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?
It's not just Cameron. They're all hopeless, the lot of them.
If I was Vlad Putin, I'd be keeping a very keen eye on the indecisiveness and general uselessness of European leaders. The Russian Shock Army could make it to the Channel by the time any of these jokers made a decision to fight back.
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.
pump in enough capital and you ll get capitalism, more or less. democracy is more challenging. but have you really got that in s.korea, japan, singapore?
What would we give to have Margaret Thatcher in the negotiating room now ?
Indeed. It seems the last PM we had with balls was Maggie.
You're right, but comparing John Major's negotiations with Cameron's 'negotiations' is unfair to the former. At least he made a genuine effort, and was prepared to delay things till his concerns were somewhat met.
Be fair, he's said explicitly he will decide only when the deal is concluded, and when he's read it. Which is perfectly logical. Indeed more logical than Cameron's position, which is to enthusiastically sell his deal before it's written, and try to persuade us the EU is reformed when it isn't. etc etc
Well that and go into the negotiation having said just a few months earlier that he "wouldn't countenance Britain leaving the EU" or words to that effect. Not a great bargaining position.
Something like a quarter of the aircraft defending these islands in that battle were piloted by Polish airmen.
No they were not! The Poles were there both as RAFVR pilots in normal RAF squadrons and, later on, in two squadrons of fighters of the "Polish Air Force" (302, and 303) but the proportion of polish fliers was nothing like 25%. The Poles made a fantastic contribution but let us not exaggerate.
Indeed, a very quick search shows that there were a total of 2353 British pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain. In addition there were 574 foreign pilots fighting with them. Of these 145 were Polish. So Polish pilots made up just under 5% of all the Allied pilots fighting in the battle.
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 could be done with relative ease. Deep down the North Koreans are Korean, not communist. Look how quickly and eagerly the Poles returned to capitalism.
I don't claim to be any expert on the North Koreans so I could be completely off the mark but their country's been so isolated for so long and under such a constant national siege psychology that I'm far from sure it could be that easy. Happy to be proved wrong though.
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.
There's some truth in that. But it doesn't explain why Cameron will try to sell this as some great triumph, when it is just another step in a slow retreat. That's the problem. Cameron is lying. And we know he's lying.
This is what's killing the PM. And it's this which makes Richard's veneration of Cameron so laughable.
Paper today said that Osborne was lobbying business leaders to sign a letter saying how good the deal was. Before the deal is finished. He's looking as ridiculous as Cameron.
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.
This - more than migrant benefits - is the key issue. Child benefit is small change. Damage to our finance sector will affect each and every one of us and the economy as a whole.
It's all very well saying that the British economy should be rebalanced. I agree. But the bills have to be paid in the meanwhile. And it should be for us to decide how. Not the French or Germans. Or Maltese and Italians and Belgians.
And rebalancing is not the same as damaging.
France in particular simply does not like the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. And, yes, I have heard French regulators use "Anglo-Saxon" and not in an ironic way. If they could kill it they would. There is no earthly reason why we should make it easy for them to do so.
I think it was TOPPING yesterday who said we would not be subject to EMU rules, well this is the sticking point... in terms of EUR denominated trade, inside it we are stuck with unsuitable and ill-formed regulations being foisted on our prime industry.
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 h do not use the single currency."
From the Telegraphthe 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.
It is fascinating I must admit. If fascinating is the right word.
From automatic (as per the EU directives, and the various negotiating drafts we have seen) voluntary, and of course logical exclusion from any eurozone regulation because it would be, er, illogical plus a major step down that economic and therefore political integration path....to now apparently Hollande saying we must strike those clauses (voluntary participation in SSM, SRM) from the agreement.
Either the world has gone mad or there has been a rumour control short-circuit.
As for the bit about the ECB wanting to repatriate EUR business I don't have a problem with it in the sense that if we are so adamant we don't want to be part of the eurozone, then there is no real reason we should be the hub of euro-denominated business.
There's some truth in that. But it doesn't explain why Cameron will try to sell this as some great triumph, when it is just another step in a slow retreat. That's the problem. Cameron is lying. And we know he's lying.
This is what's killing the PM. And it's this which makes Richard's veneration of Cameron so laughable.
Yes, he will over-sell it, whatever it is. And Nigel Farage and the Leave side generally will over-trash it, whatever it is.
It's a bit premature to say it's 'killing the PM', though. The very difficulty of getting any kind of deal may be helpful politically.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
Junead Khan, 25, from Luton, had a guide to making a "viable" pipe bomb on his laptop, Kingston Crown Court heard. Prosecutors said he had planned to go abroad to fight for the Islamic State group but changed his mind and started preparing terrorist acts in the UK. Mr Khan denies making preparations for attacking military personnel in the UK between May 10 and July 14, 2015.
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.
He should have made getting the FinReg/internal markets veto back his demand right from the start. Then if it really was impossible - and I don't accept that such things are as impossible as people say - certainly not if you are prepared to be determined, focused, ruthless and bloody-minded on the point for as long as necessary - what might have been negotiated from there might well have been something worthwhile and certainly better than ending up with something apparently worse than the status quo.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
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 could be done with relative ease. Deep down the North Koreans are Korean, not communist. Look how quickly and eagerly the Poles returned to capitalism.
