck with unsuitable and ill-formed regulations being foisted on our prime industry.
Not sure what Cameron can possibly bring back now which would placate the press and pundits. He's lost control of the narrative, very badly. And whatever deal he finally gets, the European Parliament, inter alia, is threatening to pick it apart after we vote.
I don't see how Cameron can recommend such a deal. Nobody in business would sign a contract knowing it could be picked apart after the contracts are signed. Cameron will look like a bloody idiot trying to sell that to the public. If that's were the negotiations end then the logical thing to do, and I would say the right thing as well, is for Cameron to say "we haven't reached a deal for a satisfactory renegotiation of the UK's position, and therefore I will recommend we leave".
Q18.The date of the referendum is currently not fixed. Do you think that the date on which the referendum is held will have any impact on the outcome of the vote?
What possible benefit is that question, after 17 bloody others.
Ridiculous - people will be bored and saying anything to get the poll over.
The main reason (imo) people don't want to do surveys is the pollsters take far too long and ask far too many questions, often hypothetical ones. There's a difference between "tell me how you'd vote" and "give up the next half hour of your life".
StrongerIn Moldova? Nicaragua? South Korea? All genuine suggestions from Leave Campaigners about what UK out of Europe would be like #LeaveChaos #EURef
Putting South Korea in the same bracket as the other two...interesting...I wouldn't have a lot of complaints if the UK was more like South Korea. High educational standards, low crime, high tech manufacturing etc etc etc.
Not sure what Cameron can possibly bring back now which would placate the press and pundits. He's lost control of the narrative, very badly. And whatever deal he finally gets, the European Parliament, inter alia, is threatening to pick it apart after we vote.
I don't see how Cameron can recommend such a deal. Nobody in business would sign a contract knowing it could be picked apart after the contracts are signed. Cameron will look like a bloody idiot trying to sell that to the public. If that's were the negotiations end then the logical thing to do, and I would say the right thing as well, is for Cameron to say "we haven't reached a deal for a satisfactory renegotiation of the UK's position, and therefore I will recommend we leave".
I used to deal with the Algerian state oil company. They had a complete sod of a negotiator. You would spend months going into the heart of Algiers in the middle of their civil war, ex-SAS close protection, travelling everywhere in bullet proof vests and bullet proof cars, car bombs going off as you are negotiating, prompting fixed rictus-grins of their team saying "nothing to worry about here..."
And when we FINALLY got a signature on an agreement, he came out with the classic line:
"A contract is just a pause in our negotiations...."
I think it was TOPPING yesterday who said we would not be subject to EMU rules, well this is the sticking point:
"Arriving at the summit, Francois Hollande made clear that France continues to resist a deal on financial regulation which would deliver one rule for eurozone states and another for those which do not use the single currency."
From the Telegraph live blog. The French are absolutely adamant that they want to impose EMU regulation across the whole bloc even if it is completely unsuitable or just irrelevant to those outside of the currency union. Unless Dave can win on this, very, very key point it will be exactly like boiling a frog, the ECB and EBA will slowly turn up the heat on the City and kill it off with all of the non-traditional business escaping to NY, HK or Singapore for a much friendlier regulatory outlook.
Outside of the EU we could innovate around any potential roadblocks the EU tries to throw up in terms of EUR denominated trade, inside it we are stuck with unsuitable and ill-formed regulations being foisted on our prime industry.
Yes - effectively this is an attempt to get rid of the opt-out. There is no good reason for having Eurozone rules imposed on countries which are not in the Eurozone. It's an attempt to make the opt out from the single currency meaningless in many respects.
I don't see how Cameron can recommend such a deal. Nobody in business would sign a contract knowing it could be picked apart after the contracts are signed.
The Leave side are proposing we sign up to a contract where not only have we not even seen heads of terms, we haven't even discussed who we'd be signing the contract with.
I don't see how Cameron can recommend such a deal. Nobody in business would sign a contract knowing it could be picked apart after the contracts are signed.
The Leave side are proposing we sign up to a contract where not only have we not even seen heads of terms, we haven't even discussed who we'd be signing the contract with.
Where you see uncertainties, others see opportunities.
I don't see how Cameron can recommend such a deal. Nobody in business would sign a contract knowing it could be picked apart after the contracts are signed.
The Leave side are proposing we sign up to a contract where not only have we not even seen heads of terms, we haven't even discussed who we'd be signing the contract with.
