On tax: is it not genuinely getting harder though (whatever the stripe of Govt) given the world is a smaller place than ever for individuals with lots of money to pick their tax "jurisdiction of choice" for a while whilst not being out of touch with home (all that internet, satellite TV, cheap flights), and given the economy looks ever less like (say) Tata/Rolls Royce (real raw materials in , plant, buildings, real goods out the other end), which is relatively immobile and easier to tax, and more like (say) Google/Amazon which are very ephemeral and like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of taxing?
Yet we still need to fund roads/hospitals/schools somehow.
I think it's difficult, but a critical issue for any government - it's not accidental that both Osborne and Brown have seen squeezing tax havens as a desirable objective and made some modest progress towards it. Within the EU (which I've never described as perfect) I'd like to get rid of subsidiarity of corporation tax and (using qualified majority voting and ever-greater union!) have a uniform rate - Luxembourg and Ireland would hate it, but that really is not healthy competition but a race to the bottom. We can then have political competition on how to use the money (tax cuts, public services, whatever) rather than how to compensate for its absence.
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....
agree.
Someone shouted "tuck your shirt in"..perhaps that unnerved him as he clutched his arms around his belly...
but yes, sovereignty is the key issue and should be for Leavers. But we need detail on which elements on sovereignty are at risk. Otherwise, as he did, Cam comes back with specific areas where he believes it is not compromised.
Corbyn says the big challenges are... "climate change.."
clown.
Climate change is one of the major issues facing us - that's a fact that the World will grapple with.
It may not be for a pea-brain loon like you but it is major issue facing the World.
LOL. No really. It isn't. In fact it us the moronic preoccupation with it by the scientifically illiterate like you that prevents us dealing with many of the real problems facing the world.
Corbyn says the big challenges are... "climate change.."
clown.
Climate change is one of the major issues facing us - that's a fact that the World will grapple with.
It may not be for a pea-brain loon like you but it is major issue facing the World.
LOL. No really. It isn't. In fact it us the moronic preoccupation with it by the scientifically illiterate like you that prevents us dealing with many of the real problems facing the world.
I'd say it is an issue, with the prospect of becoming major if heating does resume.
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.
You don't get this do you?
It is nothing to do with anybody other than BMW what they sell cars for. If Brussels tell BMW what price to sell cars for there will be hell on.
@MatthewDancona: The question the excitable Tories should be asking: would Britain really be better off if Boris was the one answering the questions today?
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.
He got absolutely nothing at all on terms of protection. Zilch. In fact what he did was to get us less protection than we have now.
All countries whether in or out of the Eurozone have to abide by a single rulebook. No ability to block any new legislation that can be imposed on us by QMV. No protection for the city from Eurozone out voting us and imposing new regulation.
As others on here have pointed out this deal is actually worse than what we had before.
If we vote Leave, nothing will have changed in the morning. The bus will be on time, or late as normal. The childminder might mention it but she will still get paid. Eerie jihadi wannabies will still fantasise about their gruesome plots. Highly paid commercial lawyers who specialise in EU matters might be a bit worried about their longer term income prospects.
Watching the piranha Tories ganging up on ScottP and slowling nibbling away at him is quite sad. Years of loyal pasting and genuflecting to the colour blue and always with a cheerful wit.
Surely he must have known what happens when you cross the herd?
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.
You don't get this do you?
It is nothing to do with anybody other than BMW what they sell cars for. If Brussels tell BMW what price to sell cars for there will be hell on.
On tax: is it not genuinely getting harder though (whatever the stripe of Govt) given the world is a smaller place than ever for individuals with lots of money to pick their tax "jurisdiction of choice" for a while whilst not being out of touch with home (all that internet, satellite TV, cheap flights), and given the economy looks ever less like (say) Tata/Rolls Royce (real raw materials in , plant, buildings, real goods out the other end), which is relatively immobile and easier to tax, and more like (say) Google/Amazon which are very ephemeral and like nailing jelly to the wall in terms of taxing?