I don't claim to be any expert on the North Koreans so I could be completely off the mark but their country's been so isolated for so long and under such a constant national siege psychology that I'm far from sure it could be that easy. Happy to be proved wrong though.
I am with Mr Herdson on this one. When you are talking about 3+ generations of controlled information, protein-deficient diets and siege mentality, I am not sure that there can be anything left of the original Korean-ness. The population have no information upon which to form their own opinions, and protein-starved brains that cannot function properly to process what little information they have. In that situation, how is a counter-culture supposed to arise, how is the old culture supposed to survive, propagating from one generation to the next? The neuroscience would suggest otherwise
pump in enough capital and you ll get capitalism, more or less. democracy is more challenging. but have you really got that in s.korea, japan, singapore?
If I lived in a country which delivered prosperity, stability, the rule of law and some degree of personal freedom then moving to a more confrontational political system wouldn't have much appeal.
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.
He should have made getting the FinReg/internal markets veto back his demand right from the start. Then if it really was impossible - and I don't accept that such things are as impossible as people say - certainly not if you are prepared to be determined, focused, ruthless and bloody-minded on the point for as long as necessary - what might have been negotiated from there might well have been something worthwhile and certainly better than ending up with something apparently worse than the status quo.
From what I have heard there is literally (and I mean literal rather than figurative) zero appetite in the EC to give Britain the internal markets veto or any control or ability to opt-out of financial regulations. In practice our veto would just mean we could selectively opt-out of specific regulations in return for not using the it and the EC despises the idea of a la carte government more than anything else.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
You have forgotten the vital competitiveness chapter. Cameron demanded a concrete target for a reduction in EU laws and red tape. He's successfully got a promise that the EU will look at how it can be competitive in future, with a caveat that it doesn't reduce any standards.
"France is concerned that the UK is seeking to carve out special protections for the City of London".
Vive la France!
3 points: the financial services sector is far wider than the City of London. It affects every financial product you and I use: mortgages, pensions, credit cards, bank accounts, insurance, ISAs etc etc.
The only one of those that I use is a bank account. A mortgage is a charge on a property's title, for example in the interest of a moneylender. It stops you selling your house until you've paid them off, and it allows them to seize your house and chuck you out on the street if you miss a repayment. You call that a "product"?
It is a very significant industry for this country and it is simply unacceptable for an ally to seek to damage it.
Second, another word for "speculation" is "market", "investment" or "liquidity". "Speculation" is a word loaded with an assumption that what is being done is bad.
And calling an instrument of debt a "product" is also loaded. Words are loaded.
Finally, if you're going to refer to John Law and Stavisky, you are not helping your case at all. It was the development of a financial sector supporting commercial activity and enabling government to fund itself which was one of the key reasons why England developed from the 17th century onwards and was ultimately able to defeat France. It was France's failure to do so which was one of the factors behind its military defeats and one of the factors which led to the French revolution.
A "financial sector", also known as a massive speculative bubble, did develop in France - and it brought the country to its knews.
The Stavisky case was notable as an example of a strain in French thinking which lumped Jews, finance, speculation and conspiracies together. People who thought like that were keen on Vichy, Action Francaise and after the war some of them migrated to Poujadism and later to the FN. If that is the basis for France's approach to our finance sector, we should be worried not praising them.
A "strain in French thinking"? Too much port for the boarding-school damaged bigots in Oxford and Cambridge common rooms, more like. What have wrong French thinking and the French far right got to do with it? The Stavisky case was about financial speculation and corruption once again almost bankrupting the country. Are you saying only fascists and others on the loony right recognise that? Even if that were true, so what? How on earth can the Stavisky case be an "example of a strain in French thinking"?
I'm impressed at the emotional reserves that many posters seem to find to draw upon with every rumour, unsourced claim and counterclaim. On most days the general public has far more sense than the politically active, and today for sure is one of them.
The fun starts if negotiations fall apart and any Referendum is pushed to September. Last years migrant invasion was merely the spearhead; how badly things go in Europe this Summer with even more new arrivals is anyone's guess.
Breaking: Rochdale Imam murdered on his way home from prayers, according to local Muslim group. Urges all mosques to increase security. Manchester Police are being a little more circumspect at the moment...
There's some truth in that. But it doesn't explain why Cameron will try to sell this as some great triumph, when it is just another step in a slow retreat. That's the problem. Cameron is lying. And we know he's lying.
This is what's killing the PM. And it's this which makes Richard's veneration of Cameron so laughable.
Yes, he will over-sell it, whatever it is. And Nigel Farage and the Leave side generally will over-trash it, whatever it is.
It's a bit premature to say it's 'killing the PM', though. The very difficulty of getting any kind of deal may be helpful politically.
It would be helpful politically if Cameron were prepared to place the blame with the EU. But since he can't, without bolstering the case for Leave, he would appear to have no room for manoeuvre.
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.
