Completely off topic: I have come from a pensions seminar on the various decisions which need to be taken re my pension.
The summary is that, having done the right thing and saved and saved, I am going to be screwed over by the government if my savings do well and taxed at penal rates. Even so the amount that the government will allow me will not bring me untold riches in retirement. Meanwhile MPs get a fantastic pension not subject to any of the restrictions or penal taxation inflicted on us plebs.
And there is also the risk that Osborne will hammer pensions even more in next month's Budget.
As always, those who try and do the right thing get screwed over in this country.
At this precise moment, I could not care less about the arguments, ishoos or personalities. What I intend doing with my vote at whatever opportunity comes my way is to use it to send a rocket up the arse of the smug, self-satisfied, plundering, ignorant political class.
It all depends on your point of view.
Governments tend to regard your pension as their money.
They can fuck off. It's my money. I work hard for it, save hard, out of income already taxed and it's not there to be plundered - retrospectively - at will. Osborne is penalising saving, is penalising good investment decisions, is penalising those who rely on government promises to make long-term decisions and is doing so at a time when it is hard for those damaged by his decisions to take corrective action to put sufficient extra money by for their old age.
What irks me beyond measure is the way that those who do or try to do the right thing in this country are taken for mugs.
Forget all the talk about supporting hard-working families. It's so much piss and wind. Do the right thing and you're seen as a wallet to be mugged. It's little wonder Italians hide their money from the state. They have no illusions that the state's promises can be relied upon or that the state, for all its pious sanctimonious cant, is anything other than a robber baron.
Grrr.....
You've reached the same conclusion about Osborne that I have.
There seems to be little difference between Osborne and the wretched Brown.
If the full process is dragging, could we join EFTA as an interim measure?
PM BoJo addresses the nation
"You voted leave, so I am today signing an agreement to Join the EFTA..."
It's the issue that shall not be named. We will leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty in particular our borders but will instantly join a european body that preserves free movement of people.
Well quite - given you and I are going with the status quo it's for Outers to provide evidence of how they get round this conundrum. So far they have signally failed.
They also seem worried that the ECB will somehow nobble the City's trading of euro business if we stay in, but believe (as semi-articulated by an unimpressive Nadhim Zahawi on DP) that if we leave, the City's pre-eminent role as euro trading capital will be preserved.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
So it's a trade off between (a) a known loss and (b) a known loss with the potential for upside. If you believe that we will be, in any meaningful way mitigate the downsides of (a) by sitting outside the room where the decisions are made before being invited in to hear our fate then you are more naive than I take you for
Trade deals yadda yadda, EEA, EFTA, EU etc etc its all bollox.
Look, BMW sell millions of cars because people want them, its nothing to do with govts, trade deals, treaties or articles. We are a trading nation, have been for centuries, we need to make things that people want to buy and allow people to buy the things they want to buy, irrespective of where they come from.
Politicians don't get this, they've gone from uni to SPAD to officialdom without ever being involved in enterprise, very few have any experience of trading, they simply don't understand it. It seems that applies to plenty on here too.
I think the point is that they may get more expensive, and so less people will want them.
@ScottyNational: EU: Stugeon,a committed nationalist who wants to break up a union, to urge England not to listen to nationalists who want to beak up a union
@ScottyNational: Currency: SNP urge 'Leave' campaign to follow their logic by wanting to leave a union then immediately demand to join an EU currency union
I hope you're suitably grateful for being given the chance to rest your Boris bashing wrist.
Three months ago, I think Cameron/Osborne expected one or two resignations from Cabinet, just the 50 BOO usual suspects to campaign for Leave on the backbenches, and a 20-30 point lead for Remain in the polls.
Now, they are facing a majority of the non payroll vote of their own parliamentary party, possibly a quarter of the whole house cross-party, a majority of members and activists and a solid ministerial team well in double-figures, with several big beasts, for Leave and opinion polls showing a much closer race.
Leave may not carry the day on the day, but as a demonstration of puncturing complacency and hubris it is a victory of sorts.
It's also enough to keep me in the Conservative Party, for now.
Completely off topic: I have come from a pensions seminar on the various decisions which need to be taken re my pension.
The summary is that, having done the right thing and saved and saved, I am going to be screwed over by the government if my savings do well and taxed at penal rates. Even so the amount that the government will allow me will not bring me untold riches in retirement. Meanwhile MPs get a fantastic pension not subject to any of the restrictions or penal taxation inflicted on us plebs.