Yet we still need to fund roads/hospitals/schools somehow.
I think it's difficult, but a critical issue for any government - it's not accidental that both Osborne and Brown have seen squeezing tax havens as a desirable objective and made some modest progress towards it. Within the EU (which I've never described as perfect) I'd like to get rid of subsidiarity of corporation tax and (using qualified majority voting and ever-greater union!) have a uniform rate - Luxembourg and Ireland would hate it, but that really is not healthy competition but a race to the bottom. We can then have political competition on how to use the money (tax cuts, public services, whatever) rather than how to compensate for its absence.
Take your points. Not keen on QMV (as you might expect) as I feel the French and others may drag us too far up versus rest of the world and create problems that way, but I also accept there is a danger of a race to the bottom too far the other way and that leaves us without hospitals etc
I can see this is a knotty one all round and one where I'd hate to think govts make up the gap by coming after the individual too far (see GO and rumoured pension changes), as that too has it's greater limits these days compared to the past.
Watching the piranha Tories ganging up on ScottP and slowling nibbling away at him is quite sad. Years of loyal pasting and genuflecting to the colour blue and always with a cheerful wit.
Surely he must have known what happens when you cross the herd?
And then up you pop Roger to offer such an attractive alternate target
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.
I really wish you would explain in what way the current deal is better than what we have now. Under the deal we have to:-
1. follow the EMU rulebook (which we did not have to do before); and 2. this now applies to every part of our financial sector and not just banks, whereas it did not before. 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
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 difference is that we can innovate around the issue if we are outside.
Let's say that the Eurozone decides all clearing of EU domiciled equities needs to be in a Eurozone country. Under Cameron's deal we can't do anything about it (despite winning a court case a few years ago). Under the 'out' structure we can come up with synthetics and/or off-shoring clearing structures and/or go to the WTO.
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.
Keep up do. BMW won't support a tariff. That's the point. They won't shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, there goes our main market".
I don't see how in any meaningful sense free trade can be undone if we leave. There won't be a protectionist surge.
Corbyn says the big challenges are... "climate change.."
clown.
Climate change is one of the major issues facing us - that's a fact that the World will grapple with.
It may not be for a pea-brain loon like you but it is major issue facing the World.
LOL. No really. It isn't. In fact it us the moronic preoccupation with it by the scientifically illiterate like you that prevents us dealing with many of the real problems facing the world.
I'd say it is an issue, with the prospect of becoming major if heating does resume.
As was pointed out many years ago by the former head of Greenpeace in Denmark, for a fraction of the amount of money we waste every year trying to fight climate change we could give everyone in the world access to clean water. Forever.
That is how perverted our priorities have become because of the climate change lunatics like Murali_s.
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 difference is that we can innovate around the issue if we are outside.
Let's say that the Eurozone decides all clearing of EU domiciled equities needs to be in a Eurozone country. Under Cameron's deal we can't do anything about it (despite winning a court case a few years ago). Under the 'out' structure we can come up with synthetics and/or off-shoring clearing structures and/or go to the WTO.
Abso f8cking lutely. That is what has made the City what it is.
And we can also innovate to ensure we retain and enhance non-euro business.
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.
I really wish you would explain in what way the current deal is better than what we have now. Under the deal we have to:-
1. follow the EMU rulebook (which we did not have to do before); and 2. this now applies to every part of our financial sector and not just banks, whereas it did not before. 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
I have answered that many times. You choose to disbelieve what the agreement says. Ok, fair enough, let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm 100% wrong about the renegotiation being better than the status quo. The brick wall I'm banging my head against is that, even if that is true, how is EEA memberships better in that respect?
Watching the piranha Tories ganging up on ScottP and slowling nibbling away at him is quite sad. Years of loyal pasting and genuflecting to the colour blue and always with a cheerful wit.
Surely he must have known what happens when you cross the herd?
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.