The hashtag #LeaveChaos could really backfire too. It reads like it's telling people to leave chaos. Ie leave the EU. Leave could pick it up and start using it.
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
Although I don't share his Europhilia, it's hard to disagree with the conclusions that Philip Collins sets out in the Times.
pump in enough capital and you ll get capitalism, more or less. democracy is more challenging. but have you really got that in s.korea, japan, singapore?
If I lived in a country which delivered prosperity, stability, the rule of law and some degree of personal freedom then moving to a more confrontational political system wouldn't have much appeal.
indeed. democracy and free markets both overrated, perhaps
I was challenged earlier to say where the British government would get the money from that it would lose from City of London spivs if ever it were to clean out the Augean stables in that part of East-Central London. I replied that it could impose swingeing rates of income tax on high earners, introduce a very high rate of inheritance tax for large estates, and attack the problem of beneficial ownership.
Here's something else it could do: nationalise the banks, exercise all the mortgages it thereby takes over on residential properties, and, as the new owner of those properties, let them to their existing occupants at social rents, on a secure basis. That should bring in a lot of state income (that previously went to the spivs) and also give millions of people a basic security in living in their homes that currently they lack.
Given the will, it'd be easy to sort out the spivs and have a country that's not held to ransom by moneylenders.
pump in enough capital and you ll get capitalism, more or less. democracy is more challenging. but have you really got that in s.korea, japan, singapore?
If I lived in a country which delivered prosperity, stability, the rule of law and some degree of personal freedom then moving to a more confrontational political system wouldn't have much appeal.
indeed. democracy and free markets both overrated, perhaps
and overstated , debatable to claim either are reality
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?
It's not just Cameron. They're all hopeless, the lot of them.
If I was Vlad Putin, I'd be keeping a very keen eye on the indecisiveness and general uselessness of European leaders. The Russian Shock Army could make it to the Channel by the time any of these jokers made a decision to fight back.
"If I was Vlad Putin". Wow, now you are actually imaging you are the source of your obsession. Brilliant. The rest of your scenario has about as much credibility, 'Shock Army' where did you invent that from?
I wonder if Putin spends as much time obsessing about you, as you do him? I expect not, he doesn't come across as some weird obsessive loon.
I am with Mr Herdson on this one. When you are talking about 3+ generations of controlled information, protein-deficient diets and siege mentality, I am not sure that there can be anything left of the original Korean-ness. The population have no information upon which to form their own opinions, and protein-starved brains that cannot function properly to process what little information they have. In that situation, how is a counter-culture supposed to arise, how is the old culture supposed to survive, propagating from one generation to the next? The neuroscience would suggest otherwise
members of the elite class will prevail as they did in pre soviet to communist to post soviet russia. some of them are getting protein, and probably good stuff too. I guess the future of n. korea really depends on China, tho, unless the chubby leader really is incompetent
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?
It's not just Cameron. They're all hopeless, the lot of them.
If I was Vlad Putin, I'd be keeping a very keen eye on the indecisiveness and general uselessness of European leaders. The Russian Shock Army could make it to the Channel by the time any of these jokers made a decision to fight back.
"If I was Vlad Putin". Wow, now you are actually imaging you are the source of your obsession. Brilliant. The rest of your scenario has about as much credibility, 'Shock Army' where did you invent that from?
I wonder if Putin spends as much time obsessing about you, as you do him? I expect not, he doesn't come across as some weird obsessive loon.
Brilliant.
Toss some Beluga into the waters, and up pops Moscow Bob. Every time a coconut.
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 aski
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.
He should have made getting the FinReg/internal markets veto back his demand right from the start. Then if it really was impossible - and I don't accept that such things are as impossible as people say - certainly not if you are prepared to be determined, focused, ruthless and bloody-minded on the point for as long as necessary - what might have been negotiated from there might well have been something worthwhile and certainly better than ending up with something apparently worse than the status quo.
From what I have heard there is literally (and I mean literal rather than figurative) zero appetite in the EC to give Britain the internal markets veto or any control or ability to opt-out of financial regulations. In practice our veto would just mean we could selectively opt-out of specific regulations in return for not using the it and the EC despises the idea of a la carte government more than anything else.
But they have "entitled" the UK not to join the euro. If they are willing to tolerate our not joining the euro, which they seem to be, and if they are willing also to include clauses specifically to exclude non-euro members from various eurozone and therefore EU rules and regulations, which current EU directives do, then it just makes no sense for this anti-rabbit to emerge now.
Not that I am saying it won't happen or that we won't get an opt out on the SSM/SRM perhaps even CRD-IV but it is mad.
If that is anywhere close to what Hollande is suggesting, surely the PM, who after all didn't sign the fiscal compact, will realise we are in one of those situations again.
I was challenged earlier to say where the British government would get the money from that it would lose from City of London spivs if ever it were to clean out the Augean stables in that part of East-Central London. I replied that it could impose swingeing rates of income tax on high earners, introduce a very high rate of inheritance tax for large estates, and attack the problem of beneficial ownership.