And there is also the risk that Osborne will hammer pensions even more in next month's Budget.
As always, those who try and do the right thing get screwed over in this country.
At this precise moment, I could not care less about the arguments, ishoos or personalities. What I intend doing with my vote at whatever opportunity comes my way is to use it to send a rocket up the arse of the smug, self-satisfied, plundering, ignorant political class.
It all depends on your point of view.
Governments tend to regard your pension as their money.
They can fuck off. It's my money. I work hard for it, save hard, out of income already taxed and it's not there to be plundered - retrospectively - at will. Osborne is penalising saving, is penalising good investment decisions, is penalising those who rely on government promises to make long-term decisions and is doing so at a time when it is hard for those damaged by his decisions to take corrective action to put sufficient extra money by for their old age.
What irks me beyond measure is the way that those who do or try to do the right thing in this country are taken for mugs.
Forget all the talk about supporting hard-working families. It's so much piss and wind. Do the right thing and you're seen as a wallet to be mugged. It's little wonder Italians hide their money from the state. They have no illusions that the state's promises can be relied upon or that the state, for all its pious sanctimonious cant, is anything other than a robber baron.
Grrr.....
You've reached the same conclusion about Osborne that I have.
There seems to be little difference between Osborne and the wretched Brown.
The OAP is not doing terribly well.....he really shouldn't pause in unfortunate places....but its all a side show to the main event - the seething on the Tory benches.....
Completely off topic: I have come from a pensions seminar on the various decisions which need to be taken re my pension.
The summary is that, having done the right thing and saved and saved, I am going to be screwed over by the government if my savings do well and taxed at penal rates. Even so the amount that the government will allow me will not bring me untold riches in retirement. Meanwhile MPs get a fantastic pension not subject to any of the restrictions or penal taxation inflicted on us plebs.
And there is also the risk that Osborne will hammer pensions even more in next month's Budget.
As always, those who try and do the right thing get screwed over in this country.
At this precise moment, I could not care less about the arguments, ishoos or personalities. What I intend doing with my vote at whatever opportunity comes my way is to use it to send a rocket up the arse of the smug, self-satisfied, plundering, ignorant political class.
It all depends on your point of view.
Governments tend to regard your pension as their money.
They can fuck off. It's my money. I work hard for it, save hard, out of income already taxed and it's not there to be plundered - retrospectively - at will. Osborne is penalising saving, is penalising good investment decisions, is penalising those who rely on government promises to make long-term decisions and is doing so at a time when it is hard for those damaged by his decisions to take corrective action to put sufficient extra money by for their old age.
What irks me beyond measure is the way that those who do or try to do the right thing in this country are taken for mugs.
Forget all the talk about supporting hard-working families. It's so much piss and wind. Do the right thing and you're seen as a wallet to be mugged. It's little wonder Italians hide their money from the state. They have no illusions that the state's promises can be relied upon or that the state, for all its pious sanctimonious cant, is anything other than a robber baron.
Grrr.....
You've reached the same conclusion about Osborne that I have.
There seems to be little difference between Osborne and the wretched Brown.
Trade deals yadda yadda, EEA, EFTA, EU etc etc its all bollox.
Look, BMW sell millions of cars because people want them, its nothing to do with govts, trade deals, treaties or articles. We are a trading nation, have been for centuries, we need to make things that people want to buy and allow people to buy the things they want to buy, irrespective of where they come from.
Politicians don't get this, they've gone from uni to SPAD to officialdom without ever being involved in enterprise, very few have any experience of trading, they simply don't understand it. It seems that applies to plenty on here too.
I think the point is that they may get more expensive, and so less people will want them.
Even more bollox. BMW sell more cars to us than any other country, if the EU (or anybody else) makes it more difficult BMW will take necessary steps.
Your reply makes my point nicely, govt has no place interfering in trade.
Completely off topic: I have come from a pensions seminar on the various decisions which need to be taken re my pension.
The summary is that, having done the right thing and saved and saved, I am going to be screwed over by the government if my savings do well and taxed at penal rates. Even so the amount that the government will allow me will not bring me untold riches in retirement. Meanwhile MPs get a fantastic pension not subject to any of the restrictions or penal taxation inflicted on us plebs.
And there is also the risk that Osborne will hammer pensions even more in next month's Budget.
As always, those who try and do the right thing get screwed over in this country.
At this precise moment, I could not care less about the arguments, ishoos or personalities. What I intend doing with my vote at whatever opportunity comes my way is to use it to send a rocket up the arse of the smug, self-satisfied, plundering, ignorant political class.