Keep up do. BMW won't support a tariff. That's the point. They won't shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, there goes our main market".
I don't see how in any meaningful sense free trade can be undone if we leave. There won't be a protectionist surge.
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.
I really wish you would explain in what way the current deal is better than what we have now. Under the deal we have to:-
1. follow the EMU rulebook (which we did not have to do before); and 2. this now applies to every part of our financial sector and not just banks, whereas it did not before. 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
And the question also remains: do you think we would have a) more or b) less influence on financial services rules and regulations if we are in vs if we are out.
And if by "EMU rulebook" you mean the single rulebook (I'm not being smart; do you mean the same thing?) then we are explicitly excluded from needing to participate in banking union law.
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.
You don't think Cameron should have given Boris a public dressing down for his cynical and purely self-interested stunt?
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.
Keep up do. BMW won't support a tariff. That's the point. They won't shrug their shoulders and say "oh well, there goes our main market".
I don't see how in any meaningful sense free trade can be undone if we leave. There won't be a protectionist surge.
I hadn't realised BMW was running the EU
You think german industry's views has no influence in Berlin?
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.
You don't get this do you?
It is nothing to do with anybody other than BMW what they sell cars for. If Brussels tell BMW what price to sell cars for there will be hell on.
What would they do, stop selling in the UK?
No idea, consumers would pay the extra or buy something else.Its called trade, some companies are successful, others aren't.
I'll spell it out for you, it is nothing to do with politicians what price BMW charge for cars.
The difference is that we can innovate around the issue if we are outside.
Let's say that the Eurozone decides all clearing of EU domiciled equities needs to be in a Eurozone country. Under Cameron's deal we can't do anything about it (despite winning a court case a few years ago). Under the 'out' structure we can come up with synthetics and/or off-shoring clearing structures and/or go to the WTO.
Under Cameron's deal we can do something about it, that is the whole point.
When you say 'under the Out structure', do you mean a structure where we have signed up to the single market in financial services?
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 difference is that we can innovate around the issue if we are outside.
Let's say that the Eurozone decides all clearing of EU domiciled equities needs to be in a Eurozone country. Under Cameron's deal we can't do anything about it (despite winning a court case a few years ago). Under the 'out' structure we can come up with synthetics and/or off-shoring clearing structures and/or go to the WTO.
What type of synthetic clearing structure do you envisage we could create, Charles?
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.
I really wish you would explain in what way the current deal is better than what we have now. Under the deal we have to:-
1. follow the EMU rulebook (which we did not have to do before); and 2. this now applies to every part of our financial sector and not just banks, whereas it did not before. 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
And the question also remains: do you think we would have a) more or b) less influence on financial services rules and regulations if we are in vs if we are out.
And if by "EMU rulebook" you mean the single rulebook (I'm not being smart; do you mean the same thing?) then we are explicitly excluded from needing to participate in banking union law.
No that is a different question to the one you asked earlier and completely ignored when it was answered for you.
Cameron gave a combative defence of his deal, but then he devoted the final two minutes or so of his statement to what every MP in the chamber will have recognised as a withering, uncompromising and near-contemptuous attack on Boris Johnson. Observers not familiar with EU referendum arcana may not have noticed, because Cameron did not refer to Johnson directly and he focused instead on those arguing that an Out vote could be followed by a second referendum. This is an idea first championed by Dominic Cummings (the former Michael Gove adviser who is even more unpopular with Cameron than Johnson is right now), but Johnson has flirted with it and in his Telegraph article today Johnson implies that voting Out could force Brussels to think again. The highlight of the attack was a joke (which Cameron delivered with good timing) about how he has never known anyone initiate divorce proceedings in the hope of that they can stay together. The joke had the advantage of making a very feint reference to Johnson’s less-than-perfect marital record (“advantage” if antagonising Johnson was the intention, which it almost certainly was). Cameron also said he had no agenda other than what was best for the UK, which was an obvious reference to Johnson’s naked opportunism.
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.