Here's something else it could do: nationalise the banks, exercise all the mortgages it thereby takes over on residential properties, and, as the new owner of those properties, let them to their existing occupants at social rents, on a secure basis. That should bring in a lot of state income (that previously went to the spivs) and also give millions of people a basic security in living in their homes that currently they lack.
Given the will, it'd be easy to sort out the spivs and have a country that's not held to ransom by moneylenders.
Are we talking nationalisation without compensation?
I was challenged earlier to say where the British government would get the money from that it would lose from City of London spivs if ever it were to clean out the Augean stables in that part of East-Central London. I replied that it could impose swingeing rates of income tax on high earners, introduce a very high rate of inheritance tax for large estates, and attack the problem of beneficial ownership.
Here's something else it could do: nationalise the banks, exercise all the mortgages it thereby takes over on residential properties, and, as the new owner of those properties, let them to their existing occupants at social rents, on a secure basis. That should bring in a lot of state income (that previously went to the spivs) and also give millions of people a basic security in living in their homes that currently they lack.
Given the will, it'd be easy to sort out the spivs and have a country that's not held to ransom by moneylenders.
I was challenged earlier to say where the British government would get the money from that it would lose from City of London spivs if ever it were to clean out the Augean stables in that part of East-Central London. I replied that it could impose swingeing rates of income tax on high earners, introduce a very high rate of inheritance tax for large estates, and attack the problem of beneficial ownership.
Here's something else it could do: nationalise the banks, exercise all the mortgages it thereby takes over on residential properties, and, as the new owner of those properties, let them to their existing occupants at social rents, on a secure basis. That should bring in a lot of state income (that previously went to the spivs) and also give millions of people a basic security in living in their homes that currently they lack.
Given the will, it'd be easy to sort out the spivs and have a country that's not held to ransom by moneylenders.
Why not liquidate the kulaks while you're at it?
Its such a good idea, the number of countries without a private banking sector is....?????
I'm impressed at the emotional reserves that many posters seem to find to draw upon with every rumour, unsourced claim and counterclaim. On most days the general public has far more sense than the politically active, and today for sure is one of them.
Have you forgotten when PB spent what seemed like an eon discussing Osborne's tears at Thatcher's funeral ?
I'm impressed at the emotional reserves that many posters seem to find to draw upon with every rumour, unsourced claim and counterclaim. On most days the general public has far more sense than the politically active, and today for sure is one of them.
What was it you said about WW2 references ?
Alex Salmond Verified account @AlexSalmond 2h2 hours ago
Cameron should come back in his new Prime Ministerial jet to Heston airfield, wave a piece of paper and declare "bathos in our time". #EUREF
I was challenged earlier to say where the British government would get the money from that it would lose from City of London spivs if ever it were to clean out the Augean stables in that part of East-Central London. I replied that it could impose swingeing rates of income tax on high earners, introduce a very high rate of inheritance tax for large estates, and attack the problem of beneficial ownership.
Here's something else it could do: nationalise the banks, exercise all the mortgages it thereby takes over on residential properties, and, as the new owner of those properties, let them to their existing occupants at social rents, on a secure basis. That should bring in a lot of state income (that previously went to the spivs) and also give millions of people a basic security in living in their homes that currently they lack.
Given the will, it'd be easy to sort out the spivs and have a country that's not held to ransom by moneylenders.
Why not liquidate the kulaks while you're at it?
Its such a good idea, the number of countries without a private banking sector is....?????
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.
He should have made getting the FinReg/internal markets veto back his demand right from the start. Then if it really was impossible - and I don't accept that such things are as impossible as people say - certainly not if you are prepared to be determined, focused, ruthless and bloody-minded on the point for as long as necessary - what might have been negotiated from there might well have been something worthwhile and certainly better than ending up with something apparently worse than the status quo.
I think this shows that the complexities of this are well beyond the casual abuse being thrown around on here. We have pushed and pushed for the single market to be extended to services from goods because we are very good at the former, the latter not so much.
As I have said before the Single Passport was one of our greater achievements in the EU for the last 20 years and it has allowed the superior skills, efficiency and liquidity of London to flatten most of the opposition for financial services in the EU. It is essential for our future success that this continues.
How do we deepen the single market in services? Well we make sure that no backward, protectionist inherently hostile country (like the French) have a veto. But if they can't have one how can we?
The answer is we can't. But we do have to deal with the built in QMV of the EZ. And that is what these negotiations should have been about from day 1. This nonsense about CB is beyond irritating.
I was challenged earlier to say where the British government would get the money from that it would lose from City of London spivs if ever it were to clean out the Augean stables in that part of East-Central London. I replied that it could impose swingeing rates of income tax on high earners, introduce a very high rate of inheritance tax for large estates, and attack the problem of beneficial ownership.
Here's something else it could do: nationalise the banks, exercise all the mortgages it thereby takes over on residential properties, and, as the new owner of those properties, let them to their existing occupants at social rents, on a secure basis. That should bring in a lot of state income (that previously went to the spivs) and also give millions of people a basic security in living in their homes that currently they lack.
Given the will, it'd be easy to sort out the spivs and have a country that's not held to ransom by moneylenders.