It all depends on your point of view.
Governments tend to regard your pension as their money.
They can fuck off. It's my money. I work hard for it, save hard, out of income already taxed and it's not there to be plundered - retrospectively - at will. Osborne is penalising saving, is penalising good investment decisions, is penalising those who rely on government promises to make long-term decisions and is doing so at a time when it is hard for those damaged by his decisions to take corrective action to put sufficient extra money by for their old age.
What irks me beyond measure is the way that those who do or try to do the right thing in this country are taken for mugs.
Forget all the talk about supporting hard-working families. It's so much piss and wind. Do the right thing and you're seen as a wallet to be mugged. It's little wonder Italians hide their money from the state. They have no illusions that the state's promises can be relied upon or that the state, for all its pious sanctimonious cant, is anything other than a robber baron.
Grrr.....
You've reached the same conclusion about Osborne that I have.
There seems to be little difference between Osborne and the wretched Brown.
I'm amazed at the number of Tory MPs - I know some are protecting themselves for GE2020 [and that's saying the same thing Joe Public wise], but the cohort is huge.
Three months ago, I think Cameron/Osborne expected one or two resignations from Cabinet, just the 50 BOO usual suspects to campaign for Leave on the backbenches, and a 20-30 point lead for Remain in the polls.
Now, they are facing a majority of the non payroll vote of their own parliamentary party, possibly a quarter of the whole house cross-party, a majority of members and activists and a solid ministerial team well in double-figures, with several big beasts, and opinion polls showing a much closer race.
Leave may not carry the day on the day, but as a demonstration of puncturing complacency and hubris it is a victory of sorts.
It's also enough to keep me in the Conservative Party, for now.
Three months ago, I think Cameron/Osborne expected one or two resignations from Cabinet, just the 50 BOO usual suspects to campaign for Leave on the backbenches, and a 20-30 point lead for Remain in the polls.
Now, they are facing a majority of the non payroll vote of their own parliamentary party, possibly a quarter of the whole house cross-party, a majority of members and activists and a solid ministerial team well in double-figures, with several big beasts, for Leave and opinion polls showing a much closer race.
Leave may not carry the day on the day, but as a demonstration of puncturing complacency and hubris it is a victory of sorts.
It's also enough to keep me in the Conservative Party, for now.
It's also an interesting demonstration of how things can run out of the control of political leaders.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are in exactly the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
The OAP is not doing terribly well.....he really shouldn't pause in unfortunate places....but its all a side show to the main event - the seething on the Tory benches.....
David Cameron has just made a big mistake. Up to this afternoon, the odds were quite good that Boris Johnson was going to wriggle on a hook of his own making. He's pretty much obliged to come out fighting hard now and get off the fence properly.
It's always a really bad idea to let your temper get the better of you, no matter how much you've been provoked. Never hate your enemy, it clouds your judgement.
Corbyn's really angry now. His comments on corporate tax dodging will strike a chord with many people; the Tories need to be careful that they don't end up on the wrong side of public opinion.
David Cameron has just made a big mistake. Up to this afternoon, the odds were quite good that Boris Johnson was going to wriggle on a hook of his own making. He's pretty much obliged to come out fighting hard now and get off the fence properly.
It's always a really bad idea to let your temper get the better of you, no matter how much you've been provoked. Never hate your enemy, it clouds your judgement.
David Cameron has just made a big mistake. Up to this afternoon, the odds were quite good that Boris Johnson was going to wriggle on a hook of his own making. He's pretty much obliged to come out fighting hard now and get off the fence properly.
It's always a really bad idea to let your temper get the better of you, no matter how much you've been provoked. Never hate your enemy, it clouds your judgement.
Agreed.
Boris thought there was a gentleman's agreement for the Tories to be nice to each other, and now Dave just kicked him in the bollocks. He either has to take the gloves off, or stand aside.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are exactly in the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
Not so. We would have a veto which we do not have now.
Are you finally at least happy to accept Cameron got no protection for the City at all. Something you said was a red line.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are in exactly the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
In the EU we have to follow the rules for all trades in all currencies and instruments. In an EFTA/EEA type of deal we only have to follow them when we are trading with the EU.
The concern is that France will write the rules to screw us when we are trading with the US in Dollars as well as when we are trading with Germany in Euros. Outside the EU, in the EEA they cant do that.