I really wish you would explain in what way the current deal is better than what we have now. Under the deal we have to:-
1. follow the EMU rulebook (which we did not have to do before); and 2. this now applies to every part of our financial sector and not just banks, whereas it did not before. 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
And the question also remains: do you think we would have a) more or b) less influence on financial services rules and regulations if we are in vs if we are out.
And if by "EMU rulebook" you mean the single rulebook (I'm not being smart; do you mean the same thing?) then we are explicitly excluded from needing to participate in banking union law.
Under a bilateral deal the laws simply wouldn't apply to us. They could try stopping the City trading in Euros but would be as successful as the US has been with dollars. And non-EU activity, which is the vast majority of financial activity would not be affected at all.
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.
You don't get this do you?
It is nothing to do with anybody other than BMW what they sell cars for. If Brussels tell BMW what price to sell cars for there will be hell on.
What would they do, stop selling in the UK?
No idea, consumers would pay the extra or buy something else.Its called trade, some companies are successful, others aren't.
I'll spell it out for you, it is nothing to do with politicians what price BMW charge for cars.
That doesn't stop them putting tariffs on a wide range of items.
Conservative Sir Nicholas Soames has told Tory colleague John Redwood to "bugger off" over demands backbenchers listen to party members when deciding which way to vote in the upcoming European Union referendum. Next step deselection?
The difference is that we can innovate around the issue if we are outside.
Let's say that the Eurozone decides all clearing of EU domiciled equities needs to be in a Eurozone country. Under Cameron's deal we can't do anything about it (despite winning a court case a few years ago). Under the 'out' structure we can come up with synthetics and/or off-shoring clearing structures and/or go to the WTO.
Under Cameron's deal we can do something about it, that is the whole point.
When you say 'under the Out structure', do you mean a structure where we have signed up to the single market in financial services?
We can do nothing about it. Our response is now limited to saying we don't like it and then watching as they do it anyway.
I have to ask given the ludicrous claims you are making. Have you actually read the agreement or are you doing a Ken Clarke?
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.
You don't think Cameron should have given Boris a public dressing down for his cynical and purely self-interested stunt?
Not if it makes the fight personal and starts to tear his party apart. A classicist like Boris would describe it as a pyrrhic victory.
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.
You don't get this do you?
It is nothing to do with anybody other than BMW what they sell cars for. If Brussels tell BMW what price to sell cars for there will be hell on.
What would they do, stop selling in the UK?
No idea, consumers would pay the extra or buy something else.Its called trade, some companies are successful, others aren't.
I'll spell it out for you, it is nothing to do with politicians what price BMW charge for cars.
That doesn't stop them putting tariffs on a wide range of items.
Maybe - but tariffs on BMWs heading to the Uk aren't going to be imposed by the Germans.
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.
I really wish you would explain in what way the current deal is better than what we have now. Under the deal we have to:-
1. follow the EMU rulebook (which we did not have to do before); and 2. this now applies to every part of our financial sector and not just banks, whereas it did not before. 3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
And the question also remains: do you think we would have a) more or b) less influence on financial services rules and regulations if we are in vs if we are out.
And if by "EMU rulebook" you mean the single rulebook (I'm not being smart; do you mean the same thing?) then we are explicitly excluded from needing to participate in banking union law.
No that is a different question to the one you asked earlier and completely ignored when it was answered for you.
You don;t want to read to the answers
Am I allowed to ask more than one question?
What was the question and how was it killingly answered, remind me.
Edit: oh and what is the answer to THE SECOND QUESTION?
The difference is that we can innovate around the issue if we are outside.
Let's say that the Eurozone decides all clearing of EU domiciled equities needs to be in a Eurozone country. Under Cameron's deal we can't do anything about it (despite winning a court case a few years ago). Under the 'out' structure we can come up with synthetics and/or off-shoring clearing structures and/or go to the WTO.
Under Cameron's deal we can do something about it, that is the whole point.