Why not liquidate the kulaks while you're at it?
Its such a good idea, the number of countries without a private banking sector is....?????
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?
It's not just Cameron. They're all hopeless, the lot of them.
If I was Vlad Putin, I'd be keeping a very keen eye on the indecisiveness and general uselessness of European leaders. The Russian Shock Army could make it to the Channel by the time any of these jokers made a decision to fight back.
"If I was Vlad Putin". Wow, now you are actually imaging you are the source of your obsession. Brilliant. The rest of your scenario has about as much credibility, 'Shock Army' where did you invent that from?
I wonder if Putin spends as much time obsessing about you, as you do him? I expect not, he doesn't come across as some weird obsessive loon.
Brilliant.
Putin always comes cross as some weird repressed in the closet homophobe.
Be interesting how accurate the polls will be in SC, last time seriously underestimated Trump and Kasich, I suspect independents went big with those two so might not have been fully included, and Rubio probably still not priced in the after effects of his debate performance.
What would we give to have Margaret Thatcher in the negotiating room now ?
Indeed. It seems the last PM we had with balls was Maggie.
At the risk of enraging the majority of PB'ers, I've never understood why "balls" are meant to represent courage and toughness. Soft, squishy and shrivel when cold.
I'm impressed at the emotional reserves that many posters seem to find to draw upon with every rumour, unsourced claim and counterclaim. On most days the general public has far more sense than the politically active, and today for sure is one of them.
What was it you said about WW2 references ?
Alex Salmond Verified account @AlexSalmond 2h2 hours ago
Cameron should come back in his new Prime Ministerial jet to Heston airfield, wave a piece of paper and declare "bathos in our time". #EUREF
Not sure the party of Arthur Donaldson wants to go down that route.
The "English Breakfast", also known as a "Full American Breakfast", etc. etc., is a product of pigmeat advertising and has its origin in a public relations campaign run by Edward Bernays in the 1920s on behalf of the Beech-Nut Packing Company, seller of pork products.
Edward Bernays's book "Propaganda" is a classic, capable of teaching a lot to anyone whose ears are open.
Bernays was Sigmund Freud's nephew and was deeply admired by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. He is one of the fathers of public relations.
Regarding N Korea, it is worth mentioning they have a limited amount of capitalism as people sell at marketplaces to be able to live . This is a result of the public distribution system collapsing during the famine. See here: http://newfocusintl.com/north-koreans-must-sell-to-live/
Breaking: Rochdale Imam murdered on his way home from prayers, according to local Muslim group. Urges all mosques to increase security. Manchester Police are being a little more circumspect at the moment...
I think it could be done with relative ease. Deep down the North Koreans are Korean, not communist. Look how quickly and eagerly the Poles returned to capitalism.
By electing a post-Communist left-wing party to government. I remember Taki fulminating at the time - "if the Poles wanted to be commies they should have said so and we could have stopped trying to free them". That government, however, turned out to be spectacularly crap, so further governments were centrist or right-wing.
But basically I agree with you - people everywhere are much more flexible than they're given credit for, and where they see something's working they'll adapt to it.
I was challenged earlier to say where the British government would get the money from that it would lose from City of London spivs if ever it were to clean out the Augean stables in that part of East-Central London. I replied that it could impose swingeing rates of income tax on high earners, introduce a very high rate of inheritance tax for large estates, and attack the problem of beneficial ownership.
Here's something else it could do: nationalise the banks, exercise all the mortgages it thereby takes over on residential properties, and, as the new owner of those properties, let them to their existing occupants at social rents, on a secure basis. That should bring in a lot of state income (that previously went to the spivs) and also give millions of people a basic security in living in their homes that currently they lack.
Given the will, it'd be easy to sort out the spivs and have a country that's not held to ransom by moneylenders.
Assume you have been on a Momentum "economics" course.
Suetonius is a lot of fun, but I think he tells a lot of tall tales.
I'd add Tacitus' Histories (especially his account of the Year of the Four Emperors, which is gripping).
Understanding that I sound like an utter, utter tw*t saying this (so what's new?), I found that reading Livy, all of it, in Loeb translation gave me a great grounding in Roman history up to the Republic.
But they have "entitled" the UK not to join the euro. If they are willing to tolerate our not joining the euro, which they seem to be, and if they are willing also to include clauses specifically to exclude non-euro members from various eurozone and therefore EU rules and regulations, which current EU directives do, then it just makes no sense for this anti-rabbit to emerge now.
Not that I am saying it won't happen or that we won't get an opt out on the SSM/SRM perhaps even CRD-IV but it is mad.
If that is anywhere close to what Hollande is suggesting, surely the PM, who after all didn't sign the fiscal compact, will realise we are in one of those situations again.
Why do you think I (as a City worker) am willing to risk the uncertainty of Leave instead of sticking around for a slow death? The French (along with a whole bunch of others) are asking for uniform regulation across the whole 28 member bloc which would mean we are subject to a shitload of EMU regulation we just don't need. I've heard that Dave tried to negotiate a supermajority or superQMV which would require non-EMU nations to have a separate majority for EMU regulations to gain assent. Apparently this was not looked upon to kindly.
pump in enough capital and you ll get capitalism, more or less. democracy is more challenging. but have you really got that in s.korea, japan, singapore?