I don't see how Cameron can recommend such a deal. Nobody in business would sign a contract knowing it could be picked apart after the contracts are signed.
The Leave side are proposing we sign up to a contract where not only have we not even seen heads of terms, we haven't even discussed who we'd be signing the contract with.
We'd be free to negotiate.. stop clinging to nurse Ricky
Mr. T, I agree. It makes me wonder whether Osborne might do a volte-face. I don't think he will, though it could make sense. My suspicion is the Chancellor has fallen into the trap of buying his own bullshit.
(1) Spain: there is always a caretaker government, like in Britain after an election before a new Government is sworn in - in this case the conservative Rajoy. In theory an incoming government could reverse a deal, but in practice incoming governments have other priorities, unless they explicitly campaigned on a pledge to stop a deal (which they didn't in this case).
(2) Any deal will need to be translated into detailed regulations by the Commission, which will need a nod from Parliament and will then be transposed in all the national Parliaments (who will not have the power to change them). In most countries, Governments do have the authority to make deals. The exception is Denmark, where the equivalent of the European Affairs Select Committee must decide on the Danish negotiating stance in advance. However, Denmark doesn't especially have a dog in this fight, so their mandate is probably a pretty relaxed one.
In theory any deal can go wrong. In practice it won't - the Parliament doesn't in reality overturn European Council deals, as most of the delegations are pretty close to their national governments, and nobody else will have the power of veto.
Apart from the USA foray there, I've never heard Nicaragua mentioned ever. And Moldova? I'd wouldn't be surprised if most voters thought it was a land in Lord of the Rings
StrongerIn Moldova? Nicaragua? South Korea? All genuine suggestions from Leave Campaigners about what UK out of Europe would be like #LeaveChaos #EURef
Putting South Korea in the same bracket as the other two...interesting...I wouldn't have a lot of complaints if the UK was more like South Korea. High educational standards, low crime, high tech manufacturing etc etc etc.
South Korea is an extremely admirable country. 50 years ago it was poorer than Bolivia or Mozambique, today it is richer than Spain.
It is a manufacturing powerhouse, an export champion, and technologically very advanced; it also has some of the best educated people on earth, living in a very low crime country with great food and hot women.
If it ever unites with North Korea and brings the latter up to speed it would be a great power on a par with Germany.
truly the route to prosperity has little to do with free markets and all to do with corporatism and large-scale state intervention c.f. the rise of the USA
Hardly a "gripe" from the NATS - an huge own goal from the Treasury - buggering off to France during "vital" negotiations!
Today he is back at his desk negotiating with the SNP's Swinney in London so he ain't in Brussels. He will probably cave in to the NATS today in gratitude for not being at the summit!
I think it was TOPPING yesterday who said we would not be subject to EMU rules, well this is the sticking point:
"Arriving at the summit, Francois Hollande made clear that France continues to resist a deal on financial regulation which would deliver one rule for eurozone states and another for those which do not use the single currency."
From the Telegraph live blog. The French are absolutely adamant that they want to impose EMU regulation across the whole bloc even if it is completely unsuitable or just irrelevant to those outside of the currency union. Unless Dave can win on this, very, very key point it will be exactly like boiling a frog, the ECB and EBA will slowly turn up the heat on the City and kill it off with all of the non-traditional business escaping to NY, HK or Singapore for a much friendlier regulatory outlook.
Outside of the EU we could innovate around any potential roadblocks the EU tries to throw up in terms of EUR denominated trade, inside it we are stuck with unsuitable and ill-formed regulations being foisted on our prime industry.
Yes - effectively this is an attempt to get rid of the opt-out. There is no good reason for having Eurozone rules imposed on countries which are not in the Eurozone. It's an attempt to make the opt out from the single currency meaningless in many respects.
As Reuters pointed out yesterday, the proposed deal - as it stands at the moment - is actively WORSE than the status quo, in terms of the City and financial regulation. Cameron has made things WORSE.
Quite an achievement.
How the hell can he not see this? There comes a point where you just have to shuffle your papers together, stand up and wish the others in the room a good day. That is such a point.
I think it was TOPPING yesterday who said we would not be subject to EMU rules, well this is the sticking point:
"Arriving at the summit, Francois Hollande made clear that France continues to resist a deal on financial regulation which would deliver one rule for eurozone states and another for those which do not use the single currency."