When you say 'under the Out structure', do you mean a structure where we have signed up to the single market in financial services?
Under Cameron's deal we can do SFA about it. We can protest, there will be an embarrassed pause, and then they will implement it anyway.
Do you really believe that the Eurozone will not implement a rule to impose this, for example?
If we have signed up to the single market we do not need to abide by every regulation. In order to sell products to the EU market we will need to abide by their regulations for those products, for those sells.
For everything else we can do what we like. And that includes clearing trades offshore if we want. I will freely admit that clearing is not my area of specific expertise (it's the only thing worse than being an actuary) but I have confidence that there are bright people in London who can solve a customer need in an effective way.
But be clear: the Eurozone wants our clearing. And if they take our clearing, they gut the euro-demoninated cash equity market. Which kills our primary market business in euro-denominated equities, and makes research even less economic than it is at the moment.
I notice that Cameron is going to use that completely unenforceable "no to ever closer union" statement in his deal to maximum effect. I can't see the likes of the BBC ever picking him up on the fact that it is totally meaningless (regardless of which side of the debate you are on) and thus he has a very powerful propaganda weapon to deploy to convince the fence sitters.
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 difference is that we can innovate around the issue if we are outside.
Let's say that the Eurozone decides all clearing of EU domiciled equities needs to be in a Eurozone country. Under Cameron's deal we can't do anything about it (despite winning a court case a few years ago). Under the 'out' structure we can come up with synthetics and/or off-shoring clearing structures and/or go to the WTO.
What type of synthetic clearing structure do you envisage we could create, Charles?
I've no idea. But I am sure that someone smarter than I can come up with a solution.
Conservative Sir Nicholas Soames has told Tory colleague John Redwood to "bugger off" over demands backbenchers listen to party members when deciding which way to vote in the upcoming European Union referendum. Next step deselection?
Redwood is safe from deselection as long as he doesn't start singing ....
The Telegraph has suspended the facility for readers to comment on stories and features “until further notice” as part of a review of the way the newspaper engages with its audience.
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
How many of the voters do you think watched today, or indeed will watch snippets on the news?
As far as I can see all he has done is rile the Tory outers even more, despite him explicitly saying there will be no recriminations etc.
As someone pointed out earlier, the first chance he has had to declare civil war he has done it, really poor judgement as he let his temper get the better of him.
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.
You don't think Cameron should have given Boris a public dressing down for his cynical and purely self-interested stunt?
You don't think that perhaps Cameron is being equally cynical and self-interested?
Cynical: because he gets a deal but won't be around to face the consequences when it unravels and/or turns out to be as substantial as the Cheshire Cat's grin.
Self-interested: because he seems only interested in winning the referendum and then retiring from the political stage.
There's nothing to choose between them, frankly, in terms of cynical, self-interested behaviour. The only politician who has articulated the issues has been Gove. However good a politician Cameron has been it's a measure of the vacuousness of his thinking that I cannot imagine him making anything like as lucid a statement about what British liberal Parliamentary democracy actually means.
As for @NickPalmer with his "let's have QMV for a single rate of taxation across the whole EU", does the phrase "No taxation without representation" remind you of anything. A country which surrenders its ability to decide on how to raise money via taxation to others is no longer an independent country.
The Telegraph has suspended the facility for readers to comment on stories and features “until further notice” as part of a review of the way the newspaper engages with its audience.
@iainmartin1: Cracking Cameron performance today in Commons. Sure a PM has the advantage on these occasions, but he used it. Boris looking a bit crumpled.
@jreynoldsMP: Cameron is thrashing the Tory rebels today. Liam Fox the latest to be taken to school
If he continues his powerful response today into the campaign he must have a large positive impact on the result for remain
You really do want your party torn apart don't you.
No I want the best for the UK.
No you don't you are just enjoying the bloodsport.
For a group of gamblers Cameron Loyalists appear remarkably unable to consider the form. The EU has massive form for making the rules up as it goes along, and ditching bits that become inconvenient. The ECJ has an inglorious record of discarding political agreements and is incapable of being even consistent with its own rulings.