If I lived in a country which delivered prosperity, stability, the rule of law and some degree of personal freedom then moving to a more confrontational political system wouldn't have much appeal.
indeed. democracy and free markets both overrated, perhaps
and overstated , debatable to claim either are reality
Yes, that's more to the point.
And they're always championed by the bigger power.
Free markets across borders work for the more advanced economy and muscular power vs. the smaller - Britain vs. India & China in the 19th century, America trying to implement TTIP on its weaker competitors in the 21st.
The same can be said of 'democracy' - a democracy without boundaries and protections is one where outside countries and NGOs controlled by large foreign political and commercial interests can gain a huge and undue influence. It's not for nothing the US has fought to install 'democracy' and 'free trade' around the world. It sounds better than colonisation.
Are we truly to believe that Britain, a nation of nearly 64 million, a mercantile and maritime people linked to every corner of the world, would have no influence if we had an independent foreign policy?
There is one place, though, where we truly do lack influence: Brussels.
There have been 55 occasions when the UK voted against an EU measure in the Council of Ministers (the figure is deceptively low because, by tradition, countries rarely push matters to the vote when they can see that they will lose). Guess how many times, out of those 55, we succeeded in blocking the measure? That’s right: zero.
That literally is, to use Mr Barroso’s phrase, ‘zero influence’.
3 points: the financial services sector is far wider than the City. It affects every financial product you and I use: mortgages, pensions, credit cards, bank accounts, insurance, ISAs
The only one of those that I use is a bank account. A mortgage is a charge on a property's title, for example in the interest of a moneylender. It stops you selling your house until you've paid them off, and it allows them to seize your house and chuck you out on the street if you miss a repayment. You call that a "product"?
It is a very significant industry for this country and it is simply unacceptable for an ally to seek to damage it.
Second, another word for "speculation" is "market", "investment" or "liquidity". "Speculation" is a word loaded with an assumption that what is being done is bad.
And calling an instrument of debt a "product" is also loaded. Words are loaded.
Finally, if you're going to refer to John Law and Stavisky, you are not helping your case at all. It was the development of a financial sector supporting commercial activity and enabling government to fund itself which was one of the key reasons why England developed from the 17th century onwards and was ultimately able to defeat France. It was France's failure to do so which was one of the factors behind its military defeats and one of the factors which led to the French revolution.
A "financial sector", also known as a massive speculative bubble, did develop in France - and it brought the country to its knews.
The Stavisky case was notable as an example of a strain in French thinking which lumped Jews, finance, speculation and conspiracies together. People who thought like that were keen on Vichy, Action Francaise and after the war some of them migrated to Poujadism and later to the FN. If that is the basis for France's approach to our finance sector, we should be worried not praising them.
A "strain in French thinking"? Too much port for the boarding-school damaged bigots in Oxford and Cambridge common rooms, more like. What have wrong French thinking and the French far right got to do with it? The Stavisky case was about financial speculation and corruption once again almost bankrupting the country. Are you saying only fascists and others on the loony right recognise that? Even if that were true, so what? How on earth can the Stavisky case be an "example of a strain in French thinking"?
I really don't have time to educate you on what money is, the development of the financial sector from the 17th century onwards or French political thought in the 20th century. There are a number of good books on the subject, though.
The "English Breakfast", also known as a "Full American Breakfast", etc. etc., is a product of pigmeat advertising and has its origin in a public relations campaign run by Edward Bernays in the 1920s on behalf of the Beech-Nut Packing Company, seller of pork products.
Edward Bernays's book "Propaganda" is a classic, capable of teaching a lot to anyone whose ears are open.
Bernays was Sigmund Freud's nephew and was deeply admired by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. He is one of the fathers of public relations.
That's nothing - the entire edible oil industry is predicated upon an entirely fictional medical complaint called high cholesterol. The replacement of saturated fat by unsaturated fat in the diet actually results in increased morbidity in every instance where it is tested.
Greeks set to veto the deal because of the migrant crisis - Sky
WTF? Is this for real?
How much more evidence of the total obstinacy, disfunctionality and unworkability of the EU do we need?
Who seriously wants to stay in such a union?
Leave.
Yeah, it's a complete spanner in the works! I did have a bit of a chuckle with a friend when I saw it earlier. It's real arse about face time in Brussels. Trying to veto a deal between the UK and the EC because some other countries have suspended Schengen, something we aren't even part of! You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
I was challenged earlier to say where the British government would get the money from that it would lose from City of London spivs if ever it were to clean out the Augean stables in that part of East-Central London. I replied that it could impose swingeing rates of income tax on high earners, introduce a very high rate of inheritance tax for large estates, and attack the problem of beneficial ownership.
Here's something else it could do: nationalise the banks, exercise all the mortgages it thereby takes over on residential properties, and, as the new owner of those properties, let them to their existing occupants at social rents, on a secure basis. That should bring in a lot of state income (that previously went to the spivs) and also give millions of people a basic security in living in their homes that currently they lack.