From the Telegraph live blog. The French are absolutely adamant that they want to impose EMU regulation across the whole bloc even if it is completely unsuitable or just irrelevant to those outside of the currency union. Unless Dave can win on this, very, very key point it will be exactly like boiling a frog, the ECB and EBA will slowly turn up the heat on the City and kill it off with all of the non-traditional business escaping to NY, HK or Singapore for a much friendlier regulatory outlook.
Outside of the EU we could innovate around any potential roadblocks the EU tries to throw up in terms of EUR denominated trade, inside it we are stuck with unsuitable and ill-formed regulations being foisted on our prime industry.
Yes - effectively this is an attempt to get rid of the opt-out. There is no good reason for having Eurozone rules imposed on countries which are not in the Eurozone. It's an attempt to make the opt out from the single currency meaningless in many respects.
As Reuters pointed out yesterday, the proposed deal - as it stands at the moment - is actively WORSE than the status quo, in terms of the City and financial regulation. Cameron has made things WORSE.
Quite an achievement.
I can't really blame him for that, it's been in the pipeline for ages. The EC has just used this as the latest opportunity to attack the City.
I don't see how Cameron can recommend such a deal. Nobody in business would sign a contract knowing it could be picked apart after the contracts are signed.
The Leave side are proposing we sign up to a contract where not only have we not even seen heads of terms, we haven't even discussed who we'd be signing the contract with.
That's not correct, Leave are proposing we leave the EU, that's it. Now you can complain that there's no concrete post-EU plan, and perhaps there should be, but it is wrong to imply that the Leave campaigns are saying "we will sign up to X if people vote leave". There is no post-EU contract to sign as yet, and we won't be implicitly or explicitly signing something that doesn't even exist if we vote Leave.
What the UK would choose to do would come after we voted to leave the EU, and would undoubtably involve years of negotiation in itself, and maybe even a referendum.
I don't see how Cameron can recommend such a deal. Nobody in business would sign a contract knowing it could be picked apart after the contracts are signed.
The Leave side are proposing we sign up to a contract where not only have we not even seen heads of terms, we haven't even discussed who we'd be signing the contract with.
Where you see uncertainties, others see opportunities.
Exactly and that debate would take place after a vote for leave.
Cameron's error has been fundamental. He has failed to observe the maxim that a political leader should not hold a referendum unless he is genuinely willing to countenance either outcome. Linking the matter to issues surrounding benefits has further compounded the error by making our future in Europe appear dependent on quite trivial things.
The logic now points to LEAVE yet Cameron will nonetheless find himself arguing the opposite case.
If a referendum had been unavoidable Cameron should have stressed the benefits of membership, and stood on the argument that leaving the EU would be too risky a move and that the UK should work from within. That way he would not have antagonised the other 27. What we have now is the worst of all worlds.
Yeah, we'd be free to attempt to negotiate with... er... the same people ... on the same issues, from a position of greater weakness.
It might work, I suppose.
You are assuming that a vote to Leave wouldn't be such a kick up the arse of the self-satisfied and smug EU establishment and the political elites in the other EU states that they would carry on as before and that the balance of power will be the same and that only the UK will be weakened. I think you're wrong. Both sides will be weakened or affected, probably in ways we cannot now imagine.
Indeed, I think the EU badly needs such a slap across the face from voters, whom it has been ignoring and patronising for far too long.
We will be in uncharted waters. But your are wrong to assume that the other member states won't have to do a hell of a lot of rethinking too and won't be under their own pressures and have their own concerns should a serious important and large country decide that, no, the EU is not inevitable and infallible and immortal and wise.
Salmond kicked off the White Paper on Indy with Cameron leading 72-28 in the referendum, then hit the front with a week to go and finished 45-55. So Yes was up 17 per cent over the camaign and Cameron was down 17 per cent.
Whether its phone or on-line Cameron cannot afford to lose anything like that this time.
@ScottyNational: EU : Cameron urged to follow Salmond's negotiation stance of blaming everything on the other party but then saying they will be best friends
Released on the same day that figures showed UK unemployment has hit a ten year low, the five minute video makes the case that Britain’s economy isn’t working and people are being failed by the Tories. Sound familiar?
With a slew of elections coming up in in less than 80 days, it appears that team Corbyn would like to make these races into a referendum on Cameron and Osborne’s handling of the economy. The problem is that the Tories currently hold a two to one advantage over Labour on who is more trusted to run the economy – the same ratio they enjoyed at the last general election.