There amount of egg on Cameron loyalist faces when this deal is either ignored or disenbowelled by the EU institutions over the next year or so it going to be something to see, no doubt they will be back pedalling mightily and denying it all over again (shades of halved payment that wasnt).
Conservative Sir Nicholas Soames has told Tory colleague John Redwood to "bugger off" over demands backbenchers listen to party members when deciding which way to vote in the upcoming European Union referendum. Next step deselection?
Redwood is safe from deselection as long as he doesn't start singing ....
I meant Soames and all the other 'Remain' MPs who would presumably face constituency parties consisting mainly of 'Outers'. Redwood seems to be suggesting that Soames and others should toe that line. Agree about the singing, though.
Comments
Johnson calm.
Someone shouted "tuck your shirt in"..perhaps that unnerved him as he clutched his arms around his belly...
but yes, sovereignty is the key issue and should be for Leavers. But we need detail on which elements on sovereignty are at risk. Otherwise, as he did, Cam comes back with specific areas where he believes it is not compromised.
@PeterMannionMP: Novelist and sometime MP Nadine Dorries inadvertently helps the PM, with an idiotic question. #euref #eucouncil
It is nothing to do with anybody other than BMW what they sell cars for. If Brussels tell BMW what price to sell cars for there will be hell on.
Nigel Dodds again with an effective intervention.
Invites Cameron to do likewise
All countries whether in or out of the Eurozone have to abide by a single rulebook.
No ability to block any new legislation that can be imposed on us by QMV.
No protection for the city from Eurozone out voting us and imposing new regulation.
As others on here have pointed out this deal is actually worse than what we had before.
Have I missed anything?
Surely he must have known what happens when you cross the herd?
There's a thread leader for TSE to conjure with.
All ready for auto updates this week.
On these tentative figures Trump already has the numbers (almost)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MHRYdL8Lw3L6OXiHnKZHi1vo6vUblQhuKg7FPDFuuQ0/edit?usp=sharing
I can see this is a knotty one all round and one where I'd hate to think govts make up the gap by coming after the individual too far (see GO and rumoured pension changes), as that too has it's greater limits these days compared to the past.
One for thought long term.
1. follow the EMU rulebook (which we did not have to do before); and
2. this now applies to every part of our financial sector and not just banks, whereas it did not before.
3. We get the chance to ask for a discussion if we don't like a proposal.
In what way do you think 1 and 2 are better than the status quo?
Chortle ....
or Liam Fox ....
Yes indeed but Richard will continue to argue that black is in fact white
Let's say that the Eurozone decides all clearing of EU domiciled equities needs to be in a Eurozone country. Under Cameron's deal we can't do anything about it (despite winning a court case a few years ago). Under the 'out' structure we can come up with synthetics and/or off-shoring clearing structures and/or go to the WTO.
I don't see how in any meaningful sense free trade can be undone if we leave. There won't be a protectionist surge.
That is how perverted our priorities have become because of the climate change lunatics like Murali_s.
And we can also innovate to ensure we retain and enhance non-euro business.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35634695
How many minutes do we think that will last. Until the kettle boiled?
And if by "EMU rulebook" you mean the single rulebook (I'm not being smart; do you mean the same thing?) then we are explicitly excluded from needing to participate in banking union law.
NO-ONE saw that coming.
OK...
I'll spell it out for you, it is nothing to do with politicians what price BMW charge for cars.
When you say 'under the Out structure', do you mean a structure where we have signed up to the single market in financial services?