David Cameron has just made a big mistake. Up to this afternoon, the odds were quite good that Boris Johnson was going to wriggle on a hook of his own making. He's pretty much obliged to come out fighting hard now and get off the fence properly.
It's always a really bad idea to let your temper get the better of you, no matter how much you've been provoked. Never hate your enemy, it clouds your judgement.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are exactly in the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
I think we need a shorthand for this argument. The one where we somehow have more influence about these things if we are outside the EU than inside. Bonkers? Illogical?
We hear a lot of "if we stay they'll screw us" and yet the people who make this argument believe somehow that if we leave they will accommodate our every whim.
Trade deals yadda yadda, EEA, EFTA, EU etc etc its all bollox.
Look, BMW sell millions of cars because people want them, its nothing to do with govts, trade deals, treaties or articles. We are a trading nation, have been for centuries, we need to make things that people want to buy and allow people to buy the things they want to buy, irrespective of where they come from.
Politicians don't get this, they've gone from uni to SPAD to officialdom without ever being involved in enterprise, very few have any experience of trading, they simply don't understand it. It seems that applies to plenty on here too.
I think the point is that they may get more expensive, and so less people will want them.
Even more bollox. BMW sell more cars to us than any other country, if the EU (or anybody else) makes it more difficult BMW will take necessary steps.
Your reply makes my point nicely, govt has no place interfering in trade.
They sell more to us now. Who knows if prices go up due to a tariff.
David Cameron has just made a big mistake. Up to this afternoon, the odds were quite good that Boris Johnson was going to wriggle on a hook of his own making. He's pretty much obliged to come out fighting hard now and get off the fence properly.
It's always a really bad idea to let your temper get the better of you, no matter how much you've been provoked. Never hate your enemy, it clouds your judgement.
David Cameron has just made a big mistake. Up to this afternoon, the odds were quite good that Boris Johnson was going to wriggle on a hook of his own making. He's pretty much obliged to come out fighting hard now and get off the fence properly.
It's always a really bad idea to let your temper get the better of you, no matter how much you've been provoked. Never hate your enemy, it clouds your judgement.
Agreed.
Boris thought there was a gentleman's agreement for the Tories to be nice to each other, and now Dave just kicked him in the bollocks. He either has to take the gloves off, or stand aside.
Not so. We would have a veto which we do not have now.
Are you finally at least happy to accept Cameron got no protection for the City at all. Something you said was a red line.
We would not have a veto. We could withdraw from the single market in financial services if we didn't like a regulation.
And, no, I don't accept that we got no protection for the City. As I've said many times, Cameron did slightly better on that than I was expecting. It's not as much protection as I'd like, but better than before the rengotiation, and vastly better than an EEA deal.
Corbyn's really angry now. His comments on corporate tax dodging will strike a chord with many people; the Tories need to be careful that they don't end up on the wrong side of public opinion.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are exactly in the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
Not so. We would have a veto which we do not have now.
Are you finally at least happy to accept Cameron got no protection for the City at all. Something you said was a red line.
Richard explain to me how we would be able to veto the ECB repatriating, or imposing strict criteria on euro business, a la the Fed's control over dollar business?
People often say "but we deal with the US" and indeed we do but the Fed's control over USD transactions is complete and exclusive.
I am stunned that at the first opportunity Cameron has started open civil war by attacking Tory Leave supporters do openly. He really is a fecking lunatic.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are exactly in the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
I think we need a shorthand for this argument. The one where we somehow have more influence about these things if we are outside the EU than inside. Bonkers? Illogical?
We hear a lot of "if we stay they'll screw us" and yet the people who make this argument believe somehow that if we leave they will accommodate our every whim.
I'll stick with bonkers.
that is a complete straw man. I don;t think any leaver has pretended the City wouldn't lose some business if we left.
I am stunned that at the first opportunity Cameron has started open civil war by attacking Tory Leave supporters do openly. He really is a fecking lunatic.
It was an attack on the silliness of Boris Johnson's position.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are exactly in the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
I think we need a shorthand for this argument. The one where we somehow have more influence about these things if we are outside the EU than inside. Bonkers? Illogical?
We hear a lot of "if we stay they'll screw us" and yet the people who make this argument believe somehow that if we leave they will accommodate our every whim.
I'll stick with bonkers.
that is a complete straw man. I don;t think any leaver has pretended the City wouldn't lose some business if we left.
Its business we're going to lose anyway. The Eurozone is integrating. Didn't you get the memo?