Hardly a "gripe" from the NATS - an huge own goal from the Treasury - buggering off to France during "vital" negotiations!
Today he is back at his desk negotiating with the SNP's Swinney in London so he ain't in Brussels. He will probably cave in to the NATS today in gratitude for not being at the summit!
He will be doing it by phone from the beach, he will not be back in UK
South Korea is an extremely admirable country. 50 years ago it was poorer than Bolivia or Mozambique, today it is richer than Spain.
It is a manufacturing powerhouse, an export champion, and technologically very advanced; it also has some of the best educated people on earth, living in a very low crime country with great food and hot women.
If it ever unites with North Korea and brings the latter up to speed it would be a great power on a par with Germany.
truly the route to prosperity has little to do with free markets and all to do with corporatism and large-scale state intervention c.f. the rise of the USA
All the successful East Asian economies, starting with Japan, have followed this model, with great success - China is just now catching up.
The worry must be whether they likewise follow Japan into deflation and decline. e.g. South Korea also has bad demographics. But then, so does much of Europe.
Germany have used this model as well. Wage dumping, nationalist consumerism and actively sabotaging foreign companies. It's only suckers like us and the US who have a relatively level playing field for foreign and domestic companies.
That's not correct, Leave are proposing we leave the EU, that's it. Now you can complain that there's no concrete post-EU plan, and perhaps there should be, but it is wrong to imply that the Leave campaigns are saying "we will sign up to X if people vote leave". There is no post-EU contract to sign as yet, and we won't be implicitly or explicitly signing something that doesn't even exist if we vote Leave.
What the UK would choose to do would come after we voted to leave the EU, and would undoubtably involve years of negotiation in itself, and maybe even a referendum.
But they tell us - again and again - that we could sign a trade deal with the EU which would give us full access to the Single Market. As far as I know, even the richest fruitcakes aren't advocating that we don't do such a deal. So, yes, they are saying "we will sign up to X if people vote leave".
Only God knows what X is, though, and He's keeping quiet.
Yeah, we'd be free to attempt to negotiate with... er... the same people ... on the same issues, from a position of greater weakness.
It might work, I suppose.
You are assuming that a vote to Leave wouldn't be such a kick up the arse of the self-satisfied and smug EU establishment and the political elites in the other EU states that they would carry on as before and that the balance of power will be the same and that only the UK will be weakened. I think you're wrong. Both sides will be weakened or affected, probably in ways we cannot now imagine.
Indeed, I think the EU badly needs such a slap across the face from voters, whom it has been ignoring and patronising for far too long.
We will be in uncharted waters. But your are wrong to assume that the other member states won't have to do a hell of a lot of rethinking too and won't be under their own pressures and have their own concerns should a serious important and large country decide that, no, the EU is not inevitable and infallible and immortal and wise.
Don't worry, Richard doesn't like the fact that the numbers are all in our favour. Second largest contributor, largest consumer and largest trade deficit in the EU. He seems to believe (well at least perpetuate) that the EU might chance trade barriers with a country that collectively spent £120bn more on the continent than they spent over here on consumer and industrial goods.
All the successful East Asian economies, starting with Japan, have followed this model, with great success - China is just now catching up.
The worry must be whether they likewise follow Japan into deflation and decline. e.g. South Korea also has bad demographics. But then, so does much of Europe.
Chinas demographics may be the worst of all? They&ll be really pissed off if India triumphs just by making babies
I think it was TOPPING yesterday who said we would not be subject to EMU rules, well this is the sticking point:
"Arriving at the summit, Francois Hollande made clear that France continues to resist a deal on financial regulation which would deliver one rule for eurozone states and another for those which do not use the single currency."
From the Telegraph live blog. The French are absolutely adamant that they want to impose EMU regulation across the whole bloc even if it is completely unsuitable or just irrelevant to those outside of the currency union. Unless Dave can win on this, very, very key point it will be exactly like boiling a frog, the ECB and EBA will slowly turn up the heat on the City and kill it off with all of the non-traditional business escaping to NY, HK or Singapore for a much friendlier regulatory outlook.
Outside of the EU we could innovate around any potential roadblocks the EU tries to throw up in terms of EUR denominated trade, inside it we are stuck with unsuitable and ill-formed regulations being foisted on our prime industry.