Given the will, it'd be easy to sort out the spivs and have a country that's not held to ransom by moneylenders.
I'm involved (only slightly) in a property investment which has gone sour. Borrower took out a commercial first charge bridging loan, then stopped paying. We went to court to enforce possession, and the guy turns round and claims he was living there, and hence it's a regulated mortgage. Judge says he has an arguable case, possession denied, and the matter must go to trial. I haven't seen the pleadings.
Doing my own research, I find... www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PERG/4/4.html "PERG 4.4.1 06/04/2007
Article 61(3)(a) of the Regulated Activities Order defines a regulated mortgage contract as a contract which, at the time it is entered into, satisfies the following conditions: ... (3) at least 40% of that land is used, or is intended to be used, as or in connection with a dwelling by the borrower (or, where trustees are the borrower, by an individual who is a beneficiary of the trust) or by a related person."
What steps would competent legal advisors normally take to ensure that the documentary evidence would show a watertight negative to all those clauses highlighted above? If there was watertight documentation then presumably the borrower would have no case, and their "defence" could have been struck out?
Does this sound like negligence by our broker's legal bods when drawing up the deal? Or can anyone just put up this defence when in a corner?
Richard is right that Brown have away much leverage with Lisbon. But we still have levers to block new treaties. Cameron giving up right to block those without concrete exemption from single rulebook is madness.
The deal seems to be
1. Meaningless guff about ever closer union written specially on crepe paper 2. Protection for the City which actually leaves the City less protected than before 3. Some trivial crap about child benefits which the EU Parliament has promised to reverse
And that, quite fantastically, is that.
And that's too much even for the European Parliament and a suite of EU member states.
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Yeah, it's a complete spanner in the works! I did have a bit of a chuckle with a friend when I saw it earlier. It's real arse about face time in Brussels. Trying to veto a deal between the UK and the EC because some other countries have suspended Schengen, something we aren't even part of! You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
Welcome to a foretaste of the trade deal negotiations.
Yeah, it's a complete spanner in the works! I did have a bit of a chuckle with a friend when I saw it earlier. It's real arse about face time in Brussels. Trying to veto a deal between the UK and the EC because some other countries have suspended Schengen, something we aren't even part of! You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
Welcome to a foretaste of the trade deal negotiations.
The "English Breakfast", also known as a "Full American Breakfast", etc. etc., is a product of pigmeat advertising and has its origin in a public relations campaign run by Edward Bernays in the 1920s on behalf of the Beech-Nut Packing Company, seller of pork products.
Edward Bernays's book "Propaganda" is a classic, capable of teaching a lot to anyone whose ears are open.
Bernays was Sigmund Freud's nephew and was deeply admired by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. He is one of the fathers of public relations.
There was a BBC series about him. Did this come up the other day? There must be some reason I was thinking of buying it.
Yeah, it's a complete spanner in the works! I did have a bit of a chuckle with a friend when I saw it earlier. It's real arse about face time in Brussels. Trying to veto a deal between the UK and the EC because some other countries have suspended Schengen, something we aren't even part of! You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
Welcome to a foretaste of the trade deal negotiations.
Then let them put up a trade barrier to our £120bn trade deficit with them. I'm sure Mrs Merkel will be very happy with the Greeks if they were to veto a free trade deal for goods and services between the UK and the EU on the back of a completely unrelated issue. Some of those bailout conditions might just become tougher on the next round.
Comments
If I was Vlad Putin, I'd be keeping a very keen eye on the indecisiveness and general uselessness of European leaders. The Russian Shock Army could make it to the Channel by the time any of these jokers made a decision to fight back.
Indeed. It seems the last PM we had with balls was Maggie.
Updated Projected UK share (Based on last 20 by elections fought) Con 34.8% Lab 29.9% LD 15.9% UKIP 9.1% SNP 4.7% Green 3.6%
I'd add Tacitus' Histories (especially his account of the Year of the Four Emperors, which is gripping).
Most important stat from @TNS_UK #euref poll? Public expect Remain to win and Dont Knows break Remain too. https://t.co/ve2vaqzeCu
It's all very well saying that the British economy should be rebalanced. I agree. But the bills have to be paid in the meanwhile. And it should be for us to decide how. Not the French or Germans. Or Maltese and Italians and Belgians.
And rebalancing is not the same as damaging.
France in particular simply does not like the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. And, yes, I have heard French regulators use "Anglo-Saxon" and not in an ironic way. If they could kill it they would. There is no earthly reason why we should make it easy for them to do so.
From automatic (as per the EU directives, and the various negotiating drafts we have seen) voluntary, and of course logical exclusion from any eurozone regulation because it would be, er, illogical plus a major step down that economic and therefore political integration path....to now apparently Hollande saying we must strike those clauses (voluntary participation in SSM, SRM) from the agreement.
Either the world has gone mad or there has been a rumour control short-circuit.