David Cameron has just made a big mistake. Up to this afternoon, the odds were quite good that Boris Johnson was going to wriggle on a hook of his own making. He's pretty much obliged to come out fighting hard now and get off the fence properly.
It's always a really bad idea to let your temper get the better of you, no matter how much you've been provoked. Never hate your enemy, it clouds your judgement.
Agreed.
Boris thought there was a gentleman's agreement for the Tories to be nice to each other, and now Dave just kicked him in the bollocks. He either has to take the gloves off, or stand aside.
Disagree. Boris has no idea what Leave will mean and will likely never articulate the details. That leaves his position as down to opportunism. Naked opportunism.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are exactly in the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
I think we need a shorthand for this argument. The one where we somehow have more influence about these things if we are outside the EU than inside. Bonkers? Illogical?
We hear a lot of "if we stay they'll screw us" and yet the people who make this argument believe somehow that if we leave they will accommodate our every whim.
I'll stick with bonkers.
I'm stockpiling my cellar with Blue Nun, if we Leave it will be almost impossible to get hold. I suggest you buy 100 BMWs and store them away for the same reason.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are exactly in the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
I think we need a shorthand for this argument. The one where we somehow have more influence about these things if we are outside the EU than inside. Bonkers? Illogical?
We hear a lot of "if we stay they'll screw us" and yet the people who make this argument believe somehow that if we leave they will accommodate our every whim.
I'll stick with bonkers.
that is a complete straw man. I don;t think any leaver has pretended the City wouldn't lose some business if we left.
Will we lose more or less if we leave vs stay? If we lose more by leaving then why would we vote to be in a position where one of our key industries is disadvantaged?
Not so. We would have a veto which we do not have now.
Are you finally at least happy to accept Cameron got no protection for the City at all. Something you said was a red line.
We would not have a veto. We could withdraw from the single market in financial services if we didn't like a regulation.
And, no, I don't accept that we got no protection for the City. As I've said many times, Cameron did slightly better on that than I was expecting. It's not as much protection as I'd like, but better than before the rengotiation, and vastly better than an EEA deal.
Its a lot worse than a bilateral trade deal though.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are exactly in the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
I think we need a shorthand for this argument. The one where we somehow have more influence about these things if we are outside the EU than inside. Bonkers? Illogical?
We hear a lot of "if we stay they'll screw us" and yet the people who make this argument believe somehow that if we leave they will accommodate our every whim.
I'll stick with bonkers.
I'm stockpiling my cellar with Blue Nun, if we Leave it will be almost impossible to get hold. I suggest you buy 100 BMWs and store them away for the same reason.
What hyperbole. The only thing that could possibly happen is they get a little more expensive, if tariffs were imposed. And that's a big if in its own regard.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are exactly in the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
I think we need a shorthand for this argument. The one where we somehow have more influence about these things if we are outside the EU than inside. Bonkers? Illogical?
We hear a lot of "if we stay they'll screw us" and yet the people who make this argument believe somehow that if we leave they will accommodate our every whim.
I'll stick with bonkers.
that is a complete straw man. I don;t think any leaver has pretended the City wouldn't lose some business if we left.
Will we lose more or less if we leave vs stay? If we lose more by leaving then why would we vote to be in a position where one of our key industries is disadvantaged?
I think we are far more likely to hang onto non-euro business if we leave than if we stay, personally.
Why? because the EU is fundamentally socialist and controlling. It wants to destroy something it sees as an evil, a casino. Destroy it all. Euro business, non-euro business, the lot.
David Cameron has just made a big mistake. Up to this afternoon, the odds were quite good that Boris Johnson was going to wriggle on a hook of his own making. He's pretty much obliged to come out fighting hard now and get off the fence properly.
It's always a really bad idea to let your temper get the better of you, no matter how much you've been provoked. Never hate your enemy, it clouds your judgement.
Agreed.
Boris thought there was a gentleman's agreement for the Tories to be nice to each other, and now Dave just kicked him in the bollocks. He either has to take the gloves off, or stand aside.
Disagree. Boris has no idea what Leave will mean and will likely never articulate the details. That leaves his position as down to opportunism. Naked opportunism.
Dave was right to go for the throat.
Boris question a bit of a dud...also curiously defensive body language....
Three months ago, I think Cameron/Osborne expected one or two resignations from Cabinet, just the 50 BOO usual suspects to campaign for Leave on the backbenches, and a 20-30 point lead for Remain in the polls.