You don;t want to read to the answers
Cameron gave a combative defence of his deal, but then he devoted the final two minutes or so of his statement to what every MP in the chamber will have recognised as a withering, uncompromising and near-contemptuous attack on Boris Johnson. Observers not familiar with EU referendum arcana may not have noticed, because Cameron did not refer to Johnson directly and he focused instead on those arguing that an Out vote could be followed by a second referendum. This is an idea first championed by Dominic Cummings (the former Michael Gove adviser who is even more unpopular with Cameron than Johnson is right now), but Johnson has flirted with it and in his Telegraph article today Johnson implies that voting Out could force Brussels to think again. The highlight of the attack was a joke (which Cameron delivered with good timing) about how he has never known anyone initiate divorce proceedings in the hope of that they can stay together. The joke had the advantage of making a very feint reference to Johnson’s less-than-perfect marital record (“advantage” if antagonising Johnson was the intention, which it almost certainly was). Cameron also said he had no agenda other than what was best for the UK, which was an obvious reference to Johnson’s naked opportunism.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/feb/22/boris-johnson-cameron-eu-be-career-ending-his-father-claims-politics-live?page=with:block-56cb30d5e4b0f2fd18caff51#block-56cb30d5e4b0f2fd18caff51
In fairness after the first salvo Cameron has declined each subsequent offer to attack Boris.
Next step deselection?
http://order-order.com/2016/02/22/tories-at-war-cameron-ridicules-boris/
I have to ask given the ludicrous claims you are making. Have you actually read the agreement or are you doing a Ken Clarke?
What was the question and how was it killingly answered, remind me.
Edit: oh and what is the answer to THE SECOND QUESTION?
Do you really believe that the Eurozone will not implement a rule to impose this, for example?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-wins-court-case-with-ecb-on-euro-clearing-1425462219
If we have signed up to the single market we do not need to abide by every regulation. In order to sell products to the EU market we will need to abide by their regulations for those products, for those sells.
For everything else we can do what we like. And that includes clearing trades offshore if we want. I will freely admit that clearing is not my area of specific expertise (it's the only thing worse than being an actuary) but I have confidence that there are bright people in London who can solve a customer need in an effective way.
But be clear: the Eurozone wants our clearing. And if they take our clearing, they gut the euro-demoninated cash equity market. Which kills our primary market business in euro-denominated equities, and makes research even less economic than it is at the moment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/21/boris-johnson-eu-brexit-supports_n_9286400.html?ir=UK+Politics
The Telegraph has suspended the facility for readers to comment on stories and features “until further notice” as part of a review of the way the newspaper engages with its audience.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/22/telegraph-suspends-comment-relaunched-online-content?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
As far as I can see all he has done is rile the Tory outers even more, despite him explicitly saying there will be no recriminations etc.
As someone pointed out earlier, the first chance he has had to declare civil war he has done it, really poor judgement as he let his temper get the better of him.
Cynical: because he gets a deal but won't be around to face the consequences when it unravels and/or turns out to be as substantial as the Cheshire Cat's grin.
Self-interested: because he seems only interested in winning the referendum and then retiring from the political stage.
There's nothing to choose between them, frankly, in terms of cynical, self-interested behaviour. The only politician who has articulated the issues has been Gove. However good a politician Cameron has been it's a measure of the vacuousness of his thinking that I cannot imagine him making anything like as lucid a statement about what British liberal Parliamentary democracy actually means.
As for @NickPalmer with his "let's have QMV for a single rate of taxation across the whole EU", does the phrase "No taxation without representation" remind you of anything. A country which surrenders its ability to decide on how to raise money via taxation to others is no longer an independent country.
Peter Lilley, Tory former minister, says that in 20 years Britain has voted 72 times against European Council - and was defeated 72 times.
For a group of gamblers Cameron Loyalists appear remarkably unable to consider the form. The EU has massive form for making the rules up as it goes along, and ditching bits that become inconvenient. The ECJ has an inglorious record of discarding political agreements and is incapable of being even consistent with its own rulings.
There amount of egg on Cameron loyalist faces when this deal is either ignored or disenbowelled by the EU institutions over the next year or so it going to be something to see, no doubt they will be back pedalling mightily and denying it all over again (shades of halved payment that wasnt).
Agree about the singing, though.