Yes - effectively this is an attempt to get rid of the opt-out. There is no good reason for having Eurozone rules imposed on countries which are not in the Eurozone. It's an attempt to make the opt out from the single currency meaningless in many respects.
As Reuters pointed out yesterday, the proposed deal - as it stands at the moment - is actively WORSE than the status quo, in terms of the City and financial regulation. Cameron has made things WORSE.
Quite an achievement.
I can't really blame him for that, it's been in the pipeline for ages. The EC has just used this as the latest opportunity to attack the City.
I do. He should have been clear from the start that any attack on our financial sector would be deemed a hostile act and not the actions of a friendly nation or organization. He should have put each and every leader and Juncker on the spot by asking them whether they wanted to damage a key British industry. And if they said no, then said that in that case they could not possibly support these amendments which would have the effect of doing exactly that.
And if any of them said yes or equivocated in their answers then he should have said that he would have to make it clear to the British public what that country had said.
Honestly, men are said to have balls. Why can't they use them?
I think it was TOPPING yesterday who said we would not be subject to EMU rules, well this is the sticking point:
"Arriving at the summit, Francois Hollande made clear that France continues to resist a deal on financial regulation which would deliver one rule for eurozone states and another for those which do not use the single currency."
From the Telegraph live blog. The French are absolutely adamant that they want to impose EMU regulation across the whole bloc even if it is completely unsuitable or just irrelevant to those outside of the currency union. Unless Dave can win on this, very, very key point it will be exactly like boiling a frog, the ECB and EBA will slowly turn up the heat on the City and kill it off with all of the non-traditional business escaping to NY, HK or Singapore for a much friendlier regulatory outlook.
Outside of the EU we could innovate around any potential roadblocks the EU tries to throw up in terms of EUR denominated trade, inside it we are stuck with unsuitable and ill-formed regulations being foisted on our prime industry.
What I don't understand is why Merkel isn't standing up for Frankfurt to this kind of nonsense from Hollande?
You are assuming that a vote to Leave wouldn't be such a kick up the arse of the self-satisfied and smug EU establishment and the political elites in the other EU states that they would carry on as before and that the balance of power will be the same and that only the UK will be weakened. I think you're wrong. Both sides will be weakened or affected, probably in ways we cannot now imagine.
Indeed, I think the EU badly needs such a slap across the face from voters, whom it has been ignoring and patronising for far too long.
We will be in uncharted waters. But your are wrong to assume that the other member states won't have to do a hell of a lot of rethinking too and won't be under their own pressures and have their own concerns should a serious important and large country decide that, no, the EU is not inevitable and infallible and immortal and wise.
No, I am certainly not assuming anything of the kind. In fact I agree that the impact on the Eurozone would be significant - it's one of the big unknowns, and is why I posted yesterday that I thought the Euro, as well as Sterling, would fall on a Leave result.
I'm not sure this is a good argument for Leave, though.
Hardly a "gripe" from the NATS - an huge own goal from the Treasury - buggering off to France during "vital" negotiations!
Today he is back at his desk negotiating with the SNP's Swinney in London so he ain't in Brussels. He will probably cave in to the NATS today in gratitude for not being at the summit!
'vital negotiations' over a local council budget. No wonder he buggered off for a nice holiday.
Brussels officials have reportedly blamed "mice" for their inability to tackle chronic traffic jams, saying hungry rodents probably ate the original plans to improve underground tunnels in the Belgian capital.
But they tell us - again and again - that we could sign a trade deal with the EU which would give us full access to the Single Market. As far as I know, even the richest fruitcakes aren't advocating that we don't do such a deal. So, yes, they are saying "we will sign up to X if people vote leave".
Only God knows what X is, though, and He's keeping quiet.
There is no post-EU deal, negotiations haven't taken place, and won't unless we vote for leave. So despite what you might think a vote for leave makes no assumptions about where we would end up, and as Cyclefree rightly says our hand would be quite strong, as German's probably want to keep flogging us cars, etc.
The only thing the referendum vote is for is whether or not we remain in the EU, what happens next is another matter and won't be decided by this referendum. We are not choosing between EU or EFTA, we are choosing between the EU and not EU.
StrongerIn Moldova? Nicaragua? South Korea? All genuine suggestions from Leave Campaigners about what UK out of Europe would be like #LeaveChaos #EURef
South Korea is an extremely admirable country. 50 years ago it was poorer than Bolivia or Mozambique, today it is richer than Spain.
It is a manufacturing powerhouse, an export champion, and technologically very advanced; it also has some of the best educated people on earth, living in a very low crime country with great food and hot women.
If it ever unites with North Korea and brings the latter up to speed it would be a great power on a par with Germany.
Is the culture in the North remotely receptive to the attitudes, behaviours and instincts necessary for democracy and capitalism? It wouldn't be like reuniting East and West Germany, where the East did at least have a collective memory of life pre-1945 and pre-1933 and which was well aware of the nature of the west. Something more akin to the Chinese approach of state-led capitalism would be needed, probably prior to any reunification - and that would probably take twenty years to bed in.
I think it was TOPPING yesterday who said we would not be subject to EMU rules, well this is the sticking point:
"Arriving at the summit, Francois Hollande made clear that France continues to resist a deal on financial regulation which would deliver one rule for eurozone states and another for those which do not use the single currency."
From the Telegraph live blog. The French are absolutely adamant that they want to impose EMU regulation across the whole bloc even if it is completely unsuitable or just irrelevant to those outside of the currency union. Unless Dave can win on this, very, very key point it will be exactly like boiling a frog, the ECB and EBA will slowly turn up the heat on the City and kill it off with all of the non-traditional business escaping to NY, HK or Singapore for a much friendlier regulatory outlook.
Outside of the EU we could innovate around any potential roadblocks the EU tries to throw up in terms of EUR denominated trade, inside it we are stuck with unsuitable and ill-formed regulations being foisted on our prime industry.
Yes - effectively this is an attempt to get rid of the opt-out. There is no good reason for having Eurozone rules imposed on countries which are not in the Eurozone. It's an attempt to make the opt out from the single currency meaningless in many respects.
As Reuters pointed out yesterday, the proposed deal - as it stands at the moment - is actively WORSE than the status quo, in terms of the City and financial regulation. Cameron has made things WORSE.
Quite an achievement.
How the hell can he not see this? There comes a point where you just have to shuffle your papers together, stand up and wish the others in the room a good day. That is such a point.
He is not a details man. And details - particularly in relation to arcane matters such as financial regulation and in all EU rules - really matter. That's where Thatcher had an edge. She read all her stuff and knew it like a fine toothcomb and got stuck in. The barrister in her.
And it's not good enough to rely on others to do the detailed work. He needs to know this stuff and understand the consequences of this or that change of wording because it's mostly opaque. Relying on a broad brush view is utterly inadequate and fatal to getting a good deal.
I think it was TOPPING yesterday who said we would not be subject to EMU rules, well this is the sticking point:
"Arriving at the summit, Francois Hollande made clear that France continues to resist a deal on financial regulation which would deliver one rule for eurozone states and another for those which do not use the single currency."
From the Telegraph live blog. The French are absolutely adamant that they want to impose EMU regulation across the whole bloc even if it is completely unsuitable or just irrelevant to those outside of the currency union. Unless Dave can win on this, very, very key point it will be exactly like boiling a frog, the ECB and EBA will slowly turn up the heat on the City and kill it off with all of the non-traditional business escaping to NY, HK or Singapore for a much friendlier regulatory outlook.
Outside of the EU we could innovate around any potential roadblocks the EU tries to throw up in terms of EUR denominated trade, inside it we are stuck with unsuitable and ill-formed regulations being foisted on our prime industry.
What I don't understand is why Merkel isn't standing up for Frankfurt to this kind of nonsense from Hollande?
Frankfurt is in the EMU? Germany are keeping quiet about all of this because they broadly support the French position of over-regulating the City. They were the driving force of the forerunner to pushing EMU regulations onto the whole 28 nation bloc with the BRRD and pushed it through using QMV. Countries with their own central bank have never needed to wind up banks in a manner which hits ordinary unsecured depositors and yet here we are a country with a central bank having to implement rules designed for the 19 countries which share one.
How did Cameron walk into a summit aiming to get a mechanism to stop EZ being able to pass rules over Britain down the line, and end fighting against those rules being applied immediately??
Mr. Nabavi, if the EU can sign trade deals with South Korea and Colombia, do you really think they'll refuse one with us?
Of course not. There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that we won't sign a trade deal with our EU friends.
The question is: will the terms be better or worse, overall, than the current terms? For that matter, how different will they be?
The answer is: anyone's guess. My guess is that they'll be remarkably similar, including free movement of people. But who knows?
We didn't know what the future would bring. But then who does?Bladerunner
However, I would rather we were out of the bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU (witness: events happening right now).
We will have to have trade deals with the US, the EU, China, and others. But at least we can make those deals without crawling to Latvia to ask for permission.
I do. He should have been clear from the start that any attack on our financial sector would be deemed a hostile act and not the actions of a friendly nation or organization. He should have put each and every leader and Juncker on the spot by asking them whether they wanted to damage a key British industry. And if they said no, then said that in that case they could not possibly support these amendments which would have the effect of doing exactly that.
And if any of them said yes or equivocated in their answers then he should have said that he would have to make it clear to the British public what that country had said.
Honestly, men are said to have balls. Why can't they use them?
I'm sort of with Richard on this one, ever since Brown gave away our internal markets veto, this has always been in the pipeline. I think Dave should be trying to negotiate it back or at least require some special supermajority for EMU integration which may effect non-EMU states, but there is only so much that can be done after such a huge error. This is why I am in the Leave camp. I know it is unrealistic to expect us to get a FinReg/Internal Markets veto and the only way we can be the master of our own home both today and in the future is to Leave the EU.
Comments
Insults are not constructive.
Most scientists agree that AGW is real.
This site looks reasonable although I've only just found it (by searching Google for'climate change unbiased facts') http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp
Insults are not constructive.
Most scientists agree that AGW is real.
'I-speak-your-weight'
We can all make a difference and policy makers can help us make that change in our behaviour that is so much needed...
It will be interesting to know if I am the only person on this right-wing blog that actually believes in AGW.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2016_v6.png
Q18.The date of the referendum is currently not fixed. Do you think that the date on which the referendum is held will have any impact on the outcome of the vote?
What possible benefit is that question, after 17 bloody others.
Ridiculous - people will be bored and saying anything to get the poll over.
Heh!
StrongerIn
Moldova? Nicaragua? South Korea? All genuine suggestions from Leave Campaigners about what UK out of Europe would be like #LeaveChaos #EURef
It's interesting that both major political parties now appear to have a significant gap between the views of the PLP and their broader membership. Obviously Labour have the greater disconnect. I wonder if this will be a trend into the '20s.
4/4 Certain to vote "Don't knows".
Turnout = 3.5% (yes three - LOL!)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/19/jeremy-corbyn-momentum-sweeps-board-at-labour-party-youth-elections
Pompey was a fading force when he fought Caesar. Osborne's edge has been blunted, dazzled by his own ambition and left to rust by the ease of besting Corbyn (which largely consists of letting Corbyn air his communist madness and the public realise it's crazy).
Osborne may yet be Conservative leader, but 2015 will be his high watermark in terms of competence and esteem.
"Arriving at the summit, Francois Hollande made clear that France continues to resist a deal on financial regulation which would deliver one rule for eurozone states and another for those which do not use the single currency."
From the Telegraph live blog. The French are absolutely adamant that they want to impose EMU regulation across the whole bloc even if it is completely unsuitable or just irrelevant to those outside of the currency union. Unless Dave can win on this, very, very key point it will be exactly like boiling a frog, the ECB and EBA will slowly turn up the heat on the City and kill it off with all of the non-traditional business escaping to NY, HK or Singapore for a much friendlier regulatory outlook.
Outside of the EU we could innovate around any potential roadblocks the EU tries to throw up in terms of EUR denominated trade, inside it we are stuck with unsuitable and ill-formed regulations being foisted on our prime industry.
NBC/WSJ/Marist 2/15 - 2/17 722 LV T28 C23 R15 B13 K9 C9
Presumably Osborne is concentrating on that.
So who is doing the hard work for Cameron on the Eurozone/UK financial sector stuff in Brussels?
Osborne has been strangely quiet on this aspect.
And when we FINALLY got a signature on an agreement, he came out with the classic line:
"A contract is just a pause in our negotiations...."
http://www.warrenphotographic.co.uk/photography/bigs/15366-Shar-pei-pup-asleep-white-background.jpg
EDIT: Damn it, pipped by the Lady Cyclefree....
It might work, I suppose.
He certainly demolished June Sarpong.
(1) Spain: there is always a caretaker government, like in Britain after an election before a new Government is sworn in - in this case the conservative Rajoy. In theory an incoming government could reverse a deal, but in practice incoming governments have other priorities, unless they explicitly campaigned on a pledge to stop a deal (which they didn't in this case).
(2) Any deal will need to be translated into detailed regulations by the Commission, which will need a nod from Parliament and will then be transposed in all the national Parliaments (who will not have the power to change them). In most countries, Governments do have the authority to make deals. The exception is Denmark, where the equivalent of the European Affairs Select Committee must decide on the Danish negotiating stance in advance. However, Denmark doesn't especially have a dog in this fight, so their mandate is probably a pretty relaxed one.
In theory any deal can go wrong. In practice it won't - the Parliament doesn't in reality overturn European Council deals, as most of the delegations are pretty close to their national governments, and nobody else will have the power of veto.
It's just dreadful stupid messaging
Hardly a "gripe" from the NATS - an huge own goal from the Treasury - buggering off to France during "vital" negotiations!
Today he is back at his desk negotiating with the SNP's Swinney in London so he ain't in Brussels. He will probably cave in to the NATS today in gratitude for not being at the summit!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vp6viBi5DA4avMgR2Y8lKrrAUqJp-0zL2LZB6iVD3uU/htmlview
But still has 149 Tory MPs as down for Leave (which I suspect is about 30 too high)
What the UK would choose to do would come after we voted to leave the EU, and would undoubtably involve years of negotiation in itself, and maybe even a referendum.
The logic now points to LEAVE yet Cameron will nonetheless find himself arguing the opposite case.
If a referendum had been unavoidable Cameron should have stressed the benefits of membership, and stood on the argument that leaving the EU would be too risky a move and that the UK should work from within. That way he would not have antagonised the other 27. What we have now is the worst of all worlds.
MEN FoI question reveals how BBC's Bill Turnbull pocketed £5.5k for NHS event appearance https://t.co/gU5oDtsbue https://t.co/HaT8lyjvYb
Indeed, I think the EU badly needs such a slap across the face from voters, whom it has been ignoring and patronising for far too long.
We will be in uncharted waters. But your are wrong to assume that the other member states won't have to do a hell of a lot of rethinking too and won't be under their own pressures and have their own concerns should a serious important and large country decide that, no, the EU is not inevitable and infallible and immortal and wise.
Good point about the polls.
Salmond kicked off the White Paper on Indy with Cameron leading 72-28 in the referendum, then hit the front with a week to go and finished 45-55. So Yes was up 17 per cent over the camaign and Cameron was down 17 per cent.
Whether its phone or on-line Cameron cannot afford to lose anything like that this time.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/02/18/labours-latest-party-political-broadcast-is-an-incoherent-mess/#more-20615
Only God knows what X is, though, and He's keeping quiet.
Are you related to Agent P on twitter? Your contributions display a similar level of daftiness.
And if any of them said yes or equivocated in their answers then he should have said that he would have to make it clear to the British public what that country had said.
Honestly, men are said to have balls. Why can't they use them?
I'm not sure this is a good argument for Leave, though.
Jurors in Adam Johnson's trial are shown a photograph of his 'groin area'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3454336/Adam-Johnson-arrives-sixth-day-child-sex-trial.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK
The only thing the referendum vote is for is whether or not we remain in the EU, what happens next is another matter and won't be decided by this referendum. We are not choosing between EU or EFTA, we are choosing between the EU and not EU.
http://capx.co/ten-euro-myths-debunked/
or in
http://capx.co/britain-stronger-in-why-cant-the-leave-campaign-tell-the-truth/
The question is: will the terms be better or worse, overall, than the current terms? For that matter, how different will they be?
The answer is: anyone's guess. My guess is that they'll be remarkably similar, including free movement of people. But who knows?
And it's not good enough to rely on others to do the detailed work. He needs to know this stuff and understand the consequences of this or that change of wording because it's mostly opaque. Relying on a broad brush view is utterly inadequate and fatal to getting a good deal.
Both sides are absolute muppets.
We didn't know what the future would bring. But then who does? Bladerunner
However, I would rather we were out of the bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU (witness: events happening right now).
We will have to have trade deals with the US, the EU, China, and others. But at least we can make those deals without crawling to Latvia to ask for permission.
He is going to have to decide at some point.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/classical-history-for-beginners.html