Now, they are facing a majority of the non payroll vote of their own parliamentary party, possibly a quarter of the whole house cross-party, a majority of members and activists and a solid ministerial team well in double-figures, with several big beasts, for Leave and opinion polls showing a much closer race.
Leave may not carry the day on the day, but as a demonstration of puncturing complacency and hubris it is a victory of sorts.
It's also enough to keep me in the Conservative Party, for now.
According to those numbers its a majority of Tory MPs, not just backbench ones.
No. If we remain in the EU, France will write the rules of the Eurozone in such a way as to maximise the disadvantage to the UK. Look at the attempt to benefit Euroclear over LCH for a case study
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
But Charles, that is just wrong. If we remain in the Single Market for financial services, on the Norway model or something similar, then we are exactly in the same position as now, except that we'd have no say at all in the regulations, and no protection at all against the Eurozone ganging up against us. In fact, they wouldn't even have to gang up against us, we wouldn't even be anywhere near the meetings at which these things are decided.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
I think we need a shorthand for this argument. The one where we somehow have more influence about these things if we are outside the EU than inside. Bonkers? Illogical?
We hear a lot of "if we stay they'll screw us" and yet the people who make this argument believe somehow that if we leave they will accommodate our every whim.
I'll stick with bonkers.
I prefer ignorant.
We have less influence outside, but the rules apply to a LOT less of our trade outside.
Comments
clown.
Strange times - Labour benches cheering along with Cameron, lots of Tories quite quiet
If we are outside of the Eurozone they can't write the rules that we are forced (after a suitable embarrassed pause while the little boy in the corner protests that it is weally weally unfair) abide by. They may attempt to impose restrictions, but I have confidence in our ability to innovate around them by providing solutions which customers want.
So it's a trade off between (a) a known loss and (b) a known loss with the potential for upside. If you believe that we will be, in any meaningful way mitigate the downsides of (a) by sitting outside the room where the decisions are made before being invited in to hear our fate then you are more naive than I take you for
Tory Heckler: Who are you ?
Now, they are facing a majority of the non payroll vote of their own parliamentary party, possibly a quarter of the whole house cross-party, a majority of members and activists and a solid ministerial team well in double-figures, with several big beasts, for Leave and opinion polls showing a much closer race.
Leave may not carry the day on the day, but as a demonstration of puncturing complacency and hubris it is a victory of sorts.
It's also enough to keep me in the Conservative Party, for now.
Odds on Boris becoming a lot more convincing in his Outness?
Andy Burnham desperately trying not to laugh.
Your reply makes my point nicely, govt has no place interfering in trade.
I'm very heartened.
OK, we could go the whole hog, and withdraw from the Single Market in Financial Services. Is that seriously what you are advocating?
It's the same distraction everytime he wears it.
It's always a really bad idea to let your temper get the better of you, no matter how much you've been provoked. Never hate your enemy, it clouds your judgement.
Boris thought there was a gentleman's agreement for the Tories to be nice to each other, and now Dave just kicked him in the bollocks. He either has to take the gloves off, or stand aside.
Are you finally at least happy to accept Cameron got no protection for the City at all. Something you said was a red line.
The concern is that France will write the rules to screw us when we are trading with the US in Dollars as well as when we are trading with Germany in Euros. Outside the EU, in the EEA they cant do that.
3 remainers in a row.
*runs away*
Poll Alert
@ICMResearch #eu tracker early release. Nearly ALL interviews before @MayorofLondon announcement. Remain 42%, Leave 40% DK 17% or 52% vs 48%We hear a lot of "if we stay they'll screw us" and yet the people who make this argument believe somehow that if we leave they will accommodate our every whim.
I'll stick with bonkers.
Silly stuff from Cameron - and unnecessary.
And, no, I don't accept that we got no protection for the City. As I've said many times, Cameron did slightly better on that than I was expecting. It's not as much protection as I'd like, but better than before the rengotiation, and vastly better than an EEA deal.
People often say "but we deal with the US" and indeed we do but the Fed's control over USD transactions is complete and exclusive.
This ICM poll is an online.
It may not be for a pea-brain loon like you but it is major issue facing the World.
Now Mr Robertson and his "Better Together" schtick
Dave was right to go for the throat.
Why? because the EU is fundamentally socialist and controlling. It wants to destroy something it sees as an evil, a casino. Destroy it all. Euro business, non-euro business, the lot.
fixed it for you
Oh dear ....
We have less influence outside, but the rules apply to a LOT less of our trade outside.