As for the bit about the ECB wanting to repatriate EUR business I don't have a problem with it in the sense that if we are so adamant we don't want to be part of the eurozone, then there is no real reason we should be the hub of euro-denominated business.
I have read the Complete Works of Tacitus. 1940s or so translation, and it didn't grip me. Not sure if that was due to the translation or not.
The Year of the Four Emperors was a quite interesting period.
It's a bit premature to say it's 'killing the PM', though. The very difficulty of getting any kind of deal may be helpful politically.
http://sports.ladbrokes.com/sports-central/uk-eu-referendum/
This is what voters will note from these talks. Jumped up leaders from failing European states grandstanding on what Britain can or can't do.
Here's something else it could do: nationalise the banks, exercise all the mortgages it thereby takes over on residential properties, and, as the new owner of those properties, let them to their existing occupants at social rents, on a secure basis. That should bring in a lot of state income (that previously went to the spivs) and also give millions of people a basic security in living in their homes that currently they lack.
Given the will, it'd be easy to sort out the spivs and have a country that's not held to ransom by moneylenders.
I wonder if Putin spends as much time obsessing about you, as you do him? I expect not, he doesn't come across as some weird obsessive loon.
Brilliant.
Not that I am saying it won't happen or that we won't get an opt out on the SSM/SRM perhaps even CRD-IV but it is mad.
If that is anywhere close to what Hollande is suggesting, surely the PM, who after all didn't sign the fiscal compact, will realise we are in one of those situations again.
Alex Salmond Verified account @AlexSalmond 2h2 hours ago
Cameron should come back in his new Prime Ministerial jet to Heston airfield, wave a piece of paper and declare "bathos in our time". #EUREF
As I have said before the Single Passport was one of our greater achievements in the EU for the last 20 years and it has allowed the superior skills, efficiency and liquidity of London to flatten most of the opposition for financial services in the EU. It is essential for our future success that this continues.
How do we deepen the single market in services? Well we make sure that no backward, protectionist inherently hostile country (like the French) have a veto. But if they can't have one how can we?
The answer is we can't. But we do have to deal with the built in QMV of the EZ. And that is what these negotiations should have been about from day 1. This nonsense about CB is beyond irritating.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/10/30/article-1325127-0BD5DE6E000005DC-856_308x425.jpg
Be interesting how accurate the polls will be in SC, last time seriously underestimated Trump and Kasich, I suspect independents went big with those two so might not have been fully included, and Rubio probably still not priced in the after effects of his debate performance.
Trump 35.3 (30.7)
Kasich 15.8 (14.1)
Cruz 11.7 (11.9)
Bush 11 (10)
Rubio 10.6 (15.3)
Christie 7.4 (5.6)
Fiorina 4.1 (4.4)
Carson 2.3 (2.7)
The equivalent female organ is far far tougher.
Edward Bernays's book "Propaganda" is a classic, capable of teaching a lot to anyone whose ears are open.
Bernays was Sigmund Freud's nephew and was deeply admired by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. He is one of the fathers of public relations.
But basically I agree with you - people everywhere are much more flexible than they're given credit for, and where they see something's working they'll adapt to it.
Of course I have forgotten most all of it.
And they're always championed by the bigger power.
Free markets across borders work for the more advanced economy and muscular power vs. the smaller - Britain vs. India & China in the 19th century, America trying to implement TTIP on its weaker competitors in the 21st.
The same can be said of 'democracy' - a democracy without boundaries and protections is one where outside countries and NGOs controlled by large foreign political and commercial interests can gain a huge and undue influence. It's not for nothing the US has fought to install 'democracy' and 'free trade' around the world. It sounds better than colonisation.
How much more evidence of the total obstinacy, disfunctionality and unworkability of the EU do we need?
Who seriously wants to stay in such a union?
Leave.
Try Narcos, a bit violent to say the least,but very interesting.
I'm involved (only slightly) in a property investment which has gone sour. Borrower took out a commercial first charge bridging loan, then stopped paying. We went to court to enforce possession, and the guy turns round and claims he was living there, and hence it's a regulated mortgage. Judge says he has an arguable case, possession denied, and the matter must go to trial. I haven't seen the pleadings.
Doing my own research, I find...
www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PERG/4/4.html
"PERG 4.4.1 06/04/2007
Article 61(3)(a) of the Regulated Activities Order defines a regulated mortgage contract as a contract which, at the time it is entered into, satisfies the following conditions:
...
(3) at least 40% of that land is used, or is intended to be used, as or in connection with a dwelling by the borrower (or, where trustees are the borrower, by an individual who is a beneficiary of the trust) or by a related person."
What steps would competent legal advisors normally take to ensure that the documentary evidence would show a watertight negative to all those clauses highlighted above? If there was watertight documentation then presumably the borrower would have no case, and their "defence" could have been struck out?
Does this sound like negligence by our broker's legal bods when drawing up the deal? Or can anyone just put up this defence when in a corner?
Enough. This is crystal clear. Any Tory who was waiting for the outcome of the deal before making a decision has now heard enough.
The evidence is loud, clear and unambiguous: those who welch otherwise are doing it for one reason and one reason alone..
Their